We've Moved

Todd is now blogging at a new location - RealClearThinker.com.

Please visit now!

Family Fugitive

This is the end. The very last post I'll ever do on Barack's White Lies. But it is also the beginning. Barack's White Lies is moving, and evolving. Think of it as Change You Can Believe In. The new blog will be called, after an adjustment period, Real Clear Thinker. All future posts can be found at realclearthinker.com. Starting now.

Just because the election is over, don't expect people like Bill Ayers to be forthcoming regarding friendship with Barack Obama.

Ayers was on Good Morning America today, trying to make it seem that the history between he and Barack consists of little more than the two being neighbors. Ayers states, remarkably, that the first time he "ever really met him" was the day in 1996 that he held a fundraiser in his home for Barack.

The college professor also argued to "Good Morning America's" Chris Cuomo today that the bombing campaign by the Weather Underground, the group he helped found, was not terrorism.

The Weather Underground bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon and the New York City Police Department in protest of the Vietnam War.

"It's not terrorism because it doesn't target people, to kill or injure," Ayers said.

Keep in mind that the year before the fundraiser, Barack was made the Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an organization founded by Ayers that year, and a position for which Obama was immensely unqualified. They worked on the same floor of the same medium sized office building together.

Keep in mind, also, that in the release of his 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days," which Ayers is apparently out promoting, Ayers writes this:

"[W]e had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign."

Notice he calls he and Barack "family friends," a deliberate attempt, it would seem, to tease people anew about the closeness that he and Barack maintain. If you're not convinced that this is a little bizarre, Ayers explanation for it certainly is. He claims the reason he called Barack a family friend in his book is because that's how the relationship was portrayed during the campaign.

"I'm talking there about the fact that I became an issue, unwillingly and unwittingly," he said. "It was a profoundly dishonest narrative. ... I'm describing there how the blogosphere characterized the relationship."

"I would say, really, that we knew each other in a professional way on the same level of, say, thousands of other people," he said.

Ayers has a detached manner, free of remorse, that makes him read as a psychopath in the interview, arguing that he's been unfairly demonized in an attempt to taint Barack with guilt by association.

"The content of the Vietnam protest is that there were despicable acts going on, but the despicable acts were being done by our government. ... I never hurt or killed anyone," Ayers said.

"Frankly, I don't think we did enough, just as today I don't think we've done enough to stop these wars," he said.

It seems to me that voters had a right to know the truth about their relationship, that it's up to us to decide whether Barack's association with Ayers was a valid campaign issue, and that Ayers is plainly misrepresenting the relationship.

Further, Barack lied about his friendship with Jeremiah Wright before the Ayers matter became part of the conversation, and the evidence indicates that he's being equally dishonest regarding Ayers.

Secretary of Mate

More silliness about Hillary:

Imagine someone so inexperienced as Secretary of State?

Michelle's Choice

It's great to have options regarding where to send your kids to school - something that Democrats believe deeply in, but only for the rich.

President-elect Obama and his wife, Michelle, came to town and did what people with young children usually do before moving. They looked at their new house and then Mrs. Obama checked out the school choices for their two young daughters.

The schools Mrs. Obama visited were private, not public. While no decision has yet been made, it seems obvious the girls enjoy their private school in Chicago and have flourished in it. Would the Obamas, in order to pander to the teachers unions, place their daughters in one of Washington, D.C.’s miserable public schools? Let’s hope not. That would be a form of intellectual and social child abuse.

True. No responsible parent would put their kids into public schools like these - and people with options generally avoid all public schools if they're not in segregated, privileged suburbs.

Should they choose either Sidwell Friends School (where Chelsea Clinton attended) or Georgetown Day School — Mrs. Obama visited both — or a public school, the Obamas have the ability to make a choice for their children, a choice the president-elect would deny to every other American who cannot afford to pay private school tuition. This is not the vaunted fairness for which Obama campaigned. This is not spreading the educational and intellectual wealth around.

How does Barack explain his behavior? Probably the same way other Democratic leaders, who throw a nice big slap into the face of those working people they preach public schools to.

This year, 1,900 D.C. schoolchildren were allowed to attend private schools, thanks to congressional vouchers. With Democrats about to be in charge of all three branches of government, will Obama and his fellow Democrats send them back to failed schools? D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has suggested as much. Parents interviewed by Washington TV stations overwhelmingly want their children to remain where they are. Is it not cruel to force them back into a broken system?

Many Members of Congress choose private schools for their children. Senators Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton have been outspoken opponents of school choice yet have sent their children to private schools. According to a 2007 Heritage Foundation survey, “...37 percent of representatives and 45 percent of senators in the 110th Congress sent their children to private schools — almost four times the rate of the general population.” Yet many of them vote against letting the rest of us have the same choice.

Our kids deserve better schools, but the partnership between teachers unions and the Democratic party make that impossible.

This will offer children trapped in bad schools the brighter future they deserve and the country will get the better educated citizenry it desperately needs.

Doctrine Air

Thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine from Adam Reilly in the Boston Phoenix.

For most of the second half of the 20th century, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asserted that the right to broadcast — on scarce, publicly owned frequencies — came with civic responsibility. Broadcasters, the FCC held, should devote some of their programming to controversial matters of public interest. They should also allow divergent points of view to be presented on their stations. That's the Fairness Doctrine in a nutshell. (In one famous case, the Supreme Court ruled that the author of a critical biography of Barry Goldwater had the right to respond to a torrent of criticism directed at him from a Christian broadcaster in Red Lion, Pennsylvania.)

The doctrine's intentions were commendable. But it was vague, and spottily applied, and co-existed uneasily with the First Amendment's right to free speech. And in 1987 — at the height of Reagan-era deregulation — it was voluntarily abolished by the FCC. The FCC's decision was upheld on appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1989, and subsequent congressional efforts to restore it have failed.

Many observers believe that's for the best. "The Fairness Doctrine had this perverse result," says Jane Kirtley, director of the University of Minnesota's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law. "The way some broadcasters chose to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints to be heard was to say that they just weren't going to cover controversial issues. I have no reason to think that would change in 2008 or 2009." Factor in the rise of cable news and the Web, adds Kirtley, and the Fairness Doctrine's original rationale doesn't make sense anymore.

Media critic Rory O'Connor, who discusses the subject in Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio (AlterNet), agrees. "The Fairness Doctrine is a 20th-century response to 21st-century problems," he says. "It didn't work so well in the first place. It was misused and abused by political operatives in both parties." There is, O'Connor claims, "no way in Hell" that the Fairness Doctrine's going to be reinstated. Conservatives are only milking the subject to "excite the base, create outrage, and drive up ratings."

No question, the right's treatment of the subject is irresponsible. A restored Fairness Doctrine wouldn't "kill" the conservative-friendly medium of talk radio, or mandate "equal time" for the presentation of liberal and conservative perspectives. Instead, it would simply require conservative broadcast outlets to allow the occasional liberal voice, and vice versa.

To be fair, though, conservative fears aren't entirely unfounded. While Obama seems to favor regulating broadcasters to achieve specific aims, including increased minority ownership, he's indicated he doesn't want to restore the Fairness Doctrine. But other prominent Democrats disagree. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently told the conservative magazine Human Events that she supports the Fairness Doctrine. On Election Day, Democratic New York senator Chuck Schumer told Fox News you couldn't oppose the Fairness Doctrine while supporting government regulation of obscenity, as many conservatives do. And other Dems — including Massachusetts senator John Kerry, the subject of an attack documentary broadcast on Sinclair Broadcasting's 62 (conservative) stations during his 2004 presidential run — have made similar remarks.

Time for restraint
That some Democrats might relish the idea of punishing Limbaugh and his compadres is understandable. But there are strong arguments for restraint. The first is constitutional: the Fairness Doctrine would exist, yet again, in tension with the First Amendment. The second is strategic: the inchoate sense of grievance that currently animates the right has slim political potential — but that could change if Republicans can style themselves as free-speech defenders.

The most important reason for caution, though, is the nascent effort to link the Fairness Doctrine with Net Neutrality. Without Net Neutrality, the telecom industry will almost certainly create a two-tiered system that privileges some content, while consigning the rest — created, presumably, by those who lack big bucks — to a sort of virtual ghetto.

Thus far, Net Neutrality hasn't been a partisan issue. Obama supports it; so does NARAL Pro-Choice America; so does the Christian Coalition and the National Rifle Association.

But efforts to fragment the broad, pro–Net Neutrality alliance are already underway — and the Fairness Doctrine seems destined for a starring role. In an October 2007 paper titled "Net Neutrality: A Fairness Doctrine for the Internet," Adam Thierer of the Progress & Freedom Foundation — a think tank funded by, among others, AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable — suggested that Net Neutrality was actually a partisan ploy aimed at crippling the right. Groups such as the Christian Coalition, Thierer suggested, should reconsider their support.

Then, this past August, Republican FCC commissioner Robert McDowell made a similar argument at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Regarding Net Neutrality, McDowell asked, "Will Web sites — will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views, rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?"

This is a stupid question. The Fairness Doctrine involved government mandating, in certain cases, that specific content be added to a particular media entity. In contrast, Net Neutrality doesn't involve intrusion into content; it only dictates absolute freedom of (virtual) movement. It's the opposite of what McDowell seems to think.

But as Joe Campbell, author of the blog 2parse.com, recently noted in a post linking Thierer's paper and McDowell's remarks, this is about tactics, not logic. If conservative Net Neutrality supporters come to see it as the Fairness Doctrine 2.0 — something that's more easily done if the Fairness Doctrine is already on everyone's brain, as it is today — they might rethink their support. Given Democratic gains in Congress and Obama's support for Net Neutrality, Campbell argues, "This is the big corporations' only chance to squash Net Neutrality."

Now that's a scary prospect. The Web is the future of news media. (It's also a battleground where, at the moment, Democrats are totally dominating Republicans.) Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is a dubious proposition, period. But if doing so could jeopardize the success of Net Neutrality, it's downright reckless.

Instead of reliving an old-media battle that's run its course, Democrats should focus instead on making Net Neutrality a reality. And Obama should help them by stating that he'll veto any legislation aimed at restoring the Fairness Doctrine that crosses his desk. Let the right worry about something else.

To read the "Don't Quote Me" blog, go to thePhoenix.com/medialog. Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly@phx.com.

DOA

Can this be for real, or is it just the usual gameplaying - make women feel good about Barack by pretending to be respecting Hillary?

George Stephanopoulos reported Clinton's name being in the mix last week on Good Morning America, but the buzz grew louder today after Clinton was spotted boarding a flight to Chicago.

It might have been about a job in the Obama administration, or maybe she had a craving for deep dish.

Her spokesman Philippe Reines would not discuss Clinton's schedule, and of course the Obama Transition Team would not comment.

The thinking about a Secretary of State Clinton is simple, I'm told: she's smart, she's strong, she's experienced, she's a team player, she is usually pretty diplomatic, and she also brings some gender diversity to an Obama Team concerned about such matters.

Let's be serious - why would Obama want Hillary around, and why would Hillary want to put her career in the hands of Barack. Secretaries of State last about 2 years, don't they?

She brings instant stature to the job, one Democrat told me. Many world leaders have known her for almost two decades.

"Clinton is the gold standard around the world, " said Chris Lehane, a former spokesman for Vice President Al Gore.

Ya, sure. Consider this idea DOA.

Introducing Auto Vote

Now that liberals are in power, it's important to remind ourselves just how dangerous they can be. For example, the Boston Globe has a delightfully humorous editorial today on fixing the "election mess -" funny but for its utter maliciousness.

BARACK OBAMA'S superior get-out-the-vote operation spared the country from another squeaker presidential election, with the claims of voter fraud and intimidation that have become so familiar in the previous two cycles. But that doesn't mean the problems in the nation's electoral system have disappeared. They're just not as visible at high tide.

It's true that the voter system isn't up to snuff for the close elections we've been turning out lately, although it would be more accurate to credit the financial meltdown with Barack's victory margin - but I'm nitpicking. What's funny about the Globe position, and demonstrates the paper's maliciousness, is what they think the real problem is - lack of access to the polls.

After the 2000 election made the United States look like something out of a Marx Brothers movie, former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter co-chaired a National Election Commission. Their report concluded that the country has one of the most burdensome voter registration systems - and one of the lowest participation rates - in the developed world. Even with the Obama wave, voter turnout this year was only about 61 percent of registered voters.

Huh? Burdensome voter registration? You have to fill out a form and attest to your residency - that's a world class burden?

One simple change would solve several problems that have bedeviled recent national elections: universal voter registration. Under this plan, promoted by the watchdog Brennan Center for Justice and others, the government would be responsible for automatically registering citizens when they turn 18.

I have a better idea. Why not automatically register all voters at age 18, and then automatically submit a vote on their behalf in favor of the Democratic candidate? That way, only Republicans would have to show up at the polls to alter their auto-vote. This would be the green solution, helping to curb global warming by keeping people off the roads. And it would lead to good government, as only Democrats would win elections.

Change is hard to accept for a Congress that, after all, got elected under the current registration system. But any technical or political obstacles pale in comparison with another election marred by fears of ballot-stuffing, voter suppression, and undermined confidence in democracy.

Not so hard to shift to a system that favors Democrats for a Congress controlled by Democrats.

Bitter Sweet

It must be with mixed emotions that Barack has announced his resignation from the U.S. Senate, effective Sunday.

President-elect Barack Obama is giving up his Illinois U.S. Senate seat effective Sunday, intensifying the jockeying to replace the only African-American in Congress' upper chamber as lawmakers return next week for a lame-duck session.

After all, it's been a wonderful 3 and 1/2 years - so many leadership opportunities dodged, so many missed votes.

Several Illinois politicians want the job, including at least three members of Congress. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who's also a Democrat, will appoint the successor of his choice to fill out the remaining two years of Obama's six-year term.

What's unclear is when Barack will lose interest in the presidency, and what office he'll seek next.

Obama, who was in private meetings in Chicago preparing for the transition, said in a statement Thursday that his partial term as a senator had been "one of the highest honors and privileges of my life."

Ah, but that goes both ways, doesn't it.

Pressing Sarah

At the Republican Governor's Conference in Miami, it might as well be reconfigured into the Sarah Palin Conference. After Barack, she's the biggest political star in the country.

At a short press conference, she was asked what she's doing since the last governor's get-together.

“I had a baby, I did some traveling, I very briefly expanded my wardrobe, I made a few speeches, I met a few VIPS, including those who really impact society, like Tina Fey,” she said.

And yes, she spoke again of “Joe the Plumber,” the Ohio man who briefly dominated the McCain-Palin campaign and its talk about taxes.

Ms. Palin thanked the people who attended her rallies, including young women she hopes she has influenced.

“I am going to remember all the young girls who came up to me at rallies to see the first woman having the privilege of carrying our party’s VP nomination,” she said. “We’re going to work harder, we’re going to be stronger, we’re going to do better and one day, one of them will be the president.”

That raised again the question surrounding Ms. Palin since the election ended: will she run in 2012?

“The future is not that 2012 Presidential race, it’s next year and our next budgets,” she said. It is in 2010, she said, that “we’ll have 36 governors positions open.”

Truth Be Told

Now that the election is over, the truth about Barack - always available, but protected by some - is flowing more freely.

About his friends, for example.

FALSANI: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?

OBAMA:
Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.

I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.

FALSANI:
Those two will keep you on your toes.

OBAMA:
And theyr'e good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what's happening to each of us in ways that are useful.

I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.

And his church.

“One of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ,” Obama said in the interview. “And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.”

Obama began attending the church in 1988 and formally joined Trinity in 1992. Falsani asked, “Do you still attend Trinity?”

Obama answered, “Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service.

Hmm. This sounds a bit different from Barack said during the campaign.

“As young marrieds, Barack and Michelle (who also didn't go to church regularly as a child) went to church fairly often—two or three times a month. But after their first child, Malia, was born, they found making the effort more difficult. ‘I don't know if you've had the experience of taking young, squirming children to church, but it's not easy,’ he says.

“‘Trinity was always packed, and so you had to get there early. And if you went to the morning service, you were looking at—it just was difficult. So that would cut back on our involvement.’

Glib Guidance

The biggest failure in network news has some advice for one of America's biggest political stars.

Couric thinks Sarah Palin has a thing or two to learn about politics before she contemplates a White House run in 2012. "I think she should keep her head down, work really hard and learn about governing.

Katie is right, actually. That is what Sarah should do. Blow everyone away in a couple of years by just how informed she is.

But I'm not anyone to give advice to anyone about anything," she told Page Six at Glamour Magazine's 2008 Women of the Year Awards dinner at the Essex House.

Right again!

Although her interview with Palin made the Alaska governor look dumb (while rejuvenating Couric's flagging career in the process), Couric won't give herself too much credit. "I was really just a conduit that allowed her to air her views," she said. "I don't want to judge. I'll let the voters do that."

Of course you will.

Bad News

MSNBC got confirmation of the Sarah Palin Africa controversy from a McCain campaign insider who doesn't exist.

MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

David Shuster, an anchor for the cable news network, said on air Monday that Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a Fox News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent.

How can such a thing happen to a major news organization?

Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The Eisenstadt claim had mistakenly been delivered to Shuster by a producer and was used in a political discussion Monday afternoon, MSNBC said.

"The story was not properly vetted and should not have made air," said Jeremy Gaines, network spokesman. "We recognized the error almost immediately and ran a correction on air within minutes."

Gaines told the Times that someone in the network's newsroom had presumed the information solid because it was passed along in an e-mail from a colleague.

The hoax doesn't mean that Sarah knows where Africa is...

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin — not the Fox News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

It just proves that MSNBC doesn't know what journalism is.

Tin Men

Who would be dumb enough to fall for this crap. Barack is going back to his sizable donor list looking for more money!

It seems that in addition to his 6/10ths of a billion dollars to move into the White House, the Democratic National Committee spent way more than the $100 million in cash it had raised.

In fact, it took out "substantial loans."

Substantial loans? The DNC has debt to retire? How come they could get credit?

Well, it turns out now, the DNC's debts are far worse than originally imagined. Today, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe sent another urgent e-mail to supporters seeking at least another $30.

Most people would slam the door on anyone knocking with this sort of pitch.

"We'll get to work transforming this country. But first, we need to take care of the DNC."

Did we hear that right? Now that Obama's the president-elect, the top priority is the Democratic National Committee?

To drive home the point elsewhere in the same e-mail Plouffe adds: "Before we do anything else, we need to pay for this winning strategy."

Cheap lines, tin man style lines, if you ask me.

Don't worry, you still get the Victory T-shirt for this $30. But it sounds like pretty much everything else is on hold. This change stuff is looking to be an expensive process, even before it gets started.

I Hate About You

The Obama girls won't get everything they want now that they're presidential kids.

It looks like U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s daughter won’t be starring in Miley Cyrus' hit TV show ‘Hannah Montana’.

An Obama aide has told the ‘New York Daily News’, ‘It's a generous invitation, but they simply aren’t going to be making decisions of that kind right now.’

Inviting Malia and Sasha Obama, to make a cameo, Miley’s father Billy Ray Cyrus told Access Hollywood, ‘They probably will. The invitation is there’, reports ‘Contactmusic’.

Barack will never allow such a thing. By all accounts, he's a responsible dad, Michelle's a devoted mom, and no one in their right minds would jump head first into adding to their children's corruption by giving Hollywood a piece of them.

’The Hannah Montana film comes out in April. Maybe something might happen around then,’ he added.

Obama is determined to keep his daughters away from the limelight, and while explaining his decision, he told U.S. TV show Good Morning America, ‘Generally, what makes them so charming is the fact that they're not spending a lot of time worrying about TV cameras or politics, and we want to keep it that way.’

Just chalk it up to clever promotion on the part of the Montana clan.

Huff & Puff

Controversial segment in which Dennis Miller goes after Barney Frank while talking with O'Reilly.

The Huffington Post is upset.

Dennis Miller appeared on The O'Reilly Factor tonight (Miller is a frequent guest on Bill O'Reilly's show) and went on a rant regarding what Barack Obama should do to the executives of AIG when he takes office, namely, that Obama "should flatten these punks" and "come down hard on them." After Miller finished his rant, O'Reilly chimed in that Obama's next move should be "to arrest Barney Frank, correct?" Miller replies, "Eh, Barney might want to be arrested."

It seems that Frank, the most prominent openly-gay member of the House of Representatives, is being slurred by Miller for his homosexuality. The reactions of O'Reilly and Miller confirm that Miller's joke was inappropriate, to say the least. Watch and judge for yourself.

Beast of Burden

What amazing trouble Barack has stepped into.

For all the fury over Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion emergency economic relief fund, it seems downright puny when compared to the running total of the government's response to the credit crisis.

Has his remarkable good luck run out, or is this just the opportunity he wants.

According to CreditSights, a research firm in New York and London, the U.S. government has put itself on the hook for some $5 trillion, so far, in an attempt to arrest a collapse of the financial system.

You can't be a great president without bad times, and I think Barack's pretty eager to join the folks on Mount Rushmore.

The estimate includes many of the various solutions cooked up by Paulson and his counterparts Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve and Sheila Bair at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as the credit crisis continues to plague banks and the broader markets.

If Barack can lead America through this crisis, and get himself re-elected, he'll be viewed as one of the greats.

The Fed has taken on much of that total, including lending a cumulative $1 trillion in overnight or short-term loans since March to primary dealers through its emergency discount window and making a cumulative $1.8 trillion available through its term auction facility, a series of short-term transactions it began making available twice a month in January. It should be noted that a portion of the funds lent in these programs has been repaid and that the totals represent what has been made available.

Barack's good luck streak will be severely tested.

End of the World

It's the end of the world as we know it.

"This is the end of the consumer-based economy," said Peter Schiff, who runs the investment firm Euro Pacific Capital Inc. in Darien, Conn. "Americans have been buying too much stuff, and now the epic shopping spree is over. It is a permanent change."

Wow. That's a dire prediction. Which explains, perhaps, the shift in the bailout plan that Paulson announced yesterday.

For years, consumers tapped into inflated home equity and use credit cards to finance their spending. Now those spigots are being shut off, and job losses are mounting.

What had been a Wall Street meltdown is now, a few weeks later, being seen in a different light - we are at risk of massive economic collapse.

The recent data has been startling: For the third quarter, consumer spending fell 3.1 percent, the worst performance in 28 years. Sales at established stores for October were the worst since at least 1969. The slump is continuing into November: Macy's says it expects a decline of at least 10 percent this month.

As we head into a recession which promises to be deeper than any we've experienced, wouldn't it be nice to have a seasoned old pro at the helm of the country - someone with the perspective of years, and someone who knows who to get on the phone to pull the right levers?

Even when home prices recover and credit becomes more available, Hoyt notes, Americans will have learned something: "They can't count on asset appreciation to meet their long-term goals."

As we head into a devastating downturn, wouldn't it be nice to not have Democrats in power - the party whose policies led us into this mess?

Say Anything

Like most politicians, Barack was willing to say anything to win the presidency. Dig any hole now, we can climb out of it later.

A suicide car bomber struck a U.S. military convoy passing through a crowded market in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday, killing at least five civilians and a coalition soldier and wounding an additional 57 civilians, officials said.

In order to be a peace candidate while not being perceived as weak on defense, Barack embraced the war in Afghanistan - that's the war we need to fight, that's the war we need to win, he said - Iraq was the wrong war.

The bomber rammed his vehicle into the convoy as it traveled through Bati Kot district of Nangarhar province, said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, a spokesman for the provincial governor.

At least five civilians were killed in the blast, said Ghafoor Khan, the spokesman for the provincial police chief. Fifty-seven civilians were wounded, said Ajmal Pardes, a provincial health official.

Now, Barack has challenges other than looming economic disaster - how to responsibly (ie gradually) withdraw from Iraq after having built expectations that he'll draw down willy-nilly, and how to win the war in Afghanistan using troops who really need rest, not redeployment.

Lt. Cmdr. Walter Matthews, a U.S. military spokesman, said a member of the U.S-led coalition died of his injuries received in the attack. He would not disclose the nationality of the victim, but another U.S. spokesman earlier said that the wounded soldier was an American.

If confirmed, that death would bring the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year to at least 148, the highest annual tally of troop deaths since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. There were 111 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan in all of 2007.

Barack took ownership of Afghanistan in order to change the long held perception that Democrats can't be trusted to defend the nation. It's his war now, and he's got to win it.

The bomber struck the convoy near a crowded market, where people were trading sheep, cows, goats and other animals, Mr. Khan said. An Associated Press photographer said that an American military vehicle, two civilian vehicles and two rickshaws were destroyed.

Taliban militants regularly use suicide attackers and car bombs in their assaults against U.S., Afghan and other foreign troops in the country. But a majority of the victims in such attacks have been civilians. On Wednesday, a truck bomb in southern Afghanistan killed six people and wounded 42.

Moving Over, Not On

This is the end. But also the beginning. Barack's White Lies is moving, and evolving. Think of it as Change You Can Believe In. The new blog will be called, eventually, Real Clear Thinker. All future posts can be found at realclearthinker.com.

I took it in stride when Barack won, and decided that this is a time to adjust - we must accept his victory and learn the lessons that come with it. America has changed, and in order to be effective in doing political analysis, as well as affecting the course that the nation is following, it seems to me that you have to be here, in the moment - not stuck in some dream of the past.

If you'll permit me an analogy, think of those of us who enjoy the political process, study it, and try to move people's thinking to a better place, as singer/songwriters. We perform songs about the world we live in. While singing songs from the sixties might draw an audience - heck, it would even be fun - I don't want to be an oldies act. Singing nostalgia is valid because it offers escape, but I don't want to engage in escapism, I want to be relevant to now. I want to grab hold of the moment and say, "it's moving in the wrong direction, help me get it back on course."

In order to do that, I decided it is necessary to let go of some things. I'm not going to worry about Barack being too young and inexperienced, I'm going to try to trust that he is a gifted enough person that maybe he can rise to the occasion. I'm not going to wallow in the cruel hoax of turning to the people who are dismantling the American experiment and asking them to save it - I want to accept that Democrats have won because Republicans screwed up, and that's how it goes in the toggle mentality of a two party system.

Their worst goals must be resisted, yes, but as an optimist, I will trust that the flaws of liberalism, when seen up close, will reaffirm in America it's basic conservatism. We must help them be the tools of their own demise.

I also think we must accept that America has been altered inexorably - this is not the European culture we grew up in, the forces that sought to minimize it's whiteness and make it a multi-cultural place have succeeded. That's not a bad thing, per se, it's just a different thing. It only hurts when you fight it. At the same time, we must make sure that the new America loves and respects that which is America, that it isn't here just to enjoy the benefits without respecting the underpinnings that made the spoils possible.

In other words, if new people are going to be in charge, I can live with that. I don't care who is in charge, I care what is in charge. What philosophies are going to guide us, what are our values going to be? Bad values can be pushed by people of any culture or race, as can good ones.

So I decided that I had to accept the tipping point that Barack's election represents. Power has shifted to the new guys. Fighting that would be like trying to fight the British invasion of the 1960's. The Beatles were not the revolution - the forces of change were unstoppable - they simply rode the wave created by the enormous demand for change. Television, and access to money, gave kids a new voice in the marketplace, and we used those tools to, for better and for worse, adjust the world to meet our tastes.

The same has happened now - we have raised a couple of generations of suburban kids whose lives haven't known the struggles of necessity. It is foolhardy to expect, for a moment, that they would view life the way we do. How could a twenty-something professional of today, earning a comfortable upper middle class living while sitting at his computer in Starbucks, have even the vaguest notion of the life that formed the Greatest Generation? We must stop expecting the impossible.

I'm not arguing that the fight is over - the struggle between conservative and liberal values is a permanent one, as is the political fight between the groups aligned, however loosely, behind those banners. I'm just saying that we have to realize that some things have already been decided - that liberalism has, to a large extent, already won, and we must map carefully the piece of land we're standing on so that we can best defend, and perhaps extend, our ground.

It is in this spirit that I begin a gradual relaunch of Barack's White Lies. A new look, a new location, a new name. While I liked the edginess of the name for the election - I enjoyed that it made liberals uncomfortable - my old fashioned conservative sensibilities lead me to feel uncomfortable calling my blog Barack's White Lies.

I don't wish to be disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States, which, hopefully, will always be occupied by a person who loves the ideals and the brilliance of the men, and the document, that created it.

The blog will live on under the name of Real Clear Thinker. It's an amalgam of the names of a couple of my favorite places to read - Real Clear Politics and The American Thinker - not so much inspired by them as absorbed and reconstructed.

When shocked liberals ask how I have come to a particular conclusion, I just tell them that I thought about it. And that's the truth. I like thinking clearly, and I believe that if others engage in a similar enterprise, they'll come to conclusions that are pretty close to mine.

That's what Real Clear Thinker is all about.

Moving Over, Not On

This is the end. But also the beginning. Barack's White Lies is moving, and evolving. Think of it as Change You Can Believe In. The new blog will be called, eventually, Real Clear Thinker. All future posts can be found at realclearthinker.com.

I took it in stride when Barack won, and decided that this is a time to adjust - we must accept his victory and learn the lessons that come with it. America has changed, and in order to be effective in doing political analysis, as well as affecting the course that the nation is following, it seems to me that you have to be here, in the moment - not stuck in some dream of the past.

If you'll permit me an analogy, think of those of us who enjoy the political process, study it, and try to move people's thinking to a better place, as singer/songwriters. We perform songs about the world we live in. While singing songs from the sixties might draw an audience - heck, it would even be fun - I don't want to be an oldies act. Singing nostalgia is valid because it offers escape, but I don't want to engage in escapism, I want to be relevant to now. I want to grab hold of the moment and say, "it's moving in the wrong direction, help me get it back on course."

In order to do that, I decided it is necessary to let go of some things. I'm not going to worry about Barack being too young and inexperienced, I'm going to try to trust that he is a gifted enough person that maybe he can rise to the occasion. I'm not going to wallow in the cruel hoax of turning to the people who are dismantling the American experiment and asking them to save it - I want to accept that Democrats have won because Republicans screwed up, and that's how it goes in the toggle mentality of a two party system.

Their worst goals must be resisted, yes, but as an optimist, I will trust that the flaws of liberalism, when seen up close, will reaffirm in America it's basic conservatism. We must help them be the tools of their own demise.

I also think we must accept that America has been altered inexorably - this is not the European culture we grew up in, the forces that sought to minimize it's whiteness and make it a multi-cultural place have succeeded. That's not a bad thing, per se, it's just a different thing. It only hurts when you fight it. At the same time, we must make sure that the new America loves and respects that which is America, that it isn't here just to enjoy the benefits without respecting the underpinnings that made the spoils possible.

In other words, if new people are going to be in charge, I can live with that. I don't care who is in charge, I care what is in charge. What philosophies are going to guide us, what are our values going to be? Bad values can be pushed by people of any culture or race, as can good ones.

So I decided that I had to accept the tipping point that Barack's election represents. Power has shifted to the new guys. Fighting that would be like trying to fight the British invasion of the 1960's. The Beatles were not the revolution - the forces of change were unstoppable - they simply rode the wave created by the enormous demand for change. Television, and access to money, gave kids a new voice in the marketplace, and we used those tools to, for better and for worse, adjust the world to meet our tastes.

The same has happened now - we have raised a couple of generations of suburban kids whose lives haven't known the struggles of necessity. It is foolhardy to expect, for a moment, that they would view life the way we do. How could a twenty-something professional of today, earning a comfortable upper middle class living while sitting at his computer in Starbucks, have even the vaguest notion of the life that formed the Greatest Generation? We must stop expecting the impossible.

I'm not arguing that the fight is over - the struggle between conservative and liberal values is a permanent one, as is the political fight between the groups aligned, however loosely, behind those banners. I'm just saying that we have to realize that some things have already been decided - that liberalism has, to a large extent, already won, and we must map carefully the piece of land we're standing on so that we can best defend, and perhaps extend, our ground.

It is in this spirit that I begin a gradual relaunch of Barack's White Lies. A new look, a new location, a new name. While I liked the edginess of the name for the election - I enjoyed that it made liberals uncomfortable - my old fashioned conservative sensibilities lead me to feel uncomfortable calling my blog Barack's White Lies.

I don't wish to be disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States, which, hopefully, will always be occupied by a person who loves the ideals and the brilliance of the men, and the document, that created it.

The blog will live on under the name of Real Clear Thinker. It's an amalgam of the names of a couple of my favorite places to read - Real Clear Politics and The American Thinker - not so much inspired by them as absorbed and reconstructed.

When shocked liberals ask how I have come to a particular conclusion, I just tell them that I thought about it. And that's the truth. I like thinking clearly, and I believe that if others engage in a similar enterprise, they'll come to conclusions that are pretty close to mine.

That's what Real Clear Thinker is all about.