Last weekend I heard a television pundit try to paint Obama as the Great Uniter because he's bagged supporters as disparate as Julie Nixon Eisenhower and (Insert Name of Generic Deaniac White Boy Here).
I have a different take on that -- that his public message is like textured vegetable protein that has no real flavor of its own but can take on whatever flavor is mixed with it, that the disparate support is a sure sign that his message obfuscates his reality, and that the message is vague enough for the disparate supporters to imagine it is what they want it to be despite that they have no real clue what it actually is.
Is he really the Teflon Gipper meets the Dalai Lama or is he just an ambitious, smart Chicken George who has figured out how to hide whoever he is behind a calm demeanor and a big enigmatic smile?
I don't know the answer but, when I can't answer questions like that, I look to those who've been closest to the cipher. From his wife to his former pastor to the rest of those who've been closest to Obama for the long run I've been able to discern, I can say for certain that I don't like what I see.
Does that mean I'm a Clinton fan? Hardly. They both suck on most of the things I care deeply about. I'd only suggest currently supporting her so that we can get to an old-fashioned brokered convention where, even if we're stuck with one or the other of them, the deal-making that getting to whichever one of whom that is will help us make some positive change. If Obama were the one currently behind in the delegate count, I'd be suggesting support for him in search of the same ends.
In other words, I recognize that we're still going to be the under-the-bus-fodder-of-choice no matter which of them is the eventual standard bearer and I'm refusing to get suckered into horserace emotion at the expense of paying close attention to things like Congressional and Statehouse races and referenda battles that really will have a critical impact on our lives.