This post has the virtue of being extremely clear about its premises.

Here's one premise:

Americans are in a panic and Obama is a Rorschach ink blot that people project their hopes and fears on. If he doesn't embody his story he literally ceases to exist.

I've heard this a lot in the Cafe lately. At first sight it looks like obvious nonsense. Of course, that's because it is nonsense.

But how could anyone believe something that sounds this absurd? The answer is that it's a completely accurate definition of the poster's own interest in Obama.

"For me, Obama is a Rorschach ink blot. I am only interested in him because he seemed to embody a story about the authenticity of a popular movement that would rise up and destroy politics as usual. If he stops representing this, I will lose all interest in him, and he will literally cease to exist. For me."

In that case, I have bad news. As soon as Obama is inaugurated, he's going to cease to exist. For you Because he will no longer be a Rorschach ink blot that represents "change." He will be the chief executive, and as he governs the country, his Rorschach openness will be defined and limited by a history of past choices and compromises. He will be the political establishment. Not because he has (or hasn't) sold out: he will be the establishment by definition.

If you care about giving the American people solutions for concrete problems -- health care, Iraq, climate change -- this is great news. If you care about Rorschach blots and blank slates . . . well, there's always 2012.

Read a frigging book or two and then come back to offer reasonable and rational comments. Hit Google for 45 minutes and you will know all about his varied background of accomplishment.

Anyone who doesn't know all the stuff Barack has done needs to correct their own ignorance, not fault Obama for not writing yet one more book or giving yet one more interview or making yet one more speech or authoring yet one more draft of his policy positions.

Seriously, do you even read this shit before you post it?

So, I am quite convinced that one of the biggest problems we face as a society is the inability of police to enforce traffic laws. It's like every person in the city is walking around firing guns into the air with no response from authorities.

You can't cross the street at a crosswalk without getting run over or being threated to have your ass kicked for pointing at the stop sign the person apparently didn't notice.

The Broken Window Policing was put to great use by the New York City Transit Authority and led to massive declines in crime throughout the city. It started with the simple act of saying enough was enough to daily law breaking of so-called "small" crimes.

I submit that someone barreling through a residential neighborhood, even if in the middle of a city, at twenty or thirty over the posted speed limit is doing a lot more than simply speeding. That is reckless and has caused many deaths. I say these deaths are murder, because that person is willfully breaking a law put in place to protect us in our communities.

I am kicking around ideas of how we could fix the problem, but haven't come up with anything yet. I am thinking video documentation that can be used to back up "citizens complaints" to have these people fined. I'll go out my video camera and get everything they need.

Not sure if there is a statute for such a thing, but there should be.

I had another idea and it actually overcame my objections to wide-spread monitoring of city streets. Imagine a Corner Cam at every single corner in the city. A web cam if you will. Since cops can't be everywhere, I can jot down the details of any encounter involving moving violations that are life-threatening.

When I get home, I can go to AssholeDrivers.gov and type int he details. The camera for the corner and at the proper time would allow me to file a direct complaint along with evidence to the authorities.

I would actually be OK with ubiquitous monitoring for a while if it allowed us to better enforce our laws since the cops apparently have no interest in doing so, at least here in DC.

He is running against his own personality, his private ghosts and demons.

Dee-uh... Dat sounds lojikul!

Arianna Huffington should really, really, shut up. Gore didn't move to the center, in fact, it was just the opposite - he moved to the left and when he did so he surged in popularity. Let's not forget that Gore won that election.

Interestingly, every four years since 1948, we've handed the presidency and nuclear weapons to someone we don't know. In the last two elections we handed it to someone who can't even pronounce the word "nuclear".

We simply have no sure way of knowing the person who is in that office - we have to depend on the process as it is and it is a vacuous process at its best and a virulent process at its worst. What amazes me isn't that we've gotten it wrong so much of the time, it's that we've gotten it right a few times and those few times were when we needed the right person at the right time.

The problem though, is that we can't know with any certainty who will be the right person at the right time, there are just too many factors and variables to vote with any level of comfort in our choice. There's no test we can administer, no experience we can judge future performance on, no campaign promises or positions - there is nothing. I don't even think "character" is a real judge of who is right for the office because circumstance can change or alter character for good or ill.

David states that Obama is a "Rorschach test upon which Obama supporters are projecting their hopes and dreams" [paraphrased, of course' but all leaders are going to project to their followers a mirror of themselves - that's not the leader's fault, that's the assumption made by the follower - the leader is like them, only better somehow, a somehow that can't be articulated.

Then there are all sorts of leadership styles and what kind of style is most suited to the circumstance and situation and of course, we won't know that until the situation arises that we can see that most clearly and that is apparent usually when a great crisis occurs that brings that skill to the forefront.

So how do we make that decision? We have to guess who we think will best be able to think through any decision, be flexible enough to change his thinking if need be and has the intelligence to do all these things while balancing the rights of the people with the responsibilities he has as the chief officer of the nation - and he has to really, really want the job and do the heavy work involved in the job.

In my opinion, the person best suited for the office, with these conditions in mind, is Obama. He not only wants the job, he has the ability to think and act reflexively and the intelligence to know when to exercise these skills. McCain would like to have the job, but he doesn't seem to have the energy or will to do the heavy intellectual lifting involved in the office. He doesn't do the work now - he readily admits he knows nothing about economics, he knows nothing about diplomacy and what is worse, he seems to take some perverse pride in his ignorance - he certainly doesn't think it is important, because while he readily admits to his ignorance, he never says he's going to do anything about it and that I find to be frightening.

Seaton thinks that Obama is a projection of his followers hopes and dreams and while he thinks that is bad, I happen to think that's good. I want someone if that office that actively seeks to reflect his followers wishes and hopes and think it's a damned sight better than electing someone who doesn't reflect those hopes and dreams, someone who doesn't give a damn about what his followers think or want.