Webloggin » The Obama Problem: Not Fit To Be President

I’ve spent a significant amount of time defending the candidacy of Barack Obama. I’ve complimented his rise from improbable challenger to inspiring front runner. I’ve criticized attacks made against him, whether those attacks have been from the Clinton campaign or from conservatives. I’ve even made the daring suggestion that Obama should be elected based on his merits rather than his skin color - we don’t need a president elected through affirmative action.

That’s not to say I haven’t had my criticisms of Obama as well. There is nothing wrong with being a bumper-sticker candidate so long as the candidate has some substance to back it up. Obama is a nice smile and a nice voice. But scratch beneath the surface and we have a candidate who has accomplished absolutely nothing as a political leader. If Obama were to drop dead tomorrow, his legacy would be his campaign - he will be remembered for nothing more. He is the consummate cult of personality.

Which is why the Reverend Wright controversy could prove to be fatal to his political future. Suddenly the ‘personality’ has a dark side and this flap has people doing what the Obama campaign desires least: wondering what’s behind the smile and the voice.

Democratic politics has completed it’s long transformation into the politics of “who are you gonna believe? Me? Or your own lying eyes?“

This is observed in response to the bizarre excuses and defenses that his supporters have come up with for both Obama and Wright. Democrats have become the party of people instead of principles. I am convinced that there is absolutely nothing negative that may be attributed to Barack Obama that will not be defended, even if it is indefensible.

The only way to actually get a Democrat to do the right thing in a scandal is to convince them that it will further their political career.

Google “mccain” and “100 years” and it pulls up 349,000 hits. Why? There was nothing controversial about it and what he was indicating was pretty obvious. Yet there are thousands of sites out there right now creating a hoopla over this statement. Many, mind you, aren’t addressing the issue of why a long term presence will be necessary (ala South Korea) but rather how McCain wants to have a hundred year war in Iraq (Google “McCain” and the more hyperbolic “1000 years” and you get 56,000 hits). When a Republican speaks, there is no question in what he said and meant - only through convolution are the words controversial.

In December of 2002, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott resigned his leadership position (and any presidential ambitions) after praising former segregationist Strom Thurmond at his 100^th birthday celebration. Lott made a glowing reference to the Dixiecrat presidential campaign Thurmond conducted some half-century earlier. Within two weeks of making this single, off-the-record comment, Lott was giving up his position - with the Republican Party and the White House showing him the door.

To put it in some context:

Lott said one controversial statement about a man based on something that happened over 50 years earlier
- Obama has looked the other way while Reverend Wright has made vile comments multiple times over the years

Thurmond had long since rejected his controversial former views
- Wright was in his prime up until his recent retirement

Lott said a couple of nice things about the controversial Thurmond
- Obama has supported Wright as a leader, a mentor and for having an intricate and personal role in his family and faith

So why exactly is it okay to throw Lott to the dogs and yet give the old kitchen sink defense on behalf of Obama? One showed some passing support for an ancient and disgusting (and reformed) position of a long time senator; the other has expressed 20 years of inspiration and admiration of a racially divisive America-hater. Basically, both Lott and Obama have expressed respect and gratitude for racists. Just a bit of a double standard here?

John McCain recently blasted talk show host Bill Cuningham, who, while speaking at a McCain rally, made several insulting references to Obama by injecting his middle name (Hussein) multiple times in an introduction speech for McCain. Although this pales in comparison to the caliber of Wright’s comments, McCain didn’t need polling or focus groups or late night campaign meetings to determine that Cunningham was tactless and out of line and that his campaign would not benefit from this kind of association.

Likewise, Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff has seen numerous firings, resignations and disassociations due to inappropriate comments and tactics by people representing her campaign. Again, these offenses pale in comparison to the Wright controversy. Yet Hillary knows that she will be judged by the kind supporters she endorses.

Though this is foreign to some people, that is what a campaign is. The voters judge the candidates based on many qualities, one of which is ‘who does this candidate represent and who represents this candidate?’ Ron Paul supporters couldn’t figure this one out - Paul’s ties to and support from a whole host of racist organizations and personalities was inconsequential to them.

Let’s say the Klan becomes vocal supporters of McCain (for whatever reason). McCain expresses admiration for IKA Grand Wizard Ronald Edwards, cites his service to the community and his opposition to violence as a means to an end. Edwards shows up along side McCain and McCain attends speaking engagements by Edwards. When confronted about certain perspectives of Edwards, McCain says that he’s not that familiar with Edwards controversial views or he says that he disagrees with or rejects them, yet Edwards is a mentor and moral leader outside of the controversial things he’s said and when Edwards isn’t wrong, he’s quite inspirational. And they both believe in Jesus!

Obama supporters - are you saying that we should just shrug this off? Do we ignore the macro and twist and stretch various micros in efforts to give McCain the benefit of the doubt? Or do we simply judge him by who he associates with?

We want to know who we may be giving the keys to the nation to. Barack Obama’s connections to Reverend Wright are very much a window into his soul - the first real thing we’ve learned about Obama in some time.

Wright is a man, by Obama’s own accounts, who impacted his life and shaped his philosophy. Obama has spent most of his adult life under the moral and spiritual guidance of Reverend Wright. How do Obama supporters get the nerve to think that they can just dismiss that and recreate an Obama justifiably ignorant or indifferent to Wright’s troubling sermons?

This story now reintroduces the recent “proud” comments by Mrs. Obama. If Obama rejects anti-Americanism, then why does it seem that the most important people in his life all have a beef with this country? And that’s what we want to know - who is going to be whispering in President Obama’s ear? Who is he going to surround himself with? People who think that “AmeriKKKa” deserves to be attacked? That it is a racist country? That there is little to be proud of America? Will his “mentor” of 20 years have any sway over the Obama’s?

I have been making the point that Obama needs to essentially fire Wright from his life. Thank him for what he’s done for him but their relationship is over. Then Obama needs to find himself a mainstream church. I said this with the notion that only then will people get over it. If his interest in this church is purely religious, then he should have no problem doing that.

Now frankly, I don’t think that should cut it. Obama has made it apparent that the rhetoric of the preaching cliche and charlatan Wright wasn’t too radical for him. Obama has had years to renounce his pastor and put it behind him. He chose not to. And now that his seat is in the frying pan, we’re supposed to respect any denunciation he expresses in efforts to turn down the heat?

This isn’t on the same level as Trent Lott who was punished for a careless remark. This represents a life-time of adulation for a troubled mind.

I’ve never taken Obama too seriously, but suddenly I find myself questioning who this man really is. If he’s not sympathetic to his mentor’s public views then he is an enabler or at the very least, not troubled by them. Whatever he is, he’s not fit to be president.

[Discuss this article with Otto...]

Share This Article With Others: