The clarity that was supposed to inform the end of the Democratic nominaton for president was nowhere in sight last evening.  Senator Obama, long the presumptive nominee, gave his supporters a strong speech, but the shadow of Senator Clinton cast a quiet but unmistakable pall over what should have been a moment of unequivocal celebration.

Although Obama has certainly 'made history,' it's ironic that it stands in contrast to the dream of Martin Luther King, which was that we would judge people based on character, not skin color.  Compounding the irony was Rep. James Klybourn, the most senior African-American member of Congress, who said that Dr. King would approve of Obama and his church afiliation.  Really?  Run the tape of Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger in your mind and then juxtapose it with King's speeches, which had the intuitive ring of truth.

However, back to the specter of the looming presence of the Clintons.  Overshadowing Obama's unprecedented achievement was Clinton who offered her services as VP, a prototypical power play by the ones who wrote the book.  Word has it that she plans to force her way onto the ticket, making the argument that if voters truly want Obama to win in November, she's the best choice.

It's been observed that an expansive ego is a pre-requisite for national politics, and if that's the case, Hillary must think she's Rushmore material.  The problem is that the more outsized the ego the more blinkered its judgment, and with Bill in the wings, incandescent over the scathing article in Vanity Fair, the prospect of bringing her onto the ticket must make Obama ill. 

A more substantive alternative, sans the political baggage, is former Sen. Sam Nunn, whose broad and deep foreign policy experience brings desperately needed gravitas to the ticket.  Former Sen. George Mitchell has also been mentioned, but he's stronger in diplomacy, a suit where Obama excels, to a fault.

But before the nation is fully lulled into an Obama-swoon, we hope voters will more closely examine who this man is, and where he might take America should he win.  An editorial by Michael Powell in today's New York Times, provides a curious kind of insight:

“I am like a Rorschach test,” he [Obama] said in an interview with The New York Times. “Even if people find me disappointing ultimately, they might gain something.”

What it is, might elude the average person, because imputting values into a politician can be both unproductive and dangerous.  Most voters want more definition, less pop psychology.  Indeed, it's disturbing that a candidate for president would say such a thing because it suggests he's something of an empty suit--whatever you want me to be I'll be.  How's that for moxie?

And, in the same piece:

"But his insistence that he can bridge the nation’s ideological chasms without resort to partisan warfare leaves some with the nagging sense that he makes it sound too easy, and that his full measure as a politician has yet to be taken."

Well, yes.  It's certainly an undestatement that we've not yet taken his "full measure," but with timely assistance from his wife Michelle, we are learning quite a bit.  Listening to clips of her on Hugh Hewitt's radio show yesterday illustrated how she might well be the equivalent of Clinton's Bill, the kind of irrepressible personality that is at once powerful asset and a permanent liability.

Mr. Obama seems to be all things modern, fitting into a cultural definition that's both hip and articulate; Powell tells us:

"He favors moderate tastes, preferring organic tea to a tumbler of gin, salmon to steak, a fruit plate to fries. He jokes about tossing back a beer, but his tippling amounts to a swig or two, most often to try to prove to television cameras that he is a 'regular guy.'"

Frankly, this kind of stuff is difficult to tolerate.  The picture of a Tribeca kind of guy who gets his Omega-3s and is the picture of restraint from the excesses that typify politicians, is one where posturing equals substance, which is to say a kind of cardboard personality.  It's the kind of image that makes you yearn for the authenticity of a Jack Kennedy or a Ronald Reagan, whose bright personalities shone guilelessly through their politics.

We may never get that far with Obama because that Rorschach test may be the end of the road for this guy.  Indeed, his platform echoes the threadbare ideas of yesteryear's liberals--more government, more regulation, deft, adroit foreign policy--yawn.  Time will tell, and although Sen. McCain is not failing to live up to his annoying reputation as a maverick, there's a real sense of substance in his thinking, not the intellectual tap-dancing Obama seems to favor.

Conservatives might take a measure of solace in reading Jonah Golderg's piece in USA Today as he makes the case that the distinction between conservatism and Republicanism is crucial.  The former, he argues, is thriving:

"From proliferating state-level think tanks to massive organizations based in Washington, D.C., such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, the causes of limited government, defending life and promoting free markets are hardly without champions. And thanks to talk radio, Fox News and a general acceptance of conservatism as a legitimate viewpoint, it has never been easier for conservatives to get their arguments to the public."

Goldberg also credibly acquits conservatism as the modern equivalent of the last best hope for mankind, as well as a kind of pedagogical touchstone which provides the most beneficial lessons for human beings.  It's also unquestionably true that from higher taxes and regulation to the left's 'fresh approach' to foreign policy, to the extent they're able to implement their agenda, it will be met with the intransigent realities of an unforgiving world.  Even Western Europe is finally understanding that low taxation invites capital and encourages entrepreneurial spirit, and that the efficacy of a strong national security policy versus Senator Obama's pledge to win over the minds and hearts of the world's despots, is crucial.

All of these arguments have traction within certain parameters, and therein lies the problem:  While conservative think tanks are the bulwark against liberalism's effete, idea-free agenda, and although Obama's platform is at best McGovern on life-support, there's a broad swath of disengaged Americans who lap up the left's palaver as though it's nectar from the gods.  More critically, conservative outlets, be they think tanks, publications, talk radio, or the plethora available on the Internet, tend to be consumed by conservatives.  It's the rare liberal or conservative Democrat whose intellectual curiosity leads him to seriously consider the veracity of the conservative agenda.

That may be due to the rigorous demands conservatism exacts.  Indeed, unlike post-Kennedy liberalism, which embraces cultural anarchy, endorses international law, and gets squeamish about projecting American values, conservatism is a sturdy framework of ideas drawn from the Federalist Papers, a constructionist view of our Constitution, a nearly reverential respect for tradition, and an unflinching defense of moral absolutes.  Try applying those principles to issues facing your local school board, your city council, or any of a variety of civic, church, or volunteer groups.

The disquieting reality is that America has suffered a kind of cultural and civic bracket creep, a recalibration of values, and the result is that hard intellectual study that marshals evidence based on traditional values and principles is, to put it charitably, out of fashion.  More specifically, there is a glaring intellectual disconnect across all demographic groups, one that has been bridged by a culture of consensual superficiality, with the self-absorbed goal of eliminating duty and obligation, pain and suffering, and sacrifice and hard work.

In that tension-free world where high expectations are an oxymoron and government intrusion a redundancy, we can be assured that rewards will be provided for phantom efforts, self-esteem for the entitled guaranteed, and that the defense of our founding principles will be culturally proscribed. 

Conservatives must, of course, wage war against this sea of troubles, but it's discouraging when leadership at the national level is so clearly endangered.  Whether motivated by re-election fears or a failure to understand that traditional values are under fire, the vast majority of congressional Republicans are study in intellectual cowardice.  That leaves the heavy lifting to those of us with little power and less time, but for whom our conservative values are our very life blood.

Would that our Republican brethren--and conservative Democrats and Independents--felt the same way.