OK, today is a bit of a venting day. I read a story on Yahoo News a few minutes ago that frustrated and infuriated me, and I must now tell you all about it.

The Obamas are confident people. I’m all for confidence. But there is a not-so-fine line between confidence and presumption that I believe they crossed quite a while ago. So long ago that they and most of the country seem to have forgotten that the line ever existed.

The image of the freshman senator from Illinois sitting behind a seal that looks oh-so-very-much like the one that only the president is entitled to use is a pretty clear sign that he has taken victory for granted and is already operating as our emissary to the world.

Does he really believe that the American people are so weak-minded that he can simply make us think he’s already won by parading around with cheap knock-offs of our emblems of state? Worse yet, is he right?

It was surprising to see him speak without the aid of teleprompters during his world tour. His smooth and apparently effortless style suddenly devolved into something that sounded very much like the unpolished gaffs the media has so enjoyed harpooning Bush for in the past eight years.

Don’t misunderstand me — I’m not a huge fan of Bush, if for no other reason than my belief that the polarized like or dislike of his person and/or policies has put conservatives at a disadvantage in the upcoming election. But he has become the favorite punching bag of the media, and we shame ourselves when we dishonor the office of the president, whether or not we respect the man who holds it.

Not to go on too much of a tangent, but I’m similarly disgusted with the canonization of the man Bill Clinton, who dishonored the office himself while he held it. The man who used the Oval Office for his sexual liaisons with a female subordinate and set a record for major military deployments in his eight years in office is now a beloved humanitarian and voice of reason for recalling our troops from Iraq? God help us if we consider him a worthy representative of our country.

Anyway, back to the Obamas. So after watching him traipse around the world pretending to be the president, I read an article this morning about Michelle Obama’s plans for after she becomes first lady. Not her plans for if she becomes first lady. No, she’s already counting on it. After all, she’s a good dresser. What other qualifications could possibly be necessary?

Oh, but she does urge voters not to choose her husband just because of his winning smile. Shoot, there goes the whole basis for my decision.

Once upon a time, this kind of presumption was considered the epitome of low-class gaucheness. Probably still would be seen that way today if, say, the McCains were engaging in it. But in the Obamas, we seem to find their audacity a sign of their fitness for office. Maybe we’re desperate for confidence in our current situation — the stumbling economy, the energy “crisis,” the seemingly endless slog through Iraq. Change sounds good, doesn’t it?

But what solutions is Obama offering to those problems? Well, he’s open about his plan to raise taxes, although I doubt he’s totally honest about just whose taxes he wants to raise. And although the majority of Republicans and Democrats alike support off-shore drilling, he opposes it, saying that it would have no effect on gas prices and a negative impact on the environment. And Iraq… well, I’d sort of maybe kind of prefer to have someone with actual military experience making those decisions rather than someone whose policies are solely based on the most recent polls.

Sidenote alert: Funny how if you google “Bush lifts ban on offshore drilling” and then “gas prices fall,” you’ll find that they seem eerily related. The headlines about lifting the ban are mostly dated July 15. Then, a CNN article dated July 30 mentioned that gas prices had fallen for the thirteenth consecutive day. I realize that no offshore drilling had actually taken place between those two events, and I realize that correlation does not prove cause, but I do think that the mere prospect of decreasing our dependence on foreign oil has a positive psychological effect which is already being reflected at the gas pump.

And environmental issues? For their evidence, detractors point to catastrophic spills in the 1960s. Now, I wasn’t alive then, but I’ve heard that computers filled whole rooms back in those days, and I believe that technology has advanced ever so slightly in the past 40 years. So much that according to this article, “Downhole safety valves (some of the improvements added in the wake of those early mishaps) proved their worth during Katrina and Rita in 2005, when no significant spills from undersea wells were reported.”

Then there’s the point of natural seepage. Consider this: “Last year, the industry spilled 2,256 barrels of oil, fuels and chemicals, and during the first half of this year, offshore operators are on a similar course, having spilled 1,114 barrels in five incidents.” Sounds horrible, right? Now consider this: “The amount spilled by industry pales in comparison with seepage from natural fissures — an estimated 1,700 barrels per day off the coast of North America, regulators note.” That’s over 600,000 barrels per year. Does it make the extra 2,256 barrels of nastiness going into our oceans every year less nasty? Of course not, but it does give us some perspective on just how small our impact really is.

I would love to see us find some alternative fuel source that would be sufficient to meet our demands, but look at what using corn to produce ethanol has done to our food prices. Not to mention that thanks to ethanol, we can barely afford to feed our livestock. Not only has the price of actual corn products gone up, but since farmers planted fewer oats and other grains last year in order to produce more corn, feed prices exploded across the board. And why? So that people can pay more per gallon to run their vehicles on less efficient fuel to drive to the grocery store and pay higher grocery prices because we’ve tried to turn one necessity of life into another.

Again, I’ve wandered off point, but if Obama truly wants change, then why not do what’s necessary to change the issue currently affecting Americans of every class and income level?

I have this unshakeable mental image of a wealthy older relation who mentions to his poorer cousins that he’s considering leaving his estate to them upon his death. And then a day or two later, the poor cousins show up on his doorstep with all their worldly goods, move right on in, and assume all the privileges and benefits of possession without even knowing if it will ever be theirs. Kind of a combination of the story of the prodigal son, “Taps for Private Tussie,” and the Thenardiers from “Les Miserables.”

Will Obama win in November? Well, he’s got a 50/50 chance. But I wish Michelle would wait till after the election before she starts packing the china.