The National Review's Final Roll of The Dice: Obama is Bush.

You've got to give The National Review their due, they see hope where others have already resigned themselves to despair.

Patrick Reddy leads the way with an article entitled, "Were Chisholm and Jackson Trailblazers?" and predicts that Obama will lose because:

“trailblazers” are often seen as “too much change, too risky, and too exotic” — and rejected.

But Obama should not think he has spent his time in vain as:

From the first Republican to the first conservative Sun Belt Republican to the first Catholic, they’ve all faced barriers that were too tough to overcome. Still, they’ve often paved the way for future candidates.

Reddy makes the comparison to Kennedy - and the fact that Kennedy was the US's first Catholic president - but still makes out that Obama is somehow the "risky" choice. That the term "risky" can be applied to the Obama/Biden ticket as opposed to the ticket of the 72 year old McCain with the hapless Palin as his VP choice says all that needs to be said about the sheer amount of wishful thinking going on here.

Likewise, the National Reviews editors have decided to endorse McCain in an article named, "The Choice" which appears to me to be more of a long list of reasons as to how Obama is far too leftist to be president rather than any real argument as to why the US needs McCain at this moment in time.

So, there are some on the right who still think McCain might pull it off against all odds come Tuesday, mostly on the belief that, when the voter finds himself in the booth, he will find himself unable to finally push the button for the "exotic" candidate.

It says a lot about just how shoddy John McCain's campaign has been that the final argument of true believers should have been reduced to this.

But the final bit of National Review wishful thinking is best expressed by Bill Siegel in an article entitled, "The Left Has It All Wrong", which argues that it is Obama rather than McCain who offers another four years of Bush policies.

The irony here is that Obama actually has much more in common with Bush than McCain does.

The actual irony here, of course, is that if The National Review really believed in Siegel's argument then logic would dictate that they should be endorsing Obama, as they have spent the last eight years enthusiastically supporting Bush and the vast majority of his policies.

But, in reality, they are simply howling in the wind and, in a manner indicative of the way in which McCain has conducted his campaign, they are literally saying anything - no matter how ludicrous - to convince themselves that disaster is not upon them.

If this was a dog it would be shot to put it out of it's misery.

Tags: The National Review, Obama, McCain, Bush, US election 2008, endorsement