Two economic reports last week confirm the worst fears of many Americans about the economic acumen of the Obama administration: the Thursday, October 2, declining auto sales report, auto sales plunging by 23%, sales for General Motors crashing 45%, sales for Chrysler collapsing 42%, the report corroborating the concern of critics that the billions spent for clunkers was as bad as any junkyard sale, stealing future sales, exacerbating conditions in an already weak economy reeling from trillions of dollars of spending by the Obama administration, and the Friday, October 3, 2009, Unemployment Numbers, rising to 9.8 percent in September, as employers cut 263,000 jobs, a 26 year high, setting the worst record since 1983, further persuading many Americans that the President’s Stimulus Bill is as ineffective as a committee of Washington politicians trying to write a piece of legislation in plain English.

And as the trillions of dollars of debt pile up, debt as wide as the prairie and as high as the heavens, both the Stimulus Bill and the Cash for Clunkers Bill add to a growing awareness that the President and his team are drifting aimlessly without a Captain at the helm, without a navigator, without anyone who knows the water or can chart a course to a sound economy, or as Vice President Biden aptly put it—we guessed wrong.

The question today is whether or not the President’s dismal loss in Copenhagen, a first round blow-out, garnering a meager 18 of 94 votes, a shellacking seldom experienced even by the hapless Mets, puts Mr. Obama in a decision box, a box limiting his options, requiring him to send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan as requested by General McChrystal, troops the General says are needed if we are to avoid losing the war, denying the President the option of either kicking the can down the road again with a half-measure decision, or walking away from Afghanistan and ordering a total withdrawal of all troops.

In fact, the International Olympic Committee shutout just about requires that he neither pull out as his left-wing base desires, nor that he follow the advice of the Vice President, Mr. Biden apparently arguing for an offshore approach with a reduced force structure, a move strikingly reminiscent of a present vote, a delaying tactic, a move that must surely be attractive to a President in love with the idea of not taking a stand, of not making an either or choice: all in or all out.  

Whether you consider the Copenhagen junket a huge loss of face, on the scale of an 8.2 earthquake, or just a minor tremor, a quivering that removes the thrill from Chris Matthews’ leg, but otherwise passes quickly, Mr. Obama cannot afford to be tagged repeatedly as a “LOSER.”

And another “LOSER” tag is on deck as the Obama administration began talking with the Iranians this past week, looking for ways to walk back their nuclear ambitions, to reset their pell-mell march towards their promised destruction of Israel and the ushering in of the 12^th imam. The smart money expects the Iranians to talk and talk until their bomb is fully operational. Since President Obama has already taken so much off the table it is, arguably, only a matter of time, unless Israel strikes, until Iran has a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama has frequently asserted, however, that Iran would not be allowed to get a nuclear bomb, but such an eventuality is all but built into the game, and when it occurs it will be STRIKE 2 for the President: “LOSER.”

Meanwhile, a game-changing decision is needed in the Afghanistan war, and pulling all troops out of Afghanistan seems to be the President’s preferred position, but a withdrawal at this time would be a clear loss of “the real war,” unlike the diversion in Iraq as Mr. Obama called that conflict. And if the former junior Senator from Illinois rejects the request from General McChrystal for 40,000 more troops, it would be STRIKE 3 for the President: “LOSER.”

Iran and Afghanistan represent clear losses, losses potentially more existential than a failed Olympic bid, a bid where the IOC boots your city in the first round, losses possibly tagging him as a serial loser, perhaps beginning a death knell for his candidacy, ending any cooperation from blue dog democrats, a rallying cry for opponents, a demoralizing strike on Democrat efforts to recruit candidates for the next two elections cycles.

The President’s loss in Copenhagen makes it more likely he will reject any signal of failure in Afghanistan, assuring that he will send the General an additional 40,000 troops, committing him to a counter-insurgency strategy and a protracted war struggle. And so, the President will reluctantly grant the General’s call to add more troops, following LBJ into the abyss—and if he doesn’t do something quickly to fix his draconian Rules of Engagement Afghanistan could turn out worse for him than Vietnam did for LBJ.

The proposed legislation is unnecessary since state and federal criminal law statutes currently protect all persons from physical harm. In a capital case for murder, for example, the death penalty (or a life sentence) is authorized. What further punishment greater than the death penalty can be adjudged by virtue of passing hate crimes legislation? What purpose is served?

Furthermore, anecdotal evidence of the consequences of hate crime legislation in England and Canada raises serious concerns, reflecting consequences of such legislation that should be a red flag to all Americans. A great danger with a ‘hate crimes’ bill is the harmful and debilitating effect it has had in foreign jurisdictions: limiting speech, curtailing debate, ushering in speech codes. Hate legislation has a chilling effect on debate. It puts a sword in the hands of litigious groups to stop speech. In Canada, for example, an author of a book review was recently forced to defend his written work before a Human Rights Commission when he merely reported on the content in a bestselling book.

Unfortunately, Senate Bill 909 increases the risk of taking our country in a dangerous direction. Even if you see some intangible benefit in such legislation, however remote, consider the danger that regulating speech and thought poses to a democratic society, a society that values free speech and respects and honors open debate in the public square.

The jury may still be out (at least among those American voters who even still strongly support the President) on his blueprint to remake America, but there is one area where it is timely, indeed—mandatory, to point out how the President is doing and that is with his campaign promise to improve our image aboard—to make the world like us again. 

You may recall that it was a constant drumbeat by candidate Obama along the campaign trail--our reputation had been trampled and destroyed and ruined during the Bush years, and President Obama promised that he would improve our standing in the world—countries around the world would be our friends again.

In fact, we now have enough details to grade the President; we have had an eye view of his handiwork to remake our image into a beloved country around the world. I don’t know if the President’s special talent comes from his Ivy League education; or from his training as a community organizer; or from his friendships with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his fellow board member, Bill Ayers; but our former Senator from Chicago has essentially thrown out that old kernel of Arabian wisdom, that bit of Americana—heck, what did Lincoln know anyway?, he was just a one term President; forget The Godfather, he is just a fictional character. No, our President has a new, and even better, formulation—Keep your enemies close—distance yourself, even disrespect, your old friends.

And while the President is failing, failing disastrously in his campaign promise to improve our image aboard, he continues to mount trophies on his White Office wall, trophies of the splendid success of his novel formulation to “distance yourself, even disrespect, your old friends.”

His triumphs mount whether it is: the British—insult them and reject the Churchill bust, give the Prime Minister a gift that screams indifference; or the French—that’s right, reject a dinner invitation from President Sarkozy and his wife during a visit to France, refuse to find time for a reception, reject any reason to spend personal time with the French leader; or the Germans—lecture the Germans on the holocaust, rub their noses in it on your tour of a prison camp, and feel the glacial cooling between you and Angela Merkel, a cooling so icy that the White House had to deny there was any tension with the Germans; or the European countries of the former Soviet bloc (Secretary Rumsfeld’s ‘new Europe’) who now see themselves abandoned by the U.S., left to fend on their own, chartering a course without American resolve, without NATO admission, without missile defense, without promised U.S. support against Russian interference and intrigue; or the Israelis--who have an exploding cottage industry of writers explaining how the Obama diktat not to expand settlements is part of a White House plan to destabilize their government, to saddle them with a tired left wing coalition that will give away land and security, leaving them unable to defend themselves. And all of this isn’t even counting the President’s victories closer to home: antagonizing Mexico with a sop to unions over trucking or the Buy American rule riddling our friendship with Canada, angering Canadian cities and prompting a Buy Canadian resolution in return.

Yes, how our educated Ivy Leaguer, trained Community Organizer, befriender of radicals, and companion to the marinated disaffected managed in less than six short months to turn his campaign promise inside out, to turn conventional wisdom on its head, to isolate us even further and crush and trample our friendships of many long years, why, dear reader, it is a performance not to be missed; perhaps even, a performance for the ages—but then, I guess no one would expect anything less from—The One.

And when the players face off at center court and the ball goes up, and the game begins—it is all about enthusiasm, energy, effort. Sometimes it comes down to one play—a box out so a teammate gets a rebound; or going over a screen instead of below it; or a lazy pass that goes out of bounds because you took your mind off the game for a minute; or a rushed shot for a low percentage when odds favored a pass or two; or a careless and lazy dribble off your foot; or a missed free throw.

Winning versus losing, surviving and advancing, sometimes it all comes down to one play and that is why:

They

Count every play

Because

Every Play Counts.

David Brooks (A Moderate Manifesto) seems genuinely surprised that President Obama is doing what he promised to do—the angst is palpable. Brooks writes: 

There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.

…. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.

            Instead, perhaps he needs to identify those areas where he agrees with conservatives to his right, accept that politics is the art of the possible, and align himself with others. For example, there are no Republicans, of any note, moderate or conservative, that want to see the D.C. voucher program gutted, as it will be under the current proposal.

For President-Elect Obama there is opportunity and risk. It is an opportunity to govern, but a risk of excess by trying to rule from Day One—a characterization used by Valerie Jarrett, Co-Chair Obama Transition Team. It is an opportunity to lead by reason and prudence, but a risk of going beyond his support and advancing his policies by coercion and resentment.

It is an opportunity to change policy, but a risk of over-reaching. Michael Gerson reviews very early mistakes of another President, Bill Clinton, in “Where the Mines Are.” He discusses three tripwires for President-Elect Obama: The first tripwire concerns abortion and bioethics. He also identifies the Fairness Doctrine (eliminating conservative talk radio) and “card check” for unions (eliminating secret ballots) as landmines.

Regarding the tripwire of abortion, President-Elect Obama is more than an advocate of denying care to an infant born of a botched partial-birth abortion procedure. He is, in fact, a champion of the euphonious Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). His promised changes in abortion law and policy are dramatic. In fact, one commentator describes him: “as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.” 

He has promised that 'the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act’ (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed 'fundamental right' to abortion….In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would 'sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.'

This Presidential election felt more significant, perhaps because war rages abroad and economic woes lead the headlines at home. Whether President-Elect Obama’s term in office is also a significant one, a Presidential term that is substantial, consequential, and historic, depends on his actions, his policies, and his accomplishments. It depends on whether he avoids those landmines and tripwires that can prematurely terminate any Presidential honeymoon, any feeling of goodwill, and any willingness to work with a new President.

Will President-Elect Obama avoid the tripwire of abortion and bioethics; or will he take the risk, the risk of trying to rule rather than govern; the risk of over-reaching on policy decisions; the risk of going beyond his support and compelling Americans to follow? If his abortion agenda is one of those avoidable landmines that can derail a newly elected President in the first days of his Presidency, as it seems to be, then his decision will be a defining one. 

It was only a brief sojourn, but you were facing social decline (oral sex is not sex), decay (lying and perjury), and degeneration (perpetual war rooms, character attacks, and confidence in the integrity of government). Entropy.  So then, when you began: how were you to make a new beginning? How were you to change the tone? How were you to reverse the order—breathing in life, beginning anew?

And so you began, with ruddy cheeks—with optimism, hope, and a clear vision.  But, to too many, you are the “Shrub.” The journey is longer. The trail is more difficult than expected.  Only the path is clear: creed leads and shapes the end.

And yet, if turned once too often, that turned cheek turns purple, battered, and bloody; and as you keep turning, you travel from bloody, to lonely, to isolated. Perhaps it requires turning too often, but resetting the center means finding the mean, like finding the 50-yard line after going from end zone to end zone.  Despite the blows and the ridicule, resetting the chains, marking a new center, and recapturing civitas(civility, respect for the rights of others, and spontaneous willingness to obey the law): requires more.  And so, in repairing the damage and cauterizing the wound you are turning, perhaps to often, from another unfair and unanswered attack.  The trail is difficult. The journey is long. 

How else will you change the tone?  How else will you restore the model?  Continue by taking the bloody blows, following your creed when duty is clear, setting the new course, resetting the center of discourse. The entropy is advanced and the need for a new centering of tone and discourse means losing support, losing friends, losing—in the near term, but not in the end.

This new demographic is the illegal voting bloc: all those who aid or act in illegal voter activity. They register or vote more than once. They feel empowered to violate election laws—by assisting the violators (ACORN employees); by donating money under multiple false identities; by transporting others to vote (busing homeless to another state); by violating privacy laws (accessing state files for information against a citizen who ask a question); and by proudly stealing candidate campaign signs. 

Unfortunately, for America, too many Democrats are unwilling to speak out, unwilling to object. They see this growing demographic as a legitimate constituency, a constituency deserving protection; they support it as an evolving part of their electoral battle plan. Supporting these law violators as core constituents marks a descent for a political party—a pursuit of fool’s gold.

Chris Yavelow, an award-winning composer and author, worked for years developing perhaps the most comprehensive linguistics tool for authorship detection--FictionFixer.

He tested the two books allegedly by Barack Obama, his 1995 Dreams From My Father and the 2006 Audacity of Hope, through FictionFixer, concluding “They were written by different people.”

Yavelow cites a score of characteristics that change too conspicuously from one Obama book to the next. Among the characteristics are 3.8 percent use of the passive voice in 1995 to an 8.3 percent use in 2006, the Flesch Reading Ease score, the use of gender words, sentence starters, adverbs, discouraged words, sensory triggers, average words and syllables for non-dialogue sentences, and any number of other characteristics.

Did Obama write Dreams of My Father?  If he didn’t write his memoir, can we determine who did–-was it Bill Ayers—for example?

There are several persuasive and important updates to my last post (where I collected all the early articles) about the investigation by Jack Cashill into the authorship of Obama’s memoir, including:

·         Extensive analysis using “an expert system – FictionFixer—designed to track and analyze more than 250 characteristics of streams of text, in other words: books.”  This analysis offers a comprehensive report that corroborates Cashill’s research about the writing of “Dreams.”  A convincing and compelling analysis, it is an exhaustive look at the many ways this type of detective work answers the question of literary authorship.

·         A compilation described as “a summary of the evidence columnist Jack Cashill has compiled regarding the true authorship of Barack Obama”(many of his links are collected below). Part 7 of the Cashill compilation provides a link to an independent look at what Obama said about writing his book:

7. The preface

Bruce Heiden, classics professor at the Ohio State University, has done an eye-opening analysis of the introduction and preface of "Dreams from My Father" and found this writing a marvel of evasive postmodernism. The former was part of the original 1995 printing of the book, and the preface was added when it was reissued in 2004.

Heiden argues that neither document ever states that Barack Obama, the credited author of "Dreams from My Father," actually wrote the book. The preface skips straight from Obama saying he "went to work" on the book to the book's publication, while the introduction makes a vague gesture toward a writing-like event in saying that the author's interior journey "found its way onto these pages."

Heiden points out many other anomalies in the introduction and preface to "Dreams," which can be found at his weblog.

·         Excerpts from Jack Cashill’s most recent post, Science points to Ayers authorship of Obama's 'Dreams',

At the heart of my message is that Barack Obama is an impostor, the Milli Vanilli of politics , a man who has been lip-synching for the last 13 years to lyrics pre-recorded by, among others, Bill Ayers.

Exhibit A in my testimony is Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father." The evidence overwhelms the dispassionate observer that Bill Ayers served as chief book doctor on this fulsomely praised persona-builder.

Now, the science is coming in, from a variety of sources, and it confirms a hypothesis that is evident to anyone who cares to look: Obama had substantial help from Ayers.

That much said, there was a general feeling among people interested in this story that the public would need the confirmation of science, and not just from one source.

Fortunately, five different sets of researchers have taken the challenge to test the hypothesis that Ayers was heavily involved in the writing of "Dreams." And although there are admitted limits to this emerging science, the consensus among these researchers is noteworthy.

I am aware of a fifth stylometric analysis, soon to be released, this one from a British scholar of international repute, but here are some quick summaries from the first four. The authors' contact information could be made available on deep background for serious news sources.

"Using the chi-square statistic," observes one professor, "Obama's and Ayers's books were indistinguishable, while Obama's book was easily distinguishable from books by other authors."

Writes another analyst, using his own proprietary software, "There is a strong likelihood that the author of "Fugitive Days" ghost-wrote "Dreams From My Father" using recordings of dialog (either tape recorded or notes). Alternatively, another scenario could be possible: Ayers might have served as a 'book doctor.'"

One systems engineer writes, "The statistical style analysis performed by our research team suggests that the writing style of 'Dreams From My Father' is significantly more similar to the style observed in 'Fugitive Days' than to the style found in other works by Barack Obama such as 'Audacity of Hope.'"

He continues, "Even more interesting, when we extract those sections of 'Dreams From My Father' that Dr. Cashill believes to be Ayers' writing and treat this as a unique document, the style analysis software identifies a stronger correlation between this sample and Ayers' 'Fugitive Days' than we see between this same sample and the remainder of 'Dreams From My Father'! Thus we have reason to believe that 'Dreams From My Father' had at least two authors, and one author's measured style features more closely match those of Ayers than they match those of the other author(s)."

"Under the Q-value statistic," argues one university-based analyst who tested "Dreams" against Ayers' 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," "segments of 'Dreams' consistently compared as well with 'Fugitive' segments as it did with other segments of 'Dreams' itself. In contrast, 'Dreams' compared poorly with other documents."

Writes another: "The Ayers-Obama matching shows a measurable and substantial effect. It is easily and objectively distinguishable from comparison to a third document. These results achieved through good methodology should readily stimulate scientists skilled in the particular relevant fields to construct their own tests, place objective metrics on the correlation between the Ayers-Obama documents and publish results."

He adds, and I agree, "We strongly think this bears immediate investigation by the academic community at large as the initial data presented is highly suggestive that these two documents share large portions of authorship."

Here is one of the more user-friendly of the studies in pdf format, as well as my summary of the literary detective work that has taken the project this far. Those readers who have influence the media, now is the time to use it.

Related special offers:

"The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality"

"The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"

Previous commentaries:

"Ayers' role in Obama's 'Dreams' poised to break out"

"Barack Obama: Ayers' alter ego"

"Test shows Ayers penned Obama's 'Dreams'"

"Nautical metaphors could sink Obama"

"Obama didn't write 'Dreams from My Father'"

"Roots' fraud sets standard for Obama's"

"Obama's poems show real talent level"

"More proof Ayers ghosted Obama's 'Dreams'"

Read Cashill's three-part series on Obama's "Dreams":

Part 1, "Bill Ayers' motive for penning memoir"

Part 2, "Deconstructing the text"

Part 3, "Real author of Barack book: Why it matters"

Over the years, the science of authorship analysis has improved significantly. The details and tests reported in the on-going investigation are fascinating.  These include examining the relative writing skill of Obama and Ayers, the use of distinctive verbs, the use of metaphors and similes, sentence length, and an analysis of the relative life stories of both authors.  Dr. Cashill expects additional testing results based on state of the art technology very soon.  

Mr. Cashill is close to concluding (after a lengthy enquiry, linked below) that Barack Obama had help writing “Dreams of My Father” and Bill Ayers wrote much of “Dreams.”

If Bill Ayers wrote Barack Obama’s “Dreams,” -- what else do we not know about Barack Obama?    

Barack Obama’s allies are attacking “Joe the Plumber,” deprecating his dream to buy a small business, ridiculing his goal to earn more than $250,0000 as a plumber, howling about his qualifications, his financial holdings, his lack of contact with reality; and yet, Barack Obama promises to confiscate money from the goal-oriented achievers, the investors and the savers who accumulate a nest egg likethe “Millionaire Next Door” who lives in the home he was born in, drives a ten year old car, encourages his children to finish college, paying for their education without a government subsidized loan; then Obama will redistribute their hard earned money to the complacent who have walked away from their goals and dreams, the underachievers, the non-producers.

Our community organizer, Barack Obama --  marinated in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, dedicated to Lucifer, may not only be the most liberal candidate ever, but also the least transparent -- calls it spreading the wealth around; others, looking at the number of lottery winners bankrupt one year after winning something for nothing -- call it a fantasy ideology. 

The reality -- Senator Obama is the candidate of fantasy, a fantasy ideology, campaigning on ideas that have failed in the past, ideas that have been rejected, ideas never seen to work in the real world: reforming criminal justice for juveniles by eliminating prison sentences and prosecutorial discretion to prosecute juveniles as adults for serious crimes, open borders, one payer medical care endorsed so unfavorably by all those Canadians heading to the United States every year for medical care not available to them in Canada in time to save their lives, and reforming and radicalizing education as he tried to do in Chicago during his service as Chairman on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and as a board member on the Woods Fund, redistributing tens of millions of dollars without visible student improvement, redistributing money towards programs based on a fantasy by proponents such as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, teaching about grievances and liberation theology, rubbing raw the red and swollen sores of discontent, building a model, a “revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation.”

 “Joe the Plumber” is the everyman; he is the early pioneer pushing into new territory, planning how to reach his goal like so many small business owners: the carpet layers and the contractors and the dry cleaners and the franchise food operators and the chefs; all those who plan to start a business and build it into something of substance for their children and family. Barack Obama wants to stymie that opportunity, suffocating their dreams, preventing savers from accumulating the money to take the next step, creating a make believe world where results are equal for all rather than a world where productivity and merit are rewarded based on results. He wants to turn the ship of state in a radical new direction, in a direction possibly chaotic and violent without any historical evidence of past success. Barack Obama, not Joe the Plumber, is the man living in the fantasy world.

As the story goes:

One night, Nasrudin was on his hands and knees searching for his key in a well-lit area in the centre of the street. Some of his neighbors came to see why Nasrudin was on his hands and knees.

“What are you looking for, Nasrudin?” enquired one of his neighbors.

“My door key,” Nasrudin replied.

The helpful neighbors dropped to their hands and knees and joined Nasrudin in his search for the lost key.

After a long unsuccessful search, one of the neighbors asked: “We’ve looked everywhere. Are you sure you dropped it here?”

Nasrudin answers: “Of course I didn’t drop it here, I dropped it outside my door.”

“Then, why are you looking for it here!”

“Because there is more light here!” responded Nasrudin.

For all those shining their torchlight of commentary on Governor Palin’s accent, her familiar conversational style, her colloquial use of “you betcha,” “doggone it,” and “soccer Mom,” they need to move, just like Nasrudin, to where the work is harder – they should focus on Senator Biden’s debate performance - the content of his  answers. 

Senator Obama selected the Delaware Senator to add weight and balance to his ticket. Joe Biden is his foreign policy expert. The 36 year Senator, a member of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee allows Barack Obama – a candidate with zero foreign policy experience – to claim he offers a balanced ticket. Unfortunately, Senator Biden gave a performance unworthy of a freshman high school civics student, raising numerous questions about his carefulness, thoughtfulness, and judgment. 

The Fox News Special Report commentator Charles Krauthammer noted seven errors on foreign policy in 60 seconds.  And National Review’s Jim Geraghty at his blog: “the Campaign Spot,” continues updating his list of Biden errors from the debate: “The Biden Error/Lie/Hallucination List (UPDATED to 22).”  His list of errors includes such topics as the role of the Vice President under the Constitution; the range of Pakistani missiles; Barak Obama’s role in West Bank Elections; and the relevance of a McCain vote against “Violence Against Women” legislation when the Supreme Court later ruled the legislation unconstitutional.

The number of errors is troubling; the confident assertiveness while giving so many incorrect answers gives pause for concern – this man could have taught P.T. Barnum a thing or two about audacity. When I review the comments about his answers, I ask myself - What has he been doing in Washington, D.C. for 36 years? Has he learned anything? If this is his best after 36 years, wouldn’t I be better off with a proven governor, a fast study, an outsider at the beginning of a learning curve with significant potential for rapid improvement, an over-achiever like the moose-hunting, point guard in the number two spot?

For me, the Senator’s crowning achievement – talk about a confidence booster that he understands my situation - was his rebuttal to the Wasilla mother of five showing he also knows how Middle America feels. His evidence – he talks to the folks at Katy’s restaurant in Wilmington. Unfortunately, the Senator must reside in a parallel universe (could Geraghty be on to something about hallucinations?) or, more troubling, he hasn’t spoken to an average “Joe Six-Pack” or anyone outside his close circle since 1990 when Katy’s Restaurant closed its doors and went out of business.

Not only is Senator Biden in the dark, but so too are many in the media; unwilling, like the Sufi, to move out from under the light and search through Senator Biden’s answers to expose him for what he is – a caricature of a serious public servant, winging it as he goes along, enjoying the ride in the Senate as much as his subsidized Amtrak commute, all the while proving the Peter Principle is alive and well.