Dartblog

It isn’t clear how sustainable this little republic of ours is going to be if candidates are suffered simply to lie about their own positions. To wit, Barack Obama, being interviewed—fanned with palms and fed Aglianicos, really—by a man called Wolf:

BLITZER, WOLF: You know a lot about the Supreme Court. And the next president of the United States will have an opportunity to nominate justices for the Supreme Court. He gave a speech, McCain, this week saying he wants justices like Samuel Alito and John Roberts. And he defined the kind of criteria he wants. So, what would be your criteria?

ONE, THE: Well, I think that my first criteria is to make sure that these are people who are capable and competent, and that they are interpreting the law. And, 95 percent of the time, the law is so clear, that it’s just a matter of applying the law. I’m not somebody who believes in a bunch of judicial lawmaking. I think…

Well. Barack Obama does believe in “a bunch of judicial lawmaking.” He preached it—proudly—for years at university. He advocated it in that 2001 radio interview we’ve all heard. It’s in his political blood, so to speak.

This election ought to be remembered as the one without a trace of competition, because an ordinary voter cannot be expected to apprehend a single significant philosophical difference between Barack Obama and John McCain. And if they’re the same, why not not be racist? (This, it is now becoming clear, is the full and unabridged Obama Campaign Strategy: be McCain, but prettier.)

All America ever asked was for two men to give speeches that make different arguments.