Exhibit A for the proposition that Sen. Barack Obama can speak and the mere rhythm and pitch of his voice can cause normally intelligent people's brains to fall out was the mainstream media reaction to his "race speech" last week. Obama spoke eloquently on the issue of race and used his skills as a Jedi Knight to convince everyone that Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the racist you were looking for.

As Christopher Hitchens noted:

Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been—and were—applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.

Yes, I realize that the revelation that Obama is a Jedi Knight will win him some votes. I also realize that this likely makes me a Sith Lord. I can deal with it.

Exhibit B for this proposition was this endorsement of Obama over the weekend by Republican lawyer Douglas Kmiec. With a wave of Obama's hand, Kmiec is willing to sacrifice just about everything he believes in for a smile and a nod from Obama.

As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

Right up until the point that he replaces Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter with even more left-wing "living constitutionalists" who explain away the clear text of the constitution for their own policy preferences.

I'd long thought that all of Obama's unity talk was bogus. After all, Obama's unlikely to unify me to him unless he chooses to give up on his efforts to socialize medicine, plunge Iraq into chaos by prematurely pulling out U.S. troops, and insuring abortion-on-demand past the point of birth. (Obama famously voted as an Illinois legislator to allow babies who survived botched abortion procedures to be executed.)

But all this seems to have worked on Kmiec -- who just a few short months ago was supporting Mitt Romney, a candidate who had next to nothing in common with Obama on any substantive policy question.

Obama talks a good game -- and that's all he does. He talks about how he will reach across the aisle and unify Americans, but in his time in the Senate he's never even come close to the aisle. National Journal listed Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate -- and Ted Kennedy's still a senator last I checked.

Support for Obama is like a second marriage -- the triumph of hope over experience.