I don’t think the article really tries to make a case for either candidate, but rather an analysis of why it appears that Obama will win. In short: he’s not a Republican, whereas George Bush is, and John McCain is.

In general, the American electorate blames the party in the White House for economic problems, and punishes accordingly. There is some logic to this, but of course it ignores the bi-partisan avarice and corruption of the legislative branch, as well as the greed of the public.

Mr. McCain is certainly a Republican, and seems to have both heroic aspects as well as feet of clay. In contrast, I think the article accurately portrays the near-worship of Mr. Obama that is trendy in certain quarters. He is eloquent, and bright, and likable. He seems to have great potential. However, I think that a person’s actions and history yield more insight into who they are than the things that they say. I have doubts about Obama based on the long-time associations in his past that were continued until it became expedient for appearance sake to discontinue them. Who is he really, deep down? We may be about to find out. Worshiping a false messiah is not without its risks.

I thought the ending of the article was actually somewhat cautionary and worth noting:

“The reverence with which Mr Obama is regarded by most of the American media, and by much of the American elite, is such that, when I see him on television, I look — so far in vain — for the stigmata on his hands. This feeling is entirely appropriate, for what America seems to be preparing to embark upon is the most massive act of faith. Not since 1960, and the election of Jack Kennedy, has so much disbelief been suspended by so many in such a massive cause. If it does indeed translate into an Obama victory on Tuesday, further prayer may well be in order. Not long after Gold Diggers of 1933, I seem to remember, came The Grapes of Wrath.”

Note the end of the article