Senator Obama is being hailed as the newest and freshest face on the American political scene. But he is advocating some of the oldest fallacies, just as if it was the 1960s again, or as if he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing since then.

He thinks higher teacher pay is the answer to the abysmal failures of our education system, which is already far more expensive than the education provided in countries whose students have for decades consistently outperformed ours on international tests.

Senator Obama is for making college "affordable," as if he has never considered that government subsidies push up tuition, just as government subsidies push up agricultural prices, the price of medical care and other prices.

He is also for "alternative fuels," without the slightest thought about the prices of those fuels or the implications of those prices. All this is the old liberal agenda from years past, old wine in new bottles, a new face with old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly over the past generation.

Senator Obama is not unique among politicians who want to control prices, as if that is controlling the underlying reality behind the prices.

That's this year's fresh-faced candidate trying to win over the old nag vote. The 2008 election will decide whether we voters understand that we are in the best economy ever (on Earth?) and that we should vote to extend it. That means Giuliani, Romney or McCain, all of whom have pledged to keep taxes low, preserve free trade and control spending, presuming each of them can be trusted and are able to do so.

Contrast that with the left-leaning policy and rhetorical trends among the Democrats. Not one of them wants to stand in or near the center. Not even Hillary talks about Rubin-mics (even though that is mostly myth and spin); no one celebrates Bill Clinton's decision to support NAFTA, which kept free trade going for the eight years between Bush 41 and Bush 43. Every Democrat wants the primary audience to applaud. Each fears the unions, the silent backers of MoveOn.org. They are the candidates of...what, exactly? Revenge against the majority of Americans who are prospering to varying degrees? Why make "income equality" an issue unless you plan on doing something about it once you have more power?