Let the Children Sing for Obama

One of my problems with Obama is not necessarily the Senator himself, but rather the increasing creepiness of some of his supporters. This is extremely creepy. (HT Instapundit)



Back in 2006 there was a bit of an Internet uproar regarding "Jesus Camp" a movie about a fundamentalist Christian children's camp. What I saw of the movie, mostly clips on YouTube and blogs, never quite struck me right. It seemed like it was either heavily edited to shed false light or was a parody, but no one ever claimed it was anything other than real.

The strangest parts were prayers to President Bush. Andrew Sullivan showed this as proof that Bush was the head of a sinister "Christianist" cabal that was going to do horrible things. I wait for Sullivan to comment on the above video. I doubt he will of course. While I no longer read Sullivan as regularly as I did, he has been pretty silent on the general creepiness factor of some of Obama's supporters (the YouTube songs for example or the quasi religious way his campaign is being viewed.). Some Obama supporters do not seem to realize that "The Matrix" was not a documentary.

This video is merely the latest.

But Then Andrew Jumps Anyway

So then, just when I have decided that Andrew Sullivan, has not jumped the shark, he jumps anyway. His latest take on the New Hampshire primary:

I'm not an expert on this, but is there an obvious explanation for why Obama had a 7.5 percent advantage over Clinton in New Hampshire votes counted by hand and Clinton had a 5.5 percent advantage in votes counted by machine? I presume that it's a function of differing locations, with the more urban Clinton districts relying more on machines. Is that the right inference?

Uh, yes. You figured it all out, not very hard. (HT: Instapundit)

Actually, it is pretty easy to understand. HRC won "old New Hampshire" the urban, industrial areas where the Clinton machine could operate full throttle. Obama won the more upscale, less populated places, the small college towns, of "New New Hampshire." Basically, Dunkin' Donuts beat Starbucks (I saw that somewhere today, though I forget where).

Unless of course, it is all a conspiracy by Karl Rove in connection with Diebold. Yea, that it.

The Water Board Right

Every time I figure that Andrew Sullivan has jumped the shark, National Review comes through and points out why I still read him. Especially the increasingly unhinged Kathryn Jean Lopez. I am a McCain supporter since 1999 and I know that he has done some things that annoyed many in the GOP and conservative base. While I agree with him on immigration, I understand his position he lost him support. I also have come to believe that campaign finance reform has made things worse. Yet McCain is still the guy who has fought earmarks, someone who is not against lowering taxes, just wants to control spending first, and is pro-life.

But Lopez's comment: "But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us."

OK, you can argue with him on tax cuts, you can argue with him on campaign finance reform (which is what she means on freedom of speech). But suddenly, support for water boarding is necessary to get the support of conservatives? And if we see McCain as the GOP nominee, does this mean they will not support him? Would they rather see HRC (who is a cynical paranoid) or Senator Obama (who may be honorable, but is too naive to be president) just because they like water boarding?

Is this what the conservative coalition has come too -- water boarding and tax cuts uber alles?