Henry is now on a first name basis with his idol Obama. He is counting on "Barack" to defeat McCain, not only to be proved right (for once) but because he believes an Obama presidency will usher-in a new Reagan era. No, he's not in favor of unburing the Reagan and sitting him in the Oval Office again (though students of history will recall many medieval precedents). Henry knows that he can't have Arthur again and so will settle for even Mordred so long as he's ideologically pure if foul in word and deed. If you are thinking Newt Gingrich, then you certainly know your Henry.
For now, however, our intrepid advertising man (who could not be lured into journalism even by a handsome $25 honorarium) is concerned with the day to day business of getting Obama elected. This, of course, puts him in a nice pickle. On the one hand he must peddle the Che-Obama story, and even decry the fact that it has not received national coverage, while, on the other hand, he must defend Obama from the charge of being as Socialist (or anything else unsavory) that might obstrude his road to the presidency.
When Claudia4Libertad, who has been at the center of the Che-Obama story, opined on Babalú that Obama's ties to Socialism and his reaction to "Che" Guevara being apostheosized under the aegis of his campaign, led her to question whether "Che" was indeed "one of his idols," Henry replied that he was "giving [Obama] the benefit of the doubt." Which doubt, I wonder? Because there are certainly more than one. Apparently, Henry's faith in Obama is enough to cover all doubts; and, if his faith were to fail him, then his personal attraction to Obama would cover the slack.
By contrast, Henry will not afford McCain "the benefit of the doubt" about anything he has ever said or done in his life. He even refuses to acknowledge that he is a war hero, which even George did. In fact, he called McCain a wimp recently. In Henry's parallel universe Henry is a "hero" and McCain is a "wimp." And Obama, of all people, is "Reaganesque."
Henry has posted a series of links from airheads like himself who contend that Obama is channelling Reagan. How can insubtantiality mimic substance? Reagan never hid what he believed. He was nothing if not frank. Obama is anything but. His hollow rhetoric reduces everything to the most common denominator. It is not that he doesn't have bedrock beliefs, because he does; but, rather, that those beliefs are at variance with those of most Americans and must be concealed. Reagan used his forensic skills to advance his conservative agenda. Obama uses his to conceal his Socialist one.