The full-court press the MSM put on with Senator Obama last week was interesting. It was interesting simply because I've never seen so much ink spilled for a candidate that is not even running, two-weeks before an election.

Well, Obama, welcome to the wonderful world of hardball politics. Lesson number one, be careful what kind of land deals you get yourself into. Number two, be careful who is courting you and what the reasons are:

Obama isn't a bad fellow. I like him. He knows he's being used by some Democrats who see him as a pretty black candidate first rather than a man and as some empty vessel without a record into which they pour their ambition. There's racism in that, although they can't see it and probably never will.

They see Obama as some horse to ride into the 2008 presidential elections, a horse that's not named Hillary.

No one should be surprised that Pakistan's Foreign Minister criticized Barack Obama for his threat to take action against his country should they continue to harbor those who struck the United States on 9/11. That's just the schizophrenic nature of politics in Pakistan, where co-operation with the United States is a double-edged sword:

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Kusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

One can't help but be reminded of the hot water that John McCain found himself in after singing his Beach Boys parody, "Bomb, bomb Iran," at a campaign stop. Back then it was mostly people on the left, weary of saber-rattling diplomacy, who were up in arms at the irresponsible nature of the comments. Indeed, I include myself among them. Now, however, it is primarily people on the right who decry the "rookie mistakes" or "lack of judgment" that Barack Obama has shown in singling out Pakistan.

While I agree that quiet, or even covert diplomacy is indeed required in places like Iran and Pakistan, I think it is worth taking a look at the passage of Obama's speech that has everyone up in arms. In fact, it boils down to the following three lines:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are blotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharaf will not act, we will."

As I've written before, the full court press of Barack Obama coverage came much too early and he would not be the perfect candidate he seems to be after being properly vetted by the media. The shine is starting to dull:

The public is beginning to learn that the charismatic senator took drugs, including cocaine, as a young man and that he still smokes cigarettes. His left-wing voting record in the Senate is also being picked over by the right.

The black community may not be as accepting of him as the media thinks. Stanley Crouch explains:

That race was never much of a contest, but one fascinating subplot was how Keyes was unable to draw a meaningful distinction between himself as a black American and Obama as an African American. After all, Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan. Other than color, Obama did not - does not - share a heritage with the majority of black Americans, who are descendants of plantation slaves.

It will be interesting to see how Obama handles being the recipient of tough quections instead of softball, Chris Matthews-type queries and adoring crowds. The media is cyclical, and the cycle of adulation for Obama is nearing the end. There will be more cycles in which he is exulted on a daily basis, but he still has to grab the attention of the nation and not just the media. Judging by what I've seen, he polls well, but will he actually receive the votes to secure the nomination? I would bet no if I were the wagering type.

I'm still rather stunned at how early this 2008 presidential contest is starting. It's still a political lifetime until November 4th, 2008 -- but the frenzy on the Web and in the media makes it seem like the election is just a few months away.

There is no doubt that the media's rapture over Barack Obama led to Hillary declaring last weekend. But her reasons for declaring early are more financial than voter orientated. The media attention that Obama was getting brought him big money donors -- donors that Hillary thought she would get when she announced in a few months. More importantly, Hillary feels that she is (and deserves to be, gosh darn it!) the media's candidate -- and would be, if not for that pesky Barack. So her friends in the media are starting to help her.

There was a poll taken in December in Iowa that had Obama tied with John Edwards at 22%, with Iowa's own Tom Vilsack at 12% and Hillary in fourth at 10%. With Iowa still, in many people's eyes, the big dog in the early primaries, Obama took his showing as evidence that he had a national following big enough to support a run for president in 2008, leading to his declaration.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more momentum behind a 2008 candidacy by Senator Barack Obama. I consider myself an independent and will vote either way depending upon the candidate. The 2008 contenders out there so far just haven't rung my bell.

There are things I like about John McCain, but he feels too political to me -- in not nice way. There are things I like about Rudy Guiliani, but I'm not sure he can get the Republican nomination. That's pretty much all I like so far anyway about the Republican candidates.

There is a remarkable op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times by David Ehrenstein titled Obama the 'Magic Negro', and subtitled (by either the author or the LA Times) "The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized, less-than-real black man." I don't really know where to start with this, other than to note that if a Republican, or even a conservative like me, wrote a piece like this we, he or she would be labeled a racist and promptly, err, lynched by everyone on the Left, including the media.

David Ehrenstein is about as far Left as you can get and not be considered insane. I'm familiar with him because he comments often on a blog I visit regularly, Cathy's World, written by Cathy Seipp. (In one of those "God has a really sick sense of humor" moments, Cathy's daughter just put up on her mom's blog news that Cathy's long battle with lung cancer will soon be over, perhaps even by the time you read this -- Cathy would have loved to have commented on this article by David...)

David's a very smart black gay California liberal writer, a self-described Democrat, specializing in Hollywood and politics. He attacks Obama as a "magic negro" -- an inauthentic black man raised to his position by whites primarily because he is not threatening, like a "real" black man, apparently:

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

Joe Biden's a little like The Mouth That Roared -- he's very smart and articulate, yet you never know quite what's going to come out of his mouth next. He's among the second tier of Democrat presidential aspirants, and is probably really running for a vice-presidential slot on the ticket, along with Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.

But he might not even be in the vice-presidential sweeps for long with statements like this, from an interview and article published today about Barack Obama in the New York Observer:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Is anyone else a little uncomfortable with how that sounds? One of the reasons I am intrigued by Obama is that he represents a move forward from the old-line civil rights black leadership (Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton), whose views, tactics, and style are way past the due date for a large segment of the black community.

When Democrats preach bipartisanship, what they mean is bipartisanship for you, not me. This is proven again in a Congressional Quarterly study on Barack Obama's real record since he was elected to the Senate in 2004. Time Magazine even used the term "triumph of Obama-style bipartisanship" in a love letter masquerading as a news story last October. So, does Barack Obama practice what he preaches? From CQ:

Obama's voting record doesn't reflect that nonpartisan streak. In his first two years, he sided with his party on 97 percent of the votes that pitted most of his caucus against most Republicans - a party unity score higher than all but five other Senate Democrats in the 109th Congress, and higher than those of any of the other likely Democratic presidential candidates now in the Senate, including Clinton.

The article goes on to say that Obama has reached out on legislative ideas, but what good is that if, when push comes to shove, you vote for everything your party elders tell you to vote for? It's not as if those 97 percent of party line votes he cast were votes on legislation that he crafted, is it?

Interesting little article in yesterday's Honolulu Star Bulletin that contains the first shot across the bow from the Democrat establishment against the rising political star of Senator Barack Obama. One of the Grand Old Men of the Democrat party, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, says that Obama is a "smart and hard working", but "he does not have the experience for a Presidential campaign". Senator Inouye's preferred Presidential candidate - why Senator Hillary Clinton, of course. Inouye also issues a thinly veiled threat to Obama which I'm sure has been received:

Inouye said the Democrats have several current and former members of the Senate who would be good candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former Sen. John Edwards. "They also say Barack Obama, but he should wait."

"He has been in the Senate for, what, two years. You can almost anticipate what they are going to do with him. It is always predictable. Someone is always digging up dirt.

"They will dig up everything, even traffic tags, the whole works," Inouye warned. "He has a good reputation," Inouye said of Obama. "He works hard, but his work would be effected by whatever plans he makes.

The people ("They") that Inouye is referring to who will dig up dirt on Obama? The Clintonistas during the buildup to (and during) the primary campaign, of course, and their media minions. Republicans won't even get a chance. And forget about Obama getting credit for any major legislation if he's running against Clinton. Hillary won't allow it.

Anyone who had access to any type of media yesterday knows that Obama Barack has taken the first steps in running for president. Just a cursory scan of this blog or the blogosphere will give you a feeling of how big this event was. Obama is the new media darling. He's young and fresh, a minority, and not John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, which makes him a top-tier candidate.

But exactly who is Obama? In all the fawning coverage we still don't have that answer. He's a first-term Senator from a midwestern state, he has not taken concrete positions on the myriad issues he will need to as we get into the primary and caucus season next year, which indicates to me that he is one to stick his finger up and see which way the wind blows. A Clintonian trait, if you will. He has not secured the backing of the national Democrats who are taking a wait and see approach.

As was shown in the Novembers elections, it is the DLC-types who still rule this party.They will need a serious candidate so as to be able to retreat from Hillary, seeing as how much they owe her and Bill Clinton for their ideology. Whether or not Obama is that person remains to be seen.

I'm not sure if it was his ill-advised acknowledgment that he would meet with America's greatest enemies, his comment about invading Pakistan or his comment about never using nukes under any circumstance, the American electorate is turned off by Barack Obama:

The charismatic newcomer to the national political scene had enjoyed stable support in the 25% to 27% range for ten straight weeks during May, June and July. In fact, except for a brief blip to the 30% range in April, Obama's numbers have been in the mid-20s just about all year. However, his support slipped slightly to 24% during the final full week in July and slipped again to 22% in the first full week of August. This is the first time all year that Clinton has doubled Obama's support in a full week's polling sample.

Obama is a full 22% behind Hillary Clinton and Rasmussen has called the race for her short any earth-shattering events happening.

The interesting thing about this report is that the African-American vote is split evenly between Clinton and Barack so the entire racism thing is kind of a non-issue. If blacks won't support the first serious candidate of color, no one can call racism against non-blacks.

Martha has the story. Obama is announcing an exploratory committee.

This is not good for Obama or the Democrats. let's list what Obama brings to the table. He's black so he has that minority thing going for him. He can speak very, very well. And that's pretty much about it.

So, no I don't get it. Having both Obama and Edwards jump in early has to be a sign that the Democratic field of candidates is very, very, very weak. So the Democrats who are rallying around Obama are signalling a couple of things early on. A: Anyone but Hillary B: Everyone else sucks more.

For Obama this is not good, because in time he could be a very good national candidate and Democratic party leader. But this is way too soon. it's like putting your high drafting rookie quarterback in the 1st quarter of the second game. Don't forget that Maureen has already christened him Obambi. Not a good sign. Obama will likely fail either at the primary or national level and he will not be Obama: Rising Star, but Obama:Yet Another Dem Loser.

That's my look at Obama when I put my "dispassionate observer" hat on. As a conservative, sure whatever, let's go Barak!

As fellow Stump blogger Matt Singer noted earlier, Barack Obama's impressive first-quarter fundraising is confirmation of what the Clinton camp has known for a while: Obama is rising, and fast. Like Mitt Romney, Obama has decided to pour almost all of the money he has raised in '07 into the primary election. Smart move. But what really impresses one about the Obama campaign is the way they handled the release of their heady numbers. Biding their time, they let Hillary Clinton have the attention last week, all the while keeping the speculation going about how much Obama raise. Then they unveil their whopper of a number a few days later and steal the show.

How quickly the narrative has shifted. Last week it was Clinton's big victory, this week Obama rules the headlines with the revelation that he had twice as many donors as Hillary. These are savvy maneuvers that should dispel the notion that Obama and his camp are too inexperienced. In fact, Obama received the same number donations on the internet that Hillary did total. And if you go to his site, you can see why. Already, there's a slick new video up about his burgeoning support.

The Internet works in mysterious ways. I was looking at Andrew Sullivan's site this morning and came across this funny fake-ad/music video. Though fans of Barack Obama's, the video's makers -- a Temple University undergrad, a 32-year old ad executive, and an aspiring actress -- are not affiliated with Barack's campaign, and just did it for humorous effect. Have a gander:

No comment from Obama's camp. The video's producer, Ben Relles, said he's had no contact with the Obama campaign, but adds, "We hope it helps him, though." To my mind, this is the funniest political spoof in ages. Best passage of the song:

"you're into border security/let's break this border between you and me/ universal health care reform/it makes me warm."

The Web is increasingly populated by these kinds of viral videos, and the thing about viruses is that you never know how they'll mutate. Weigh in. Does this parody help or hurt Mr. Obama?

Conventional wisdom has Barak Obama sitting out the presidential race in two years and possibly waiting until 2012 or even '16. After all, the wildly popular Democrat from Illinois is only 45 and still a junior senator. Why not see what Hillary or someone else can do in '08 and continue to make his mark in Congress? But Newsweek's Jonathan Alter has taken the pulse of Democratic insiders in a number of states and comes up with a different story:

contrary to popular assumption, Obama's aides see no political reasons not to make the race. His advisers believe his mere four years in the Senate will not be a liability (Abraham Lincoln ran after two years in the House, Woodrow Wilson after two years as governor, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and now Mitt Romney after four years as governor.)

Alter even quotes a "close associate" who puts the chances of an '08 run as high as fifty percent. Call Vegas -- those are bettin' odds.