Ironic

Has McCain allowed his image and reputation to be kidnapped by devious advisers in an attempt to win the White House? Mike Barnacle says so.

Unfortunately for McCain, he did little to stop the thieves who took his honor and reputation and tossed it out like so many discarded items for a yard sale, figuring that Americans could once again -- one more time -- be fooled into voting their fears. But what they really did was take the one Republican who may have had a legitimate shot at surviving the disaster that has been the Bush administration and strip him of the basic appeal he once had for people looking for someone who could lead.

This may be true. But I would ask the same question back at the Obama crowd. Who stole Barack? The honest guy who wants to change the way Washington does business, if that person exists, now lies and manipulates with the best of them.

Soon, the 'Straight Talk Express' will bank west and head for the Arizona desert and election eve. And John McCain will sit up front, staring out the window, exhausted, as the plane crosses the land he loves and the people -- millions of them -- he failed to connect with because while he was once indeed a prisoner of war, he has spent the last ten weeks letting himself become a prisoner of the past.

The difference between McCain and Barack is McCain's discomfort with lying. Barack is a actor who, unqualified and unprepared for the job on any rational level, is playing president, and he does it beautifully. He lies about anything and everything, and he does it with the poise and calm that people expect in a president. He says whatever necessary without conscience. McCain lacks this ability - he plays the modern game of politics with discomfort - a reflection, one might speculate, of an old fashioned maverick - so he is analysed and chastised, while Barack is deified by the good government crowd.

Isn't it ironic?

And Isn't It Ironic?

Is it by design, or just dumb luck, that Barack seems to have things going his way on the war in Iraq? Walter Russell Mead writes in the LA Times about a situation loaded with ironies.

The net result, ironically, is that the antiwar candidate who predicted failure is benefiting most from the war's success.

It's such an incredible accomplishment that it's hard to imagine orchestrating such a thing.

Thanks to the surge he opposed, the policy Obama championed -- a relatively swift and steady withdrawal of U.S. combat forces over 16 months, conditions permitting -- no longer looks dangerous, irresponsible or an invitation to defeat.

The clever part of Barack's strategy is providing himself cover for being an Iraq peace-nik by acting like a hawk on Afghanistan. The wacko wing of the Democratic party is happy because he's anti-war on Iraq, and while being a hawk on Afghanistan, he gets to repeat the party line that that's where we should have been focused all along. Brilliant!

But, ironically, Obama is using his new maneuvering room to toughen his stand rather than soften it. In Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, he wants to send in more troops, take a harder line with Islamabad and crush the elusive Taliban beneath his heel.

I've always felt that being lucky is a talent, and it's one that Barack seems to have in spades.

Obama's pilgrimage abroad points to a larger truth: In the midst of a bitter political year, a loose bipartisan consensus on the Mideast may be emerging. And, irony of ironies, the consensus, seemingly embraced by Obama, seems closer to Bush's views than to those of the antiwar activists who propelled the Illinois senator to the nomination.