More about Obama

LSU 38, Ohio State 24. Life would be hard enough for the Aggies without having to constantly recruit against teams that have won national championships since 2000.

Before the game tonight, I read an article in the December 3rd issue of National Review. It was a cover story on Barack Obama. Reading National Review is like cleaning a smear of dog droppings off the sole of your shoe; it's an unpleasant chore, but has to be done.

I've been reading back issues of NR for several years, since my dad sends his over to be recycled. I skim through 'em before I trash 'em, and read the articles on topics that interest me. Compared to garbage like The Weekly Standard or American Spectator, NR is moderately entertaining. At his age, Bill Buckley has the physical appearance and mannerisms of a sophisticated 300-year old European vampire, but he still writes pretty well. Although, like George Will, he often comes across as being full of himself.

The Obama story was done by Richard Lowry, the current NR editor who isn't nearly as skilled a writer as Buckley. The point of the article is to draw comparisons between the campaigns of Obama now and Jimmy Carter in 1976, and by extension, make the case that an Obama presidency would probably be little more than a reprocessed version of the Carter administration. In the minds of RWers, Carter would've been the worst president in history if Clinton hadn't come along.

An antisocial first-grader with severe ADD and a ball peen hammer: That would be an appropriate metaphor for the current president. On his worst days, Carter didn't damage the country like the s.o.b. NR holds in high regard (whose minor imperfections are now being grudgingly conceded). I seriously doubt there'll be a President Obama in my lifetime, so it's a moot point. But it's something to write about.