In a column in Newsweek Jacob Weisberg tries to justify his belief that racism in America is preventing Barack Obama from building a substantial lead over John McCain. Yet he contradicts himself in his opening paragraph by saying that Obama has "every natural and structural advantage." Or does he believe that being half-black is unnatural?

Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, deficits in clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two appear to be tied. What gives?

Could it be that about half of the voters actually believe that McCain will serve them better as president than Obama? Could it be that about half of the voters aren't impressed with pure political acumen and tend to look past campaign rhetoric? Could it be that about half of the voters place more weight on what a candidate has shown himself to be than on what he promises to be? Could it be that about half of the voters chafe at the government holding their hand and can't face the prospect of it holding both their hands? Could it be that about half of the voters place more value on substance than charisma? Could it be that about half of the voters feel that Obama is better suited to playing the president in a movie than actually running the country? Could it be that about half of the voters don't have a problem voting for a black candidate but don't want to vote for this black candidate? I could go on and on.

“If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama’s missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks or the concern that he may be too handsome, brilliant and cool to be elected. But let’s be honest: the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He lags with them for a simple reason: the color of his skin."

It doesn't matter to Weisberg that in recent history white Democrats have trailed badly among older white voters. He just wants to attribute it this time to the Democrat having dark skin. To me Obama's appearance suggests gawky more than handsome and I haven't seen anything from him that I would call brilliant except his ability to sell himself. I'll accept cool.

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Wow! Weisberg's absurd view is that this race for president hinges wholly on race. (The race hinges on race.) Not just the race but the world's judgement. Actually, he desperately wants to make it about race. He wants us to vote for Obama because he's black and then at his inauguration we can all stand and cheer with pride as he struggles to the podium carrying his great handicap with dignity. And then we can stand back and bask in the glow of bliss, harmony and world approval.

That will last about a week before the approving countries, special interests and victim classes line up at the White House with their demands -- and our country hastens its decline into socialism.

Weisberg is wrong in another sense. Electing Obama won't end racism in America. Racism will always be with us as long as people like him, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright are around to keep it stoked.

People seem to forget that Obama is as much white as he is black. It probably won't make Weisberg feel any better about staving off our "nation's historical decline" but I'm voting against the white half.

---

In her latest column Susan Estrich gets all worked up about John McCain's campaign tactics. McCain is finally pointing out some bad things about Barack Obama and Susan doesn't like it.

Our retirement plans and college savings accounts are shrinking, and McCain is shrinking right with them. He’s not just on the verge of getting clobbered in the election. He’s on the verge of becoming an object of utter ridicule.

Let's see now Susan. First, it looks like you want to be near the front of the line in dishing out the ridicule. Second, do you really expect us to believe that you would prefer that McCain play nice (according to your rules) and stay in the running? Third, do you really expect us to believe that you're not actually afraid that his being an ol' meany might work for him?

What’s worse is the content of the negative ads. They aren’t about policy and issues.

For a political operative like Estrich, "policy and issues" are what only the opposition should be constrained to talk about. Anyway "policy and issues" cover a lot of ground, especially issues. Estrich is apparently insisting that Obama hanging out with militant revolutionaries is not an issue. I beg to differ and apparently so does McCain.

I'm about fed up with all the policy and issues crap. I don't decide whom to vote for based on what they say they will do. I decide based on what they've already done up until this point. I vote on the record not on promises. A real debate for me would have the two candidates facing one another and taking turns revealing everything they know about the other. Forget policy and issues.

They’re screaming bloody murder that Barack Obama left a phone message two years ago for a guy (William Ayers) who engaged in radical activity when Barack Obama was 8 years old and living in Indonesia.

Obama supporters harp constantly about the 8-year-old thing. What is the relevance of that? Would Obama pardon a murderer and free him from prison just because the murder occurred when Obama was 8 years old. Anyway, Ayers is still a radical revolutionary; he just seems to have stopped throwing bombs.

Ayers, who is a neighbor of Obama’s, even had some kind of meet-and-greet for him 13 years ago, when Obama was running for state Senate, making him one of about a million people who’ve opened their homes and their checkbooks to the guy.

One in a million huh? Let's put that in perspective. Say that Obama spent only 15 minutes at each of these in-home meet-and-greets. Then it would have taken more than 28 years of 24/7 meeting and greeting. Obama is now 46 so he would have had to start when he was 18 years old. Hey, that's only 10 years after Ayers bombed the US Capitol.

U.S. Senator John McCain tried to use his influence to help a crook named Charlie Keating, one of the worst of the saving and loan robbers, a man who ripped off everyone in sight, including American taxpayers. That’s OK. Forgive and forget.

Susan, how can we forget if you keep reminding us? Now you're being negative just like McCain. Don't give me that tit-for-tat stuff; you should be above that. Anyway, you conveniently failed to mention that McCain was exonerated in the Keating Five mess by a Senate investigation.

---

Fox News reports that Barack Obama may become the most heavily guarded president in history. Here is a picture of part of his security detail:

This is a huge relief. I thought BO was opposed to assault weapons. Surely he will allow us to have the same level of protection that he has. Right?

He has chastised Congress constantly over the last several months for providing itself excellent health insurance while denying that level of coverage to ordinary citizens. Do you think BO has the audacity to do the same regarding personal security?

---

According to the AP, President-elect Barack Obama is urging Congress to postpone the February 17 switch from analog to digital television broadcasting, arguing that too many Americans who rely on analog television sets to pick up over-the-air channels won't be ready.

Obama officials are also concerned that the government is not doing enough to help Americans — particularly those in rural, poor or minority communities — prepare for and navigate the transition.

The coupon program for purchase of converter boxes started under the Bush Administration but now it seems that Obama wants to help with the installation. Have we become so pathetic that we need government help to hook up our television sets? The answer, I believe, is no. This is just another way for Obama to insert himself into every aspect of our lives in his attempt to become our great leader.

Is there a Department of Homeland Geek Squads on the horizon?

---

Until today I thought I was the only person thinking it odd that President Obama wants to be identified with Abraham Lincoln. In his latest column Walter Williams makes it clear that he also thinks it was a mistake, or at least not well advised. I highly recommend that you read his column.

During his campaign Obama talked a lot about his desire to unify the country and frequently decried divisiveness. (I've always wondered why those who place a premium on unity don't just switch to the opposing view, and thereby boost unity.) If he values unity that much why does he identify with the former president who did more than any other to ensure that the country would long (forever?) remain divided? No, I'm not off my rocker. Lincoln did manage -- after hundreds of thousands of lives were lost -- to keep the country together physically. But by forcing the South to remain in the Union he guaranteed continued political strife, dissension and division for decades, if not centuries.

I'm talking about ideological and cultural disunity and so was Obama on the campaign trail. What Lincoln did was prevent a failed marriage from dissolving. He forced the couple to live in the same house and raise their children together when all concerned might have been better served if the marriage had been dissolved.

I can't say for certain that Obama holds this view but many on the political left believe that America is the big bully on the world playground. If Lincoln had let the country divide it is not highly likely that either the Union or the Confederacy would be that powerful today.

Williams points out that Lincoln was no friend of the slaves. He did only what he thought politically expedient. Slavery was not an issue in the Civil War until about the third year when Lincoln made it so. He needed a rallying cry because the North was losing the war at that time. The Union passed up many opportunities to abolish slavery long before the war started.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily saying that we would all be better off today if Lincoln had just let the Confederate States go. I'm just trying to point out why I think it strange that our first black president wants to identify so strongly with Lincoln.

---

President Barack Obama wants to develop a process for burning coal without releasing carbon into the atmosphere. He calls this "clean coal." He says that a nation that put a man on the moon, surely should be able to develop clean coal.

It's interesting to me that he makes that comparison. Putting a man on the moon was a very expensive government boondoggle. The moon program was conceived primarily as a response to the Soviets having beaten us into space with the first orbiting satellite, Sputnik. After about ten years and billions of dollars, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon on 20 July 1969. The last astronauts to walk on the moon did so in 1972. They left a plaque with this message: "Here man completed his first explorations of the Moon, December 1972." In over 36 years we haven't been back.

In other words, there was no real point in putting a man on the moon; we just wanted to show that we could do it.

Actually, I suspect that Obama's comparison is more apt than he would like to admit. I have no doubt that given enough money and time we can develop a clean coal burning process. But once we've done it we will probably realize that it is too expensive to use for any practical purpose.

---

President Obama is embarking on another of his fantasies. He thinks he can rid the world of nuclear weapons. I would like to think that he is launching some very clever scheme to convince everyone else to destroy all their nuclear weapons while we secretly keep our own. But I don't give him that much credit. I think he actually believes that giving up our nuclear advantage is the right thing to do.

Utopia would be a wonderful thing to achieve, but there is no chance that it will ever be achieved. No matter how nice we try to be there will always be someone looking for a weakness, a crack in the armor, an opening.  I would estimate that 99 percent or more of the world population would like nothing better than to live in peace, but it's that other one percent that we have to worry about.  Among them are the power hungry and the crusaders. We can not afford to let our guard down for a second.

But that seems to be exactly what Obama wants to do. He wants to start destroying our nuclear capability as soon as the other nations possessing or developing a nuclear capability agree to do the same. I would expect Iran and North Korea to be the first two in line to sign the agreement. And then go back home and continue their development programs while laughing their asses off.

It's an impossible goal, and Obama should know that. Sure, we can destroy all our nuclear weapons, but there is no way to ensure that everyone else destroys theirs. And there is no way to ensure that new weapons aren't built to replace those destroyed.

Can you imagine a crime-mob boss seriously embarking on a mission to get the other mobs in his territory to destroy all their weapons and promise not to acquire more? Can you imagine the mobs actually abiding by the plan even after agreeing to it? Of course not. That's why they're called criminals. They don't follow rules unless the rules work to their advantage. It's a hard, cold fact that many nations are little different from crime-mobs.

Too many nations and factions know too much about the production of nuclear weapons for any kind of control to be 100 percent effective. Unfortunately it only takes one breach of the controls for havoc to be wreaked.

---

President Obama is boasting about coming in under budget on one of his spending plans. He doesn't bother to point out that all the money he spent is money the government doesn't have. He is bragging about the few dollars that he won't spend.  This is like me bragging to my wife that I only spent $99,000 more than I made this year instead of the $100,000 that I planned to spend. For me a thousand bucks is not pocket change but what's more important is the $99,000 that I did spend. And what's more important for the country are the trillions of dollars that Obama is spending beyond what the government will "earn".

But Obama knows that probably half the people who heard his comment will think he is talking about achieving a balanced budget -- that is, no deficit spending. His team probably budgeted more than they meant to spend so that he could make this boast.

Based on a discussion I heard on Morning Joe this morning Obama apparently used the word "privacy" instead of "piracy" in making some remarks on the rescue of the ship captain taken hostage by pirates. He reportedly said something like: We have to take steps to eradicate privacy. Most likely he was reading from a teleprompter and the teleprompter had it wrong. Will this be Obama's "misunderestimate" moment? Don't count on it.

---