Gamma's link makes the same points the Esquire article does. Obama is more of a blank slate than McCain, but McCain version 2008 is far more troubling. GB, you kind of defended Palin and then pointed out VP is irrelevant, but you have yet to address my main question. What does that choice say about McCain? I view it as rash and confirming that he has either veered from his core principles or is willing to sacrifice such to win. Further, rashly made, it turned out to be a poor decision when she became a punchline. I was open minded about Palin, but after a few weeks, I was extremely disappointed. I'm not the only one. Esquire's endorsement is fairer; Obama has not grabbed a specific message and shouted it from the rooftops, but he need not. However, he is not the completely blank slate your article pretends. For example, he has set forth a comprehensive tax plan that most experts have noted is pretty similar to McCains. If people think he is a liar who will pull that plan and go commie red, then make that point, but engaging in the same "ambiguous" attacks seems like pots calling kettles black.
As for your article, I find the following absurd: "America was the party of liberty, whereas Europe was the party of equality. Just in the nick of time for the Obama candidacy, the American faith in liberty began to crack." The white working class's faith, (and Obama's economic principles), are not "anti-liberty." Further, no one's faith in liberty was cracked. Much of the gov't side of the mess was poor judgment. However, what Wall Street did was flat out morally criminal, and it would have been legally criminal if our Congress and Executive Branch had integrity and/or balls. Punishing criminal behavior is not anti-liberty, and frankly, I think Obama has shown more integrity and less likelihood of allowing such "Masters of the Universe" to profit improperly moving forward. McCain himself would be against it, but McCain v. 2.0 may not have the power to avoid such compromises.
The article also assumes Obama is anti-hard work or will instill policies that promote such. (Will a 2% difference in a graduated income tax at the highest level convince CEO's to resign and accept posts at $249,000? Let's keep it in perspective.) There is nothing in O-man's bio to suggest this. I love how he is characterized as "A creature of universities and churches and nonprofit institutions." What the hell does that mean? If he had gone to Wall Street after excelling at Harvard, he would be okay, but instead he volunteered. Also, it would have been better if his parents had paid for Harvard instead of getting in there on his own merits. Bush is this author's paragon (except he failed at business except when Dad's friends kept bailing him out.) I read Obama as promoting a meritocracy, and like they say about corn bread, ain't nothing wrong about that.