The Gupta is In. And Oz is Out.

The appointment of Dr. Sanjay Gupta to Surgeon General is a wise one. The role is largely about communication: he will be the leading spokesperson on matters of public health. Gupta is a master communicator -- clear, concise and always sympathetic. And of course he is a real doctor, still practicing today. (Read my review of Planet in Peril 2 here.)

It also represents the end of a long - and sometimes brutal - rivalry between Gupta and Dr. Mehmet Oz. (Oprah is said to be furious at the rebuff of her candidate.) Ironically it was the "heart" of Neurosurgeon Gupta that won out over the too cool and brainy Cardiac Surgeon Oz.

Dr. Oz is expected to concede defeat sometime today. Waiting any longer would be perceived as divisive. Surely he recognizes that marshaling fans of both men behind the rightfully appointed SG is the American thing to do.

President-elect Obama takes office in just 13 days and there are still appointments to be made.

Once Barack Obama is president, he will be held to an even higher standard than he was during the campaign. Every aspect of his administration will be scrutinized and evaluated by the press and public.

So the time has come to ask: is America ready for a president with a mole?

I'm in the fabulous state of Indiana for Election Day. (Indiana has many things to recommend it, among them IU, Breaking Away, and "Back Home Again in Indiana" my favorite Tin Pan Alley songs.)

Indiana, for the first time since 1964, is a toss-up. What does the photo below tell you about this contest? (So where are the "Black Panthers for McCain"?)

He's a Marxist. He's a Muslim. And that's not all...

Finally, it's no longer a one person race, where McCain just beats up on Obama and there is no response. Obama has at long last began to strike back:





Watch the Best Progressive Talk Show Here

The biggest scandal of the election campaign is going unreported, for the most part, by the mainstream newspapers and TV shows. Imagine if John McCain or Sarah Palin had a half-brother who was living in a hut. Imagine if McCain, a multimillionaire, did nothing to help the guy. Imagine if McCain came to the convention and spoke incessantly about compassion and how he was inspired by the biblical mandate: we are our brothers' keepers! This would be the lead story on the evening news.

So why aren't the networks covering the fact that Barack Obama's half-brother George lives in a 6 by 10 foot hut in the slums of Kenya? It took a reporter for the Italian edition of Vanity Fair to locate George Obama. Obama noted that when he met his famous half-brother in 2006 it was only for a few minutes and like talking to a complete stranger. George Obama also told the magazine that when people ask him whether he is related to Barack Obama he denies it because he is ashamed. Obama has done absolutely nothing to help his unfortunate half-brother.

Apparently alarmed that this report could hurt Obama, CNN dispatched one of its reporters to do cover-up work for the Obama campaign. This is a hopeless enterprise; anyone who sees pictures of Geroge Obama's dwelling place knows that they reveal the worst images of African poverty. Moreover, for all its propagandistic intent, the CNN report is unintentionally damaging to Obama. The reporter cannot hide the fact that George Obama comes from a "ramshackled slum." A neighbor tells CNN that Barack Obama really should connect with his half-brother and "see how he's living" and do what he can to "improve our way of life."

CNN attempts to portray George Obama as a self-reliant fellow who doesn't want any help. The network quotes him saying, "I was brought up well. I live well even now." Notice that George speaks in a halting voice; he is trying to maintain his self-image. George also says, "I'm Kenyan...I would love to live in Kenya." Presumably George gave this answer to a question asking whether he'd like to move to the United States with Barack Obama's help. These answers, however, in no way suggest that George doesn't want Barack Obama's intervention to relieve his grinding poverty. A man's effort to maintain his dignity should not be exploited to pretend that he doesn't want a helping hand.

When I posted on George Obama last week, the Obama apologists could do no better than to say that Barack Obama doesn't owe his half-brother anything. But sibling assistance is not a matter of debt. Rather, it is a matter of family values and compassion. Obama has publicly cited as his favorite Bible verse Jesus's statement: whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. It seems that the Republican allegation that this man is full of pretense and empty words--in other words, a modern-day Pharisee--is more than justified.

Obama may not want to help his 26 year old half-brother, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. I'm starting the George Obama Compassion Fund which has the goal of raising some money to help George move out of his one-room hut. George also wants to become a mechanic and surely he could use some funds to get the training he needs to fulfill his humble aspirations. Currently George lives on a few dollars a month. Even a few thousand dollars would completely transform this man's life.

I'm putting up $1000 to get this fund started. I invite people to send me small contributions--$5, $10, $25, whatever you can spare. Send them to P.O. Box 3384, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067. Make your checks to "George Obama." I will then contact the Obama campaign and offer them the money on the condition that they forward it to George Obama in Kenya. The advantage of this approach is that not only does George Obama benefit from our generosity, but also Barack Obama can use the opportunity to improve his relationship with his half-brother. Let's foster Obama family values, and give a break to a guy who really needs it.

Who could not be moved at the sight of a major political party naming Barack Obama, an African American, as its presidential candidate? To me, there could not be a better sign that America has left behind its racist past. We are now approaching what may be termed "the end of racism." The End of Racism was the title of my 1995 bestseller, hugely controversial when it was published, but now it seems to have been a decade ahead of its time. If we appreciate the significance of our current moment, we are driven to an ironic but rational conclusion: perhaps the best way to recognize Obama's historic achievement is to vote for John McCain this November.

Consider this: for the past several years we have been hearing liberal Democrats emphasize how racism still defines America, how things haven't really changed all that much, how racism has gone underground and is now more covert and more dangerous than ever. It may seem strange that a racist country would adopt legal policies that discriminate against the majority and in favor of minorities. Even so, liberal activists and civil rights activists continue to browbeat white America in the schools, in the universities, in politics and in the media if there is the slightest dissent from civil rights orthodoxy.

Well, I don't know how many people have been drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, but these people must be utterly shocked at the success of Barack Obama. Here is a guy who could not possibly have made it as far as he has with only black votes. He has attracted not only white votes but the votes of some of the most affluent and successful segments of the white community. Obama, not Hillary, is the pillar of the white establishment. Moreover, Obama's own campaign is based on the premise that America is no longer racist. Far from making race-based appeals, to blacks on the basis of solidarity, and to whites on the basis of guilt, Obama campaigns on the expectation that whites share his economic values and foreign policy positions and view of America. In other words, Obama's public message is that race doesn't matter and that transracial alliances should be built on shared political and cultural values. It's a good message, and how it must dismay professional civil rights activists to hear it. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesse Jackson is telling family members, "If race relations keep improving like this, I may have to get a real job."

Clearly there are many in the liberal Democratic camp who are made profoundly uncomfortable by the recognition that racism is no more a defining feature of American life or even African American life. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that racism does not exist. This is a big country, and surely one can find several examples of it. But racism, which used to be systematic, is now only episodic. In fact, when I ask young blacks on the campus today whether America is racist, many say yes. But if I ask them to give me examples of how that racism affects their lives, they are hard pressed to give a single one. The best they can do is to mention "Rodney King" or provide some well-known, recycled horror story. Recently someone told me that McCain is still winning the white vote by a substantial majority and that shows "we have a long way to go" in overcoming white bigotry. By this logic, blacks are have even longer way to go in overcoming their bigotry since Obama is winning almost 98 percent of the black vote. When your logic leads to an absurd conclusion, go back and re-examine the premise.

Even though Obama's candidacy signals that America is overcoming its racial past, neither Obama nor his wife recognize that. Their personal statements, as seen for example in Obama's books, are suffused with race-consciousness, race-obsession and even racial resentment. The more privileges they have received on the basis of race, the more embittered they seem to become. The source of these pathologies is the very liberalism that the Obamas have embraced: a liberalism that declares them equal while treating them as inferiors who need preferential treatment. (Liberals hate to have this pointed out; hence the irrational invective of the early responses to this post.) The solutions are obvious. If you want to get rid of racial obsession, stop talking and thinking about race so much. If you want to remove race as the basis of decision-making in America, let's eliminate America's policies that make race the basis of decision-making. And if you want a party that stands for color-blindess and equal opportunity, you might consider voting for the Republicans.

I think I'll let the Democrats define themselves more clearly at the convention before I comment on it. But I cannot help but regard Obama's choice of Joe Biden as a blunder. Hillary must be going nuts and thinking: "How many votes did I get and how many votes did this guy get? Is this affirmative action for white males or what?" Leave aside the fact that the choice is unimaginative, uninspired, banal. It seems that Obama is going after the hoi polloi by naming one of their undistinguished number to the ticket. Sure, Joe is a jovial character, but when is the last time he had an idea? To date his best lines have been plagiarized from others. Let's just hope he doesn't begin his convention speech, "Four score and seven years ago..."

Well, it's Obama who's at the top of the ticket and it's Obama we should be focusing on. So far it sounds like Obama is running not for president of the United States but for president of the world. Obama is a globalist, and in his Berlin speech at the Brandenburg Gate Obama decalred himself a "fellow citizen of the world." I guess this means that in conflicts between our world and other worlds, Obama is decidedly on the side of Planet Earth.

Sure, there's more to Obama's argument than his platitudes. Essentially Obama has been arguing that "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands alone." The problem with this is that there are competing ideals and competing interests in the world. China would like to be a regional bully and kick around the little countries that are in its neighborhood. Russia too would like to restore some of its czarist and later Communist hegemony. How exactly does our Chicago community activist propose to change these global realities?

Obama's answer is: through the power of prose. In his stump speeches Obama has been sounding a Robert Frost note, talking a lot about walls. According to Obama, the greatest threat in today's world is not terrorism or nuclear war. Rather, the "greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another." According to Obama, the walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic, or between natives and immigrants, or between races and religions, "cannot stand."

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall," Frost wrote, and certainly we can all share the feeling. Perhaps the best example of an unloved wall is the Berlin Wall, which came down thanks to the efforts of people like Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope, Havel, Walesa and Solzhenitsyn. Yet Frost's poem ends with these striking lines: "Good fences make good neighbors." Frost's point is that the sentimental resistance to walls must be modified by the recognition of the utility and even indispensability of walls. I'm quite sure the Obamas understand the principle quite well: they would not be happy if their neighbors' kids crossed into their yard and treated it as their own. Good fences make good neighbors.

So when should walls be taken down? Consider a contemporary example. It's possible that the wall the Israelis are building is saving Israeli lives and protecing that nation's security. It's also possible that the wall is unncessary, and that it's fueling further Palestinian grievance. My point is that the correct position is going to derive from a careful analysis of the situation on the ground. Vague and lofty talk about the badness of walls isn't going to help. Yet that is precisely the level of analysis that we are getting from Barack Obama. Now will the press stop genuflecting before this man and do him--and our democracy--the dignity of critically examining his views?

Former Republican strategist David Gergen charged on ABC's This Week that the McCain camp is using code words to tell Southerners and other white voters that Barack Obama is uppity. Watch it here:




Let's not repeat the same mistakes over and over. We don't need a president who is just like us. We need a president who is the best and the brightest among us.

Imagine if the founding fathers used this George Will test for picking their leaders? Well, Thomas Jefferson is really bright but I'm not sure I can have a beer with him, so I'm going to vote for the village idiot instead. I guess if they used the beer test back then, Sam Adams would have been in great shape.

More Young Turks on You Tube

The latest set of ads by the McCain camp against Barack Obama are comical. They have compared him to Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Moses. I think they're doing him a huge favor. They keep showing pictures of him being cheered by huge crowds, often waving American flags.

And as you can tell from this interview that McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis has with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, they are just pissed that they are not as popular as Obama. What a sad, weird way to run a campaign:




I think the only thing they are doing right in this regard is that by constantly attacking Obama, they have him playing defense and they have switched the conversation into one that is centered around whether Obama should be president. In fact, we should be talking about how the Republican have run this country into the ground over the last eight years -- and do we want that to continue for another four years? While McCain's ads are strangely complimentary of Obama in an unintended way, Obama still needs to change the topic.

Young Turks on You Tube

In Obama's speech in Germany he explained why he loves America in a way that shows a deep understanding of what this country is all about. Unfortunately, I don't think the conservatives get what he's saying. I explain it below (including a clip of the speech):




If you want to hear the difference between Dick Cheney's version of America and Obama's version watch here.

I have a perspective on this that a lot of Americans who were born here don't. I didn't have to be an American. I chose to be one. I became an American because I love this country and what it stands for. One of the reasons I'll be voting for Obama is because he understands how powerful the idea of America truly is.

Young Turks on You Tube

George W. Bush is a historic embarrassment that will forever stain the legacy of American democracy. Listen to short clips from his press conference yesterday and see if you can make it through a couple of minutes without averting your eyes:




I always come back to the same point because it is the one that makes the biggest difference. The press failed us. This man was always stupid -- and glaringly so. The press needed to tell the American people that the emperor had no clothes on. Instead they spent so many years covering his ass. That's how this imbecile was elected a second time. It was great failing of the press, while they thought they were being "neutral." Your job isn't to be neutral, it's to be objective.

A neutral sports reporter would be laughed out of the press box. The Cowboys beat the Giants 42-10. The neutral reporter says they both played fine. The objective reporter says the Cowboys kicked ass and the Giants sucked. Report the score!

A neutral reporter says John McCain and Barack Obama are both fine candidates who represent a change from George W. Bush. An objective reporters says that John McCain's policy proposals are nearly identical to George W. Bush's. They agree on at least 95% of the issues.

You don't have to say John McCain sucks, that's an opinion. But you do have to say that he is nearly a carbon copy of Bush. That's a fact. If you don't report that, then you are not doing your job of informing the American people. That's how we get incompetent presidents like George W. Bush -- because the press was too scared to report the obvious truth.

The Young Turks on You Tube

My laughter still hasn't subsided from the last post. I told my research assistant, who happens to be an atheist, that many of his fellow non-believers were too dumb to recognize even the most blatant irony and satire. He refused to believe it, until he saw it with his own eyes. He's a believer now, at least in the fact that there are plenty of atheists who are as clueless as the most ignorant fundamentalist.

Now that I've established that beyond a reasonable doubt, it's time to move on to the latest political news. In his latest speech, Obama confidently declared that America's war in Iraq is a "distraction" from our involvement in Afghanistan.

Leave aside the problem that Obama's Iraq views and policy all seem formulated prior to actually finding out what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is scheduled to go to Iraq later this month on a "fact finding mission." He will also visit Afghanistan for the first time. Couldn't Obama's wisdom on Iraq and Afghanistan have waited for what he might find when he's over there?

Liberal Democrats like Obama keep saying Iraq is the "distraction" when, from the point of view of the Islamic radicals, Iraq is absolutely crucial. Al Qaeda has publicly stressed that Iraq is the global center of the war on terror, the staging ground for the beginning of World War III.

Why is Iraq so important to Bin Laden? Because since 1979 the radical Muslims have controlled only one major Muslim country, and that is Iran. They are desperate to get their hands on a second one. They have already said that if they get Iraq, they will focus next on Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

For America, Iraq is crucial for a reason regularly stressed by real estate agents: Location, location, location. Here are the names of Iraq's neighbors: Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Is there any doubt how important it is to have a pro-American Muslim government (or even better, a pro-American Muslim democracy) in that neighborhood?

By contrast, it is Afghanistan that is quite frankly a "distraction." Afghanistan was chosen as the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks because the Taliban government provided rent-free accommodations there for the Al Qaeda training camps. It was essential for the U.S. to get rid of the Taliban, and I'm glad the international community is keeping an eye on the place to prevent a return of those fanatics. Even so, anyone who thinks Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq needs his head examined.

If Obama's dismissal of Iraq seems like the unserious speculation of a novice, McCain has shown the prudent judgment of a real statesman. When almost everyone was against the surge, McCain pushed it. It wasn't that Bush talked McCain into supporting the surge. The truth is actually the opposite: McCain sold it to Bush.

It is the surge that seems to have changed the facts on the ground, and that is a testament to McCain's political bravery and strategic far-sightedness. Let's hope Obama finds out what is really going on before he issues more pearls of unwisdom.

Yesterday, the United States government agreed to give up some of our fundamental and unalienable rights because they were scared of Osama bin Laden. That is pathetic. We handed the Fourth Amendment over to Al Qaeda and changed our way of life because our leaders are afraid of a bunch of ragtag terrorists.

Democrats went along with this Republican plan, including Barack Obama, because they are used to the politics of weakness. They would have won and protected our freedoms if they had instead engaged in the politics of strength. How could they have done this? Watch below and you will see:





Watch the Best Internet TV Show on the Planet Here

Young Turks on You Tube

Has Obama actually moved to the center since the beginning of the general election (he claims he hasn't)? And is that a bad idea? Find out here:




Watch The Young Turks Here and Our You Tube Channel Here