The news story:

A U.S. military ship loaded with aid docked at a southern Georgian port Wednesday, and Russia sent three missile boats to another Georgian port as the standoff escalated over a nation devastated by war with Russia.

Georgia’s government said its short war with Russia had caused $1 billion in damages, while European leaders called the Kremlin’s moves in two breakaway Georgian regions an unacceptable attempt to unilaterally redraw the map of the Caucasus region.

The dockings came a day after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recognized the Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, which Georgia answered Wednesday by recalling all but two diplomats from its embassy in Moscow.

The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Dallas, carrying 34 tons of humanitarian aid, docked in the Black Sea port of Batumi, south of the zone of this month’s fighting between Russia and Georgia. The arrival avoided Georgia’s main cargo port of Poti, still controlled by Russian soldiers.

Why the Coast Guard? Probably has to do with the mission being more humanitarian than military (Dallas has one 76mm gun and one Phalanx anti-missile gun) and, also, its rather tricky to send combat ships through the Dardanelles. Still, its a sign that we remain committed to Georgia and any American forces in Georgia lessens the likelihood of further unprovoked Russian aggression.

But it is dangerous, and we should say a prayer for our men and women now in harms way in that corner of the world – Russia under Putin has proven itself irresponsible and dangerous, so we cannot rely upon the Russians applying common sense to the issue. They may strike again, and may even deliberately strike our forces in some bizarre attempt to teach us a lesson, or some such chest-thumping by the Bear.

Also good to keep in mind: the world is a dangerous place, and the White House is no place for a heretofor empty suit to learn the ropes.

Victor Davis Hanson nails it:

Hillary tonight said little about the novelty or excellence of Barack Obama; when she evoked landmark African-Americans, she reached back to the Civil War to avoid overt praise of Barack Obama. I think, given the pulse of the convention, the renewed rantings of Bill, and the petulance of her supporters, we can see Hillary’s quite winning, though long-term strategy.

Hers is to go through the motions as a pro-forma Democratic supporter for Obama, convinced that such an inept and inexperienced candidate will lose without shared toxicity, or singular culpability for herself. And the party, in its belated wisdom, will then recognize its tragic errors, and in just four years, given McCain’s age, will rally to her Clinton centrist 2012 campaign.

Her speech in Kennedy-1980 convention-fashion fulfilled its tripartite intentions: 1) it was well delivered, albeit in ossified liberal tropes, to such a degree as to remind the dazed delegates what a catastrophe they have committed in having nominated a novice over a pro; 2) it got her off the hook by cursory praise of Obama without suggesting enthusiasm for him that might either help his election or turn-off her supporters whose potential for trouble is predicated on Hillary as the perpetually wounded fawn; 3) it was not overtly, but only pro-forma hostile to John McCain, and did not contradict ads airing that use her prior anger at Obama as proof of a sort of “she’s right” solidarity with McCain.

Bottom line: she remains loyal Democrat, dissed victim, the should-have-been nominated candidate, senior healer ready to clean up the mess of 2008, and savior in 2012. Note well Chelsea’s ubiquity, the slick Hillary infomercial, Bill’s wide grin, and the Clinton triad everywhere.

And the reaction of the Obamanics? They will belatedly seem like the baffled victims who discover their picked pockets, know full well who did it, but can’t quite tell the police when, how, or by whom it happened.

I was, perhaps, fortunate to be listening to the speech on radio rather than watching it on TV – while I’ve seen some comments indicating it was a good speech, as I sat in the car I cringed at how bad it was. Hillary will never be a great orator, but her speech was extra boring and delivered in a flat, lifeless tone. After the quite stupendous welcome she received one would have expected her to be walking on air – she sounded like she was addressing a PTA meeting. She hit a litany of liberal/left talking points, but there wasn’t anything in there which really said, “I think Obama will be a stupendous President”…all I got was “at least he’s not Bush or McCain”. The mentions of Obama were mechanical and not stated in a way which made a lot of applause likely.

It is clear to me, as Hanson notes, that Hillary has made the calculation that Obama is a likely loser in November and thus she’s positioning herself for a walkover primary process in 2012 (and you can bet she’ll have the ground game to end all ground games in Iowa, should it come to pass that she is running in 2012). It is a calculated risk, as Obama still barely has the advantage in Campaign ’08, but she must have read the signs (and likely has seen some polling) which indicates that Obama is heading down to defeat, and thus Hillary’s job is to be just nice enough to Obama to shake off any possibility of being blamed for his defeat. Of course, if Obama wins then she’s out of the game until 2016, unless by some event Obama is not re-nominated in 2012. By 2016, Hillary will be very much yesterday’s news, but one can’t account for all contingencies, and from a cold, political calculation aspect, I think she’s doing the right thing.

Uh, Senator, you’re actually just drawing attention to the issue:

Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaire’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads.

Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements. The Obama campaign — and tens of thousands of supporters — also is pressuring television networks and affiliates to reject the ads. The effort has met with some success: CNN and Fox News are not airing the attacks.

Obama has also launched his own response ad, directly addressing Simmons’ attempt to link him to domestic terror.

The project is “a knowing and willful attempt to violate the strictures of federal election law,” Obama general counsel Bob Bauer wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney last week in a letter provided to Politico. Bauer argued that by advocating Obama’s defeat, the ad should be subject to the contribution limits of federal campaign law, not the anything-goes regime of issue advocacy.

Bauer’s letter called on the Justice Department to open “an investigation of the American Issues Project; its officers and directors; and its anonymous donors, whoever they may be.”

“This is a sad ploy to circumvent the First Amendment by a campaign who has no arguments with the merits of our ad. It’s the classic maneuver: If you can’t win on the merits, file a lawsuit,” said a spokesman for the American Issues Project, Christian Pinkston, who said his group’s non-profit status allowed it to participate in elections as long as it does a majority of policy work, which it plans to do.

A spokeswoman for Keeney, Laura Sweeney, declined to comment on Bauer’s letter.

The Obama campaign plans to punish the stations that air the ad financially, an Obama aide said, organizing his supporters to target the stations that air it and their advertisers.

You can see the ad here – its not terribly effective, but it does open up the can of worms Obama would rather keep closed: His ties to radical leftism. Its seems that Jeremiah Wright is just the tip of a kook left iceberg in Obama’s background.

Now, is Obama a wanna-be terrorist? Of course not – first off, he’s not of that generation. He’s of my generation, and we don’t tend to blow things up. If there were “60’s radicals”, we’re more “70’s stoners”, and didn’t have the oomph to go do much of anything. The downside to all this is that a lot of us also didn’t bestir ourselves to really learn about the past. I, on the other hand, did (there was a small upside to being bad at sports and a complete flop with chicks) – and even a cursory examination of 60’s radicals – like Ayers – convinces the knowing to steer clear of them. What profit is there is talking to a man who is unrepentant about the monumentally stupid idea of trying to change American policy via a terrorist bombing campaign? Obama isn’t a stupid man, so the presumption must be that he simply didn’t know, or at least didn’t know enough to draw the proper conclusions. To Obama, Ayers probably seemed well meaning – just as all too many dimbulb kids these days put on Che t-shirts because he seems romantic, and well meaning. As the kids today are unaware of Che’s brutal murders, so Obama is unaware (or only dimly aware) of just what Ayers and his cohorts were up to.

Why is this a problem? Because a man who hasn’t figured out that Ayers is persona-non-grata in decent society isn’t a man who can properly judge persons and proposals. If a screwball like Ayers can seem reasonable to Obama, then any kook out there can seem reasonable. While Obama has stepped out of the leftwing coocoon far enough to understand that people like Wright and Ayers have to be kept at arms length, he still hasn’t figured out that the whole leftwing project – ie, Obama’s whole worldview – is flawed and prone to such things as racist rants and terrorist bombs. Obama has some smarts, and our prayer should be that he’ll figure it out – but I don’t want him trying to figure it out while, during a tense moment with Iran, he’s got Sensible Advisor locked in battle with Nutty Leftist Advisor, and Obama unable to determine which one has it right.

UPDATE: Obama camp: Prosecute Simmons

Dave Hartline over at The Catholic Report gently rebukes Pelosi, Biden and all those who wrap themselves in Catholicism, but don’t adhere to the teaching authority of the Church:

Catholics who faithfully attend Mass are tired of hearing that Cafeteria Catholics are really faithful Catholics even though they think they know better than the Church. This type of self absorbed excess has not only damaged the Church but society as well. Pope Benedict XVI is fond of referring to the Dictatorship of Relativism, a reference to those who believe there is no truth in the world and therefore we are free to think everything is the truth and or nothing is the truth. Against the backdrop of freedom they have become slaves to the latest whims of secular society, truly a sad development.

Thankfully with the advent of talk radio, the internet and the Youtube age, the faithful are aware of those who claim they know better than the Church and yet try to keep it under wraps. Gone are the days when Catholic politicians who cared little for what the Church taught but yet wrapped themselves In the Catholic faith, could get away with it. There are an increasing number of orthodox-minded bishops, priests, religious and lay people who are calling out folks on these discrepancies.

Try as they might liberal operatives will never be able to sell the “Catholic Identity” of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Biden to the rank and file Catholic. While secular Catholics, primarily in the Northeast and West may be receptive to this message, the Catholic voters Senator Obama and Senator Biden needs to win in the states of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are not receptive to their Catholic message. On the evening of November 4, 2008, the world will see that the age of Cafeteria Catholicism has come and gone and in its place orthodox-minded Catholicism has returned. Before then there will be many bitter exchanges, as the secular media and the Catholic left complain that the Church is too strong and the conscience of the individual is being persecuted. However, the smokescreen will not work, orthodoxy will prevail, it always has. Truly, the tide is turning!

I know, it does seem that I’m harping on the Catholic issue quite a lot of late – but it does appear that us little, old Catholics hold the balance of power in the United States in this, the Year of Our Lord, 2008. We’re deeply honored by this state of affairs and we promise to be jolly nice about the whole thing – though we of the orthodox variety to intend very much to win.

A week-kneed appeal to Catholics won’t work, Senators – its not good enough to have someone with “Catholic” in their bio…we’ll need someone who acts on the faith, especially on that most crucial of issues, the right to life. Mush-minded sloganeering about “choice” and “personally opposed, but” just don’t cut the mustard anymore. Biden will pull in precisely those Catholics who were going to vote Obama anyways…what you need is Catholics who take Christianity seriously, and you won’t get them merely by installing Biden as your Veep.

And the really sad thing is that you have to pretend you like us – because you’re toast unless you can get a majority of believing Catholics to pull the lever for the Democrats. McCain, on the other hand, has no need to pretend – he’s not a Catholic, but he’s a believer, and agrees with fundamental Christian morality on the social issues. Much as we are delighted to see fellow Catholics rise high in an America which used to discriminate heavily against the Church, we aren’t so pleased that we’ll surrender our principles.

Courtesy of the son of Senator Joe Biden, D-MBNA:

son of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was paid an undisclosed amount of money as a consultant by MBNA, the largest employer in Delaware, during the years the senator supported legislation that was promoted by the credit card industry and opposed by consumer groups.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign said Biden helped forge a bipartisan compromise on the measure, which is now law and makes it harder for consumers to obtain bankruptcy protection in the courts.

MBNA’s consulting payments to Hunter Biden, first reported by The New York Times, followed his departure in 2001 from the company, where he had been an executive.

Obama opposed the bankruptcy law, enacted in 2005, while Biden supported it.

David Wade, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said that “after working in the Clinton administration in the Department of Commerce on Internet privacy and online commerce issues, Hunter consulted for five years as an expert on these very same issues at a time of enormous expansion in online banking.”

At the time Hunter Biden was receiving consulting payments from MBNA, he also was a Washington lobbyist at a firm he had co-founded.

“He was not a lobbyist for MBNA, and his work had absolutely nothing to do with the bankruptcy bill. Zero. Nothing,” said Wade.

Lets see, he’s the son of the Senator who represents Deleware and Delaware’s largest employer is MBNA, who paid a mint to said son of the Senator…yeah, sure; he wasn’t lobbying for MBNA. I’m sure it never crossed Senator Biden’s mind that his son was getting rich off MBNA while laws affecting MBNA were being considered by the Senate.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing Matt and I detailed in Caucus of Corruption (which really is a must-read – not because we’re the best writers the world has ever seen, but because the subject matter is so important for the future political health of the United States) – the fuzzy connections between big money, politicians, family members and legislation before the Congress of the United States. Biden isn’t alone here, ya know? In fact, Senator Harry Reid’s children also lobby the Senate on behalf of Nevada businesses…and we all sleep well at night knowing that there’s no chance at all that Daddy will look favorably on his son’s paymaster, right? Of course we all know that its corruption to the very bone – Biden’s son shouldn’t have been a lobbyists, certainly not for any entity which was of any concern to the State of Delaware, and neither should Reid’s sons…but it happens, all the time.

As there is more than one way to skin a cat, there’s also more than one way to bribe a politician – you can, of course, hire the pol’s children, but the pol can also put his wife on the campaign payroll, or your daughter can do the legal work for the company wanting your vote on a bill, or your daughter can be hired by a fellow Congressman who owes you, or you can see to it that your brother-in-laws company gets that federal contract. Some of this is illegal, but most of it falls into a grey area – grey areas created, from what Matt and I could figure, quite deliberately by the pols, businesses and lobbyists concerned to ensure that there’s always a way to grease political palms. Our campaign and ethics laws are quite byzantine and so there’s only one way to really clean up DC.

Hold them accountable.

Biden shouldn’t be on the ticket – heck, he shouldn’t even be in the Senate anymore. If a few dirty e mails were sufficient to force Foley out, then Biden’s questionable connections to MBNA are more than enough to give Biden his walking papers. But instead of holding Biden accountable, Democrats want to elevate him to the Vice Presidency of the United States of America. Small wonder that people like William Jefferson and Jack Murtha feel themselves above the law…one of their own is on the ticket, so what have they to worry about? Until such time as Democrats hold their own to a high standard this sort of corruption will continue unabated – and for all Obama’s talk of change, the reality is that the same corrupt gang will be running the show.

Downplay this all you want, Democrats, but this looks like it will be a close election, and even 10% of Hillary’s voters switching to McCain could spell the difference between victory and defeat:

Debra Bartoshevich hoped to attend the Democratic National Convention this week as a delegate helping to give the party’s nomination to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Instead, the Wisconsin nurse crashed the Democrats’ party Monday by starring in a campaign ad for Republican John McCain. The spot targets former Clinton supporters as Democrats try to unite the party behind Barack Obama during the Denver convention.

In the ad, Bartoshevich describes herself as a “proud Hillary Clinton Democrat” who is switching sides to vote for a Republican for the first time in her life.

“She had the experience and judgment to be president,” she says in the ad. Of McCain, she adds: “I respect his maverick and independent streak, and now he’s the one with the experience and judgment. A lot of Democrats will vote McCain. It’s OK, really!”

McCain’s campaign said the ad was running in Wisconsin and other key states.

Bartoshevich was elected as a Clinton delegate to the convention. After Clinton conceded the race, Bartoshevich said she could not support Obama and threw her support to McCain. The state party stripped her of her status as a delegate last month.

McCain seized on her story, meeting with Bartoshevich for coffee when he campaigned in Racine last month.

On Monday, the mother of two joined other McCain supporters in Denver, outside the convention hall where she had hoped to spend the week.

As I’ve said before, McCain is manifestly better qualified than Obama – in cold, hard reality, Obama is entirely out of his depth and its a risk not just to the United States but the entire world to have someone so inexperienced become President. Obama has many gifts and he might make a great leader at some point, that point isn’t now, and anyone who thinks of country before party will have to come down hard on McCain’s side in November.

UPDATE: The American Prospect has an interview with two more Hillary supporters turned McCain voters.

Gay Patriot points it out:

I suppose as the weekend passes, I may have more to say about presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s choice of Delaware’s senior Senator as his running mate. For the moment, I will echo Bruce’s point that it does seem a lot like George W. Bush’s choice of Dick Cheney in 2000, an older political veteran with foreign policy experience from a small state that was already a lock for their party.

But, Cheney, unlike Biden, actually had some executive experience, having served as White House Chief of Staff under President Gerald R. Ford and as Defense Secretary under President George H.W. Bush. Joe Biden has spent well over half his life the Senate, having served there since Barack Obama was eleven years old. (emphasis added)

On the day Joe Biden was first elected to the United States Senate, I was a couple weeks shy of my 8th birthday. This isn’t as bad as Ted Kennedy (who became a Senator before I was born), but it does show the vast gulf of time and experience between Biden and real life. While Biden talks a great game of being one of us, the fact that he’s lived in the Senatorial coocoon since I was a regular viewer of Bugs Bunny indicates that he just might not be aware of what day to day life for Joe Average is like. Obama said in his intro for Biden that the good Senator has been bringing change to DC “for decades”. Lets have a look at that, shall we?

In 1972 gasoline was 36 cents a gallon. We were about quarter century away from the first major school shooting incident. The median price for a house was about $65,000.00. The de-facto legalisation of pornography under Miller vs California was a year away. The Roe decision legalising abortion nationwide was also a year in the future. Everyone who was paying attention learned just how big a threat terrorism was during the 1972 Olympics. We were still some years away from HBO first putting obscene language on television – and cable television at that, and plenty of warnings from the network prior to broadcast. “Rap” was a hip phrase meaning “talk”. Gangsters were terrible criminals no one would want to emulate. A majority of African-American babies were born to married couples. Illegal immigration wasn’t a problem, yet.

Thank goodness we had Biden in the Senate, so that he could make certain that things changed, huh?

No surprise given that Democrats always put party before country that they would then turn and put personal desires ahead of party:

As Democrats arrived here Sunday for a convention intended to promote party unity, mistrust and resentments continued to boil among top associates of presumptive nominee Barack Obama and his defeated rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

One flashpoint is the assigned speech topic for former president Bill Clinton, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night, when the convention theme is “Securing America’s Future.” The night’s speakers will argue that Obama would be a more effective commander in chief than his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

The former president is disappointed, associates said, because he is eager to speak about the economy and more broadly about Democratic ideas — emphasizing the contrast between the Bush years and his own record in the 1990s.

This is an especially sore point for Bill Clinton, people close to him say, because among many grievances he has about the campaign Obama waged against his wife is a belief that the candidate poor-mouthed the political and policy successes of his two terms.

Some senior Democrats close to Obama, meanwhile, made clear in not-for-attribution comments that they were equally irked at the Clinton operation. Nearly three months after Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the nomination contest, these Obama partisans complained, her team continues to act like she and Bill Clinton hold leverage.

After a period earlier this month when the two sides were working collegially over strategy, scheduling, and other convention logistics, things turned scratchy again in recent days.

As a practical matter, Obama has to lose for Hillary to have a shot at being President – she can’t run any more in 2008, but if Obama loses she’ll immediately be the overwhelming favorite for 2012. Given the known level of dishonesty, backstabbing and political gamesmanship the Clintons bring to the table, one cannot but feel they are up to something – and McCain isn’t their actual problem at the moment, Obama is. Only if Hillary has resigned herself to being a long-term Senator and then resigning into obscurity can Obama feel other than nervous with Hillary at his back – and I see no signs that Hillary has renounced her Presidential ambitions.

On the other hand, Obama still seems to view himself as some sort of Man of Destiny and it irks him to have to share the stage with anyone (in my viewing of the Obama/Biden get together, Obama didn’t seem to be thrilled to be sitting quiet while Biden spoke). An overweening pride in one’s self is not conducive to those tactical surrenders which a real winner is happy to endure in order to sooth a prickly rival unreconciled to coming in second. Obama has yet to kneel before the shrine of Clinton, Inc. and its causing friction not just with Bill and Hillary, but with their ardent supporters, a large number of whom still believe not only that Hillary is the better candidate, but also won the primaries.

All in all its a poisonous mix and leaves open the prospect of, well, anything – for the world, things might go smooth as silk and Obama gets to make his acceptance speech to a massive crowd of cheering supporters, but behind the lines and outside of camera view, stresses might be building up swiftly to make it so that the Clintonites sit on their hands until November…or even try to embarras Obama during the convention.

And, no surprise, its Nancy Pelosi:

Meet the Press this morning:

Brokaw: …“I if [Obama] were to come to you and say ‘help me out here, Madam Speaker, when does life begin,’ what would you tell him?

Pelosi: “I would say that as an ardent practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time, and what I know is over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said three months. We don’t know. The point is it that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to chose.”

It shouldn’t have an impact? Tell that to parents looking at sonograms. Look, it’s obviously alive. Nevermind. “Shouldn’t have an impact.”

Err, no…Nancy, you might want to check things out a bit more given that since the 1st century (and that, for you lefties out there, is from the year 1 to the year 100…which means this goes back to before the year 100, and thus very swiftly upon Christ’s ministry on earth) the Church has forbidden absolutely the intentional taking of an innocent human life from conception to natural death. Basing itself upon Scripture and the teachings of the Church Fathers, the pro-life opinion is well known, easily ascertained and absolutely obligatory on Catholics, and trumps the absurd notion that there is a right to an abortion. Next time you decide to study something about our mutual faith you might want to shy away what pro-abortion fanatics say about Catholic teaching and actually, ya know?, check with what the Church has to say…

The sad thing about this is that Pelosi is putting herself at horrific risk just to provide a dodge for Barack Obama’s cowardly answer on the question of when life begins. Sad, too, is how Obama is essentially setting it up so that confused Catholic women like Pelosi are forced to go out and defend him…

There might be far more of these out there than anyone suspects:

Silverio “Silver” Salazar has been an active Democrat for decades, just like his cousins, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar and U.S. Rep. John Salazar.

But for the 2008 presidential election, Silver Salazar is squarely behind John McCain.

Silver Salazar, who had served as a Pueblo precinct leader for 20 years, was a Hillary Clinton backer. So when Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he began to research McCain and liked what he read.

He chose McCain because of his experience and readiness to take office.

Now, Silver Salazar is working to convince Democrats and Hispanics to support the GOP nominee.

“I’m making history for myself,” said the 59-year-old retired steel company operations manager. “This is the first I’ll vote for a Republican president – or work for one.”

Silver Salazar has been publicly supporting McCain since early summer. He’s done national media interviews and attended campaign visits across Colorado. On Thursday, he spoke at a news conference in Pueblo with other Hispanics supporting McCain.

About a dozen Hispanic McCain backers also held a press conference in Denver.

Hispanics across Colorado and the U.S. typically vote Democratic. But President Bush took an estimated 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, up from 34 percent in 2000.

As far as qualifications go, its really not debatable: John McCain is vastly more experienced than Barack Obama and thus manifestly more qualified to be President. What Obama brings to the table is mere fairy tale – he’s Prince Charming coming to save the Damsel in Distress (the United States) from the Ogre (President Bush). Obama knows precisely nothing of military affairs (and not just in the sense of not serving – in the sense of clearly never having read a single book about military affairs in his life), nearly nothing about the way things work, on a day to day basis, in Washington DC, he’s never run a business, he’s never had an executive position in his life, he’s never had to make a public policy decision for which he would bear the main or sole responsibility. And on top of all that, there seems to be something just off about Obama – while he clearly wants “to be”, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of willingness “to do” in him. There isn’t in his history and indication that has the desire or the courage to step outside his comfort zone and take on something uncongenial to his nature and desires.

And anyone willing to step outside partisan blinders on and/or leftwing hatred of President Bush can see this. Mr. Salazar did so, and quickly saw the truth of the matter – McCain is the better man, in all respects, to be President of the United States. And this is not to say that Obama is a bad man – its to say he’s not ready to take on the most powerful office in the world. What the United States does in the world is too important to be placed in the hands of someone who’s life experience is as sheltered and narrow as Obama’s. Let Obama become governor of Illinois, or Vice President, and gain some experience, and then he might be ready – but he’s not in 2008, and we’d be a very foolish people, indeed, if we elect Barack Obama President.