Category Archives: Barack Obama

Barack Obama: The Presumption of Prejudice

Thursday, March 27, 2008

“Prejudice and discrimination have a certain ghostly momentum that continues for years after their demise.”

Barack Obama, more than anyone this election, has raised the issue of race and kept it in the headlines.  At first, it was a reasonable strategy akin to the way John Kennedy handled the potential of his becoming the first Catholic President in 1960.  The candidate tells everyone that it shouldn’t be an issue, the implication being that it is.  Many non-Catholics then, or white voters now will feel compelled to deny the implicit charge of prejudice and will support your candidacy to prove their point.  At the same time, Catholic and Black voters will be galvanized into voting for one of their own.  It worked for Kennedy, and has worked for Senator Obama – up to a point.  The  Pastor Wright controversy and Senator Obama’s speech on the subject of race are on the verge of casting the Senator as a Black candidate, rather than simply a candidate who happens to be Black.  The latter works for his candidacy, the former might not.  We’ll see.  (See “Channeling JFK,” posted March 14th here on WordFeeder.)

The explicit message of the Senator’s comments on the subject has been to describe Black and white Americans as racially sensitive.  The typical white person, he tells us, is still apprehensive, if not outright fearful in his or her contacts with Black Americans who still feel resentment for inequities against which they have long struggled.  Senator Obama pretends to be enlightening the American voter by bringing all this to our attention.  Others no doubt think he’s stirring the pot.  My feeling is that he’s a throwback to another era, not all that many years ago, but another time nonetheless, and that bothers me.

He can’t be forward looking, and backward thinking at the same time.  He can’t bring us together, if he doesn’t appreciate how much progress we have made on our own toward precisely that objective.  I don’t particularly like the way he claims to speak for all Black people, and to understand the race-related anxieties of whites.  He may be bi-racial personally, experienced and well read, but that doesn’t make his interpretations of Black and white behavior universally or even generally correct.

Some time ago I worked with a gentleman, a quality individual in all respects, but somewhat odd in appearance and behavior, who is a member of a small, but prominent ethnic group.  He had one of those last names that could easily be mispronounced by people who didn’t know him.  To make matters worse, the common mispronunciation was a real word with unattractive implications.  I won’t give you his actual name which would be unkind, but will defer, by way of example, to a commercial which ran some months ago.

The ad featured a young man toward the end of an important interview which appeared to be going very well, when he rises to his feet, extends his hand to the interviewer and says, “Thank you, Mr. Dum-ass,” to which the interviewer, his displeasure obvious, responds by saying, “It’s ‘Doo-mahsss.’”  Needless to say, the real individual I’m talking about was the subject of considerable kidding, and suffered a daily struggle to feel good about himself.  As I remember, he often complained about how he was treated under various circumstances, attributing his lack of personal and professional success to his ethnicity.  In fact, as one colleague eventually told him, ethnicity had nothing to do with it.

Prejudice and discrimination have a certain ghostly momentum that continues for years after their demise.

For those who have been on the receiving end, they, like the rest of us, are prone to make assumptions which attribute the adverse aspects of their experience to factors other than their own behavior and capabilities.  Unfortunately, excuses, race-related or other, tend to distract from root causes, and delay the progress a clearer vision might accomplish.

For all of those who have reacted in a way conditioned by the habits of prejudice and discrimination against others, there are doubtlessly remnant feelings that persist without reason.  They can be hurtful, and die a slow death I’m not sure any politician can hasten.

Is all this worth talking about on the evening news?  I don’t know, except that exposure in the media tends to exaggerate the prevalence of any problem.  Blowing things out of proportion is an unavoidable byproduct and favorite pastime in the world of “Breaking News” and 24 hour coverage.

I wonder how much of what Senator Obama and his spiritual advisor, Pastor Wright, cite of the Black experience is still valid, or the vestigial mindset of another generation’s reality?  It’s a reasonable, although difficult question for someone to ask another of a different color, but Senator Obama raised the issue in public, and that gives all of us the right.  Senator Obama, how much of the reaction of typical whites to Black Americans which you describe is real, how much of it imagined, and how much of it the confused, outdated and inherently prejudicial teachings of 20 years of Sundays in the wrong place?

How much of the problems which still plague Black America are attributable to race, or to color-independent economic and other factors to which your attention and our country’s resources might be better directed?


Site Meter

Second Thoughts: How Hillary Clinton Snatches Victory from the Jaws of Defeat

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

“Suddenly, it’s no longer just about the super delegates, but also the ordinary ones trying to do the right and the smart thing.”

 There’s a piece on the Politico website (dyn.Politco.com), published yesterday, that is called “The Clinton Myth,” the gist of which is that she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning.  You should read the entire article, but here are the opening paragraphs.

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory.  An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

For the record, I am not writing this from my office on the planet Zork, nor am I an illegal alien of the technically correct type.  Also for the record, I think the Clinton campaign, which I favor, is in a world of trouble.  Yes, she needs to do really well in the remaining primaries, well enough to make the argument that she’s won in the states with the highest total electoral count, and would therefore be the more effective candidate to run against McCain – an argument that I suspect will weigh impressively upon super and regular delegates alike.

That having been said, will someone please remember that elected Democratic delegates are not precisely required to vote for their state candidate on even the first, let alone the second and subsequent ballots.  According to section 12.J. of the Delegate Selection Rules, “Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”  That’s it.  That’s all it says. They could have written the rules to say something like, “…shall invariably reflect the votes that elected the Delegate at his or her state primary or caucus,” but they didn’t.  “Sentiments” are subject to interpretation and tend to change during a protracted campaign.

Many delegates will be from states whose primaries and caucuses were months ago.  They and their constituents may be having second thoughts about Senator Obama’s experience, policies and personal beliefs.  Would Iowa and other early, Obama honeymoon states favoring his candidacy produced the same results had the Pastor Wright mess been raised before they voted?There are roughly seven months between the first primary and the convention, seven months of hard fought campaigning against a backdrop of important domestic and foreign events.  Obama supporters may have second thoughts, as well might early Clinton advocates.  If we had a national primary, with the convention soon thereafter, time wouldn’t be so much of a factor – but we don’t, and it is.

If Senator Clinton can survive the first ballot at the Democratic convention, and depending upon how the last 11 primaries go, she may have a real chance of winning.  Delegate support for both candidates will become fluid, and there’s no telling what could happen.  Suddenly, it’s no longer just about the super delegates, but also the ordinary ones trying to do the right and the smart thing.

Predictably, some Democratic Party leaders and other notables fear an open convention.  These are what I call “Tidy Democrats” who publicly abhor the clutter of real democratic process in favor of wanting to broker their own solutions by frightening us into thinking we’ll lose in November if we’re not polite to each other.  They miss the point, and need to be reminded who’s really in charge of their Party.

In a close and highly contested race, what’s the point of having a convention if it isn’t open?

As for Politico’s point about no one being willing to tell a Black candidate that strict adherence to the process for nominating a Democrat for President has denied him a victory, it’s a notion that sells Senator Obama and other Black Americans – “the party’s most reliable constituency” – short.  It presumes that their only reaction to all things is racial and, as such, insults their intelligence and sophistication as voters.  Of course, if I were Black, it would be nice to have someone who looked like me in The White House.  If it doesn’t happen this time, it will happen soon, quite possibly with a Barack Obama candidacy in 2012 or 16.  So what?  Hillary Clinton is a woman representing a full half of the population that has never held the same high office.  Whoever wins, this election is history in the making.

He may not like the outcome, but I suspect Senator Obama and most other Black voters would agree that it makes no more sense to give him the nomination because he’s Black, than to deny him the opportunity for the same reason.


Site Meter

Question of the Day: Barack Obama’s Interview with ESPN Radio

Friday, March 21, 2008

(To understand the context of this Question of the Day, please see today’s earlier posting, “The Influence of Pastor Jeremiah Wright?”)

Given that Senator Obama is half black and half “typical white,” does he sometimes scare himself when he looks in the mirror?


Site Meter

Barack Obama: The influence of Pastor Jeremiah Wright?

Right Time, Wrong Candidate – Part 2
Friday, March 21, 2008

“Senator Obama’s repudiations notwithstanding, maybe he really was paying attention all those Sundays in The Church of Outdated Ideas.”

This piece is a sequel to an article entitled “Right time, wrong candidate.” which I posted on Wednesday.  I hadn’t intended to write a sequel, but then I didn’t anticipate that Senator Obama would make the comment he made yesterday on ESPN radio which clearly suggested that white people – not just a few or some white people, but white people in general – react with apprehension, and sometimes fear, when they encounter Black Americans.  To quote Senator Obama who was attempting to clarify what he said in his speech about race:

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.*

Senator Obama’s remark is too politically stupid for someone of his obvious intelligence not to actually reflect what he believes.  As such, it gives us extraordinary insight into the personality of someone who boasts of his ability to bring us together – all of us, Americans of course, but also nationals of other countries in the management of our foreign policy.

I don’t pretend for a moment to speak for anyone other than myself, nor do I believe that Barack Obama speaks for Black Americans other than himself.  What I am is a student of behavior, my own, and others I observe.

I was in New York, yesterday, on business.  It was a long day, including time on trains, taxis, and walking crowded streets.  It was, as always, an ethnically mixed experience of the highest order, covering the full spectrum of incomes and occupations.  I saw no fear in the faces of the white or other people who found themselves in the company of their Black countrymen.  Nor have I in the faces and behavior I have observed in any other context, in any other city, large or small, sophisticated cosmopolitan or working class rural, grocery store, mall or schoolyard.   What I see is people of all colors and hues, working, living and playing together.

No doubt there are still people out there, white and black, who harbor latent and even conscious fears of the other color, but if these fears are commonplace, if they are the norm, then I have completely missed it.

One of us – Senator Obama or me – holds the more correct view of how black and white people, Hispanics and other ethnic groups, have come to relate to each other.  I believe we are a nation that has gone from open prejudice to accommodation, to understanding, to acceptance, to “Who cares?” in my own lifetime, and I am impressed by, and proud of my country.  It’s breathtaking, the speed at which we have reaffirmed and extended the principles upon which our nation was founded.

If I’m wrong about how people feel toward each other, then I stand to be corrected, and will humbly return to my job and blog, the wiser for what I have learned.  If, on the other hand, Barack Obama is wrong, he can’t be allowed to be President because his point of view will adversely affect his ability to govern, to formulate and implement domestic and foreign policy.

From what age, from what era in all this progress we have made does Barack Obama originate his sense of the “typical white person”?  He tells us he is about the future, when he clearly lives in the past.  The Senator is 46 now, and for the past 20 years, since he was twenty-something, has considered the Reverend Pastor Jeremiah Wright to be his friend and spiritual advisor.  Senator Obama’s repudiations notwithstanding, maybe he really was paying attention all those Sundays in The Church of Outdated Ideas.

*From a telephone interview, yesterday morning on 610 WIP.  See the full text at http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/16849076.html.


Site Meter

Barack Obama: Right time, wrong candidate.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Yesterday in Philadelphia, Barack Obama delivered his speech about race and his relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright.   Some reviewers I’ve heard considered it to be on a par with Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream.”  I seriously doubt it, and will be surprised if it is remembered or revered as long, by so many of all ethnic groups and nationalities.

As oratory goes, it wasn’t even one of the Senator’s best.  The introduction was stock Obama verbiage, the same emotional, historic prelude we’ve heard before.  (Am I the only one who keeps waiting for him to get to the point?)  That “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community,” suggests that Black churches and their memberships share similar views.  His comparison between Pastor Wright and the older white grandmother who raised Senator Obama was inappropriate.  The latter shared her personal fears and prejudices of two generations ago in private with her grandson – for whom she cared despite his bi-racial heritage.  The Pastor, on the other hand, shouted his prejudices from the pulpit of his church to teach his parishioners, impressionable children and budding politicians among them.

Over the past 20 years during which Pastor Wright has been his spiritual advisor, did Senator Obama become the voice of reason within his church, in opposition to the Pastor’s admittedly objectionable points of view?  Did he, at the very least, move his family membership from the Pastor’s church to another whose clergy offered points of view consistent with those which the Senator professes to be his own?  What conversations did he have with his two young children who were exposed to the Pastor’s preaching, week in, and week out, as they were growing up?

It’s not at all clear that the Senator who tolerated Pastor Wright’s rants can be expected to emphatically discourage those sentiments elsewhere in our country and in the world were he to be elected President.

I would have voted for Colin Powell for President, his Republican affiliation notwithstanding, without a moment’s hesitation.  I consider him an exceptional American, particularly well-suited, by virtue of his experience and intellect, for the office of President.  And I am certain there are other highly qualified African Americans, of both genders, that I and the electorate in general would enthusiastically support, and with whom we would entrust the management of our government, and the security of our country.  It may just turn out that Barack Obama isn’t one of them.  For all but a relatively few of us, this election has never been about race, or gender for that matter.

The Senator is emphatic about his rejection of Pastor’s Wright’s points of view, an assertion which I accept without question or skepticism, the timing and circumstances of his comments yesterday notwithstanding.  My problem with Barack Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin – a ridiculous notion that distracts from the truth of the matter, although the argument may have worked for his campaign, until now.  (See “Channeling JFK,” posted March 14.)  It’s his lack of experience, and the overwhelming sense I have that he’s all talk, however well-spoken, and too little substance.  To these two, I now add a third concern:  That he lacks of the strength of character to correct prejudice, stand up against ignorance, and dispel anger whenever and wherever he encounters it.

He repudiates, but is slow to distance.  He objects, but does not change.  He explains, and thinks that is enough.  So next Sunday, or the Sunday after the Inauguration, when the Obama family goes to church, and should Pastor Wright happen to be the guest speaker that day, does the Senator sit there once again, accepting by virtue of his silent example what the Pastor has to say?  Whatever your ethnicity, what would you want your President to do?


Site Meter

Channeling JFK: Why Barack Obama Needs to Make as Much as Possible Out of Being Black, Without Overdoing It

Friday, March 14, 2008

“The subliminal message is simple: “Vote for Obama as a re-affirmation of your tolerance.”  How can we prove that race doesn’t matter?  What better way than by electing a African American President, that is, a President who happens also to be Black.”

Hard to believe that I can remember, as someone who first became politically aware in the 60s, when people wondered if America could elect a Catholic President, that is, “a President who happens also to be Catholic.”  I wasn’t old enough to vote when Jack Kennedy ran for office, but I remember being surprised that anyone would even ask what religion a candidate happened to be.  But it was in the news, and I just assumed that it must have been important to a lot of people – although, in retrospect, far fewer than the media exposure it received led us to believe.  It was an issue Kennedy addressed head on, in much the same way Senator Obama has discussed the race issue in this year’s election.

On September 12, 1960, Jack Kennedy made a speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association that Barack Obama could have written.  I won’t quote from it extensively, but leave it to you to read the entire text, if you like, at the website I’ll give you at the end of this column.  (The quote in the first paragraph is from the same speech.)

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this.  So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again – not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.

One view of the speech that followed is that he was using his considerable skills as an orator to make a stirring point about the idea of America, about the country we hope to be, but never quite realize.  In fact, what I believed he was doing then, and what Barack Obama is doing now with respect to his own ethnicity, was embarrassing non-Catholics into voting for him, while prodding Catholics to make sure that they did.  Far from attempting to put aside the issue of his religious affiliation, he was doing his best to make the most of it.  It’s a ploy that didn’t work for Governor Romney for a number of reasons, but it’s working exceptionally well for Senator Obama, so far.

Without question, Senator Obama is very intelligent, a deliberate person who thinks carefully about the major life decisions he makes.  He had to have known that he was running for President early in his political career, but it was a reasonable gamble.  If he failed, he’d benefit from the exposure and run again 4 or 8 years from now.  If lightening struck, and it did, he might actually be able to compete against the likes of the Clinton machine.  She and others running at the time would be experienced, but easily characterized as “old school.”  He would take advantage of his inexperience by leaving his opposition few accomplishments they could challenge.  He would be the idealist, somehow unencumbered by the traditional Washington and international relationships in how he would manage our government, and direct its domestic and foreign policies.  It’s a ludicrous premise, that knowing nothing about something makes you better able to develop or manage it, but the strategy has turned out to be exceptionally effective – which says more about us and how we view the role of our Presidents, than it does about him.

Senator Clinton is a woman.  That’s certainly as ground breaking as an African American running for President, but then she has baggage, a lifetime of history in politics that would turn off voters desperate for something new.  (I like to think of them as the “I don’t know what it is, but I want one” vote.)

Being as bright as he is, Senator Obama couldn’t have thought that no one would notice or care that he was Black.  In fact, he’s acknowledged that, regrettably, race is still a factor for some voters, and that there are those who would prefer to vote for someone of their own ethnicity – as there are Black Americans voting for him for precisely the same reason.  That’s certainly not a good thing, but it could make the difference in a tight contest for the nomination.  Once again, the Senator wisely chose to turn a potential problem to his advantage.

I don’t pretend to have any idea what motivates the Senator, but what I can do is offer a reasonable explanation for his behavior.  Rather than pushing aside the issue of racism, he’s help keep it in the news.  He’s used it, the way Jack Kennedy used the issue of his Catholicism, to energize the African American vote, while at the same time, in a subtle, but nonetheless effective way, daring more educated and young white voters to support his candidacy in spite of his race – which shouldn’t make any difference to them in the first place, and probably never did.  The subliminal message is simple: “Vote for Obama as a re-affirmation of your tolerance.”  How can we prove that race doesn’t matter?  What better way than by electing a African American President, that is, a President who happens also to be Black.

Senator Clinton would win the support of white women in impressive, but not overwhelming numbers, while Senator Obama would motivate Black voters to turn out in record numbers in near universal support of his candidacy.  Add the Black vote to those of young and educated white Americans, and he might just make it.

Unfortunately, but not unpredictably, there are signs that the experience issue is catching up to him, and that the power of his rhetoric is waning in the land of the short attention span.  He knows he’s got to close before the first vote at the Democratic convention.  If that first delegate vote doesn’t confirm his nomination, he’s in real trouble.  Could he have come all this way on a wing and speech only to finish in second place?

Far from running as an a-racial candidate, solely on the strength of his experience, policies and vision for America, he’s raised the issue race every chance he gets.  He’s allowed no one else to so much as mention the subject, however academically, without extending the coverage of those remarks with his own and those of his supporters, knowing full well that the media has time on its hands with an insatiable appetite for “Breaking News.”  Is he telling us that it doesn’t make any difference, or challenging us to vote for him because it shouldn’t, while reminding Black Americans what’s at stake?  He and his supporters can be critical of Geraldine Ferraro’s comments all they want.  In an election this close, they need to keep the race issue on the table, and I suspect they know it, because they’re too savvy not to.

Kennedy’s speech:  www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html


Site Meter

Obama’s Slight of Hand

Avoiding the question:  Was opposing the use of military force in Iraq the correct decision to have made at the time?

Friday, March 7, 2008

Those of us who live in the real world don’t have the luxury of making decisions retrospectively.  We use the best information available to us, choose the most responsible course of action, and hope for the best.

Who among us hasn’t made a well informed, righteous decision that turned out to be wrong?  It is, in other words, entirely possible to do something perfectly intelligent, to make the right decision, only to regret it later.

The trick, and I mean that literally, is to do just the opposite, to make a bad decision which turns out to have been the right thing to do – and then take credit for it, as if you actually knew what you were doing in the first place.

When State Senator Barack Obama made his speech on October 2, 2002, in front of that anti-war rally in Chicago – the speech which is the basis of his claim, “I opposed this war from the start.” – he acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was a “brutal” and “ruthless” dictator who had biological and chemical weapons, and “coveted” nuclear capabilities.  He then blithely offered his opinion, as if it was a point of fact, that we were in no immediate danger, and that the use of military force to protect the United States from these threats was, in his word, “dumb.”

Turns out, he was right, that by going into Iraq we would create more mess than we resolved.  Given that the WMD proved to be non-existent, the use of military force to protect us from those weapons was obviously inappropriate.  The problem is, he had no way of knowing it at the time, no way of knowing that the threat of these weapons of mass destruction wasn’t real.  Quite to contrary, he acknowledged the threat, but then chose to ignore it.  The wisdom of his statements that day in October, is hindsight.  It’s retrospective which takes his opposition to the war out of context.  He is, in other words, cheating, denying the reality of the original situation to make himself appear wise, when in fact he was lucky, at best.  Think about it.  He actually believed the weapons of mass destruction were real, and yet was willing to do nothing about it, other than make a largely ordinary, almost academic point about the consequences of any military police action, and wait for “the dustbin of history” to resolve the problem for us.

There’s nothing “dumb” about the old adage, “better safe, than sorry.”  That’s how it got to be an old adage.  Far from being insightful, the Senator’s comments were proof positive of his immaturity, naiveté, and lack of preparedness to be President.

You have to ask yourself, if not to abate the acknowledged threat of biological, chemical and potentially nuclear weapons in the hands of an anti-American despot – all negotiations and other non-violent means having failed – under what circumstances would he consider the use of our military to be warranted?  If the weapons had been as real as he believed them to have been, did he understand the risks he and the rest of us would be taking?  I’d almost prefer to believe he was just pandering to the crowd that day, rather than that he really wouldn’t have done anything as a matter of choice.

There’s another old adage that seems equally appropriate:  “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool…”  You know the rest.  The question is, can the Senator keep it up through the Democratic convention in August, and the general election in November?  (Saying attributed to President Abraham Lincoln.)

I’ve decided to hold my own “Obama for President” rally.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

This will be brief, and without parking problems.  All quoted materials are from Illinois State Senator Obama himself from the landmark (his notion, not mine) speech delivered before an anti-war rally on October 2, 2002.  For your benefit, I will listen carefully, and report readings on the WordFeeder “Applause-ometer” in response to the Senator’s comments.  The excerpts are extensive to be fair to the Senator, and so that you don’t think I’m editing his remarks to make my point.

“Good afternoon.  Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.”

Well, that’s a relief.  Heaven forbid we should elect a President who is opposed to war under all circumstances.  Note to Senator Obama:  This notion of “war,” as opposed to the “use of military force,” needs definition.  In your head, as President, are we really “at war” whenever we use our military?  Maybe we’ll work on that together in another article.

Polite applause, but then he’s just warming up, and it was probably cold that October day in Chicago.  Hard to hear clapping from people wearing gloves.  Back to the speech.

“I don’t oppose all wars.”

Okay, we get it.  You’re in favor of some wars, not others.

“After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.”

And yet, he made no attempt to enlist?  Much more, much louder applause.  People in the audience are taking off their gloves.  He’s cashing the “we’re still pissed off about the attack on September 11” chip.  Trite, but effective.

“[For those of you who don’t remember me having said this 30 seconds ago,] I don’t oppose all wars.  And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or patriotism.  What I am opposed to is a dumb war.  What I am opposed to is a rash war.  What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Applause continues to build as the anti-war audience gets into his speech, and is becoming desperate to keep warm.

I particularly like the reference to “arm-chair, weekend warriors,” but thought, for a moment, that he might be talking about himself.  Besides, if you’re going to offer advice from the sidelines, which is the right and duty of all Americans, might as well be comfortable.

“That’s what I’m opposed to.  A dumb war.  A rash war.  A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

Well said!  Wild applause, but now he calms the crowd, reserving their energy for the big finish, preparing them for the harsh reality of the current situation, as we all believed it to be at the time.  What skill.  What talent.  To borrow from Jerry Seinfeld, he is the master of his domain.

“Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein.  He is a brutal man.  A ruthless man.  A man who butchers his own people…”

Hold on, I think I’m going to be sick.

“…to secure his own power.  He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.”

The audience is quiet with shock and awe.

“Coveted” nuclear capacity.  Wow.  Can that man turn a phrase, or what?  I can almost see Saddam drooling over the potential for nuclear weapons, like the rest of us (men) pretending to ignore the cover of the SI swimsuit issue in the checkout line at the grocery store.

“He’s a bad guy.  The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.”

The crowd’s confused.  Up to this point, they could have been listing to a speech by John McCain.  They agree, but it is, after all, an anti-war rally.  They’re damned if they applaud, damned if they don’t.

“But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, …”

Wait a minute.  How does he know that?  No, he doesn’t know that.  This is his opinion.

“…that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

Individual members of the crowd shout out their approval.  What a relief.  This Saddam person is nothing to worry about.  History will take care of him.

This is change alright.  The plan seems to be to wait for Saddam to evaporate, with State Senator Obama’s personal assurance that we will all be okay in the meantime, that Saddam will not use his weapons against us, or share them with others who would.

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.  I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

There is strangely little applause, in deference to Senator Obama, mostly because the crowd is frozen and has lost the ability to move their arms.  Frostbite is becoming a real potential, but fortunately everyone in the audience has medical insurance.

Is this guy (State Senator Obama) psychic?  In retrospect, he was right on the money, but was it the right argument to have made at the time?  Was it gifted foresight, superior judgment, or just a re-hash of the then justified opposition to the war in Viet Nam 40 years ago, without rhyme or good reason?

“I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

And the crowd goes wild?

Hey, com’on.  He just acknowledged the brutality of a ruthless anti-American dictator who has weapons of mass destruction, which everyone believed at the time, but has reassured us that we’ll all be okay if we just wait for the “dustbin of history” to do its job, that the use of military force, as a last resort, to protect these United States is “dumb.”

This is your future President of the United States making the “I opposed this war from the start” speech he keeps talking about.  Why aren’t you on your feet, wild with applause and cheering?

Senator Obama’s Problem with Religion

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Senator Obama has been very careful to make sure people don’t think he’s a Muslim.  Heaven forbid.  I’m not a Muslim, by the way, and neither is he.  But so what if he was?  True, some of our country’s current enemies are followers of the Islamic faith – however distorted and ill-applied their understanding of its tenets.

The United States has had many enemies over the years, adversaries who have cost us far more than the terrorists of today have so far, and none of them were Muslims.  In all likelihood, there will be others in the near and distant future who will use violence to challenge our way of life, but who will be of different religions.  Are we not to the point where we understand that it is wrong, unfair, and fundamentally un-American to generalize the acts of these relatively few to the far greater numbers of people who may, incidentally, share their nationalities or religious beliefs?  I certainly hope so, and find it particularly immature of Senator Obama, who would be President and in charge of our foreign policy, to behave differently.

Maybe it’s just political.  (That’s not an excuse, just an observation.)  Maybe he’s concerned that many voters will think his being an American Muslim might affect his judgment, and imperil our country under his leadership.  (Can there never be a Jewish President for fear he or she will be bias in her handling of problems in the Middle East?)  Then he should say so in as many words.  He should demonstrate the leadership he is forever promising by telling us, in no uncertain terms from the pulpit at one of his famous rallies, that while many terrorists are Muslim, their religion is irrelevant. The problem, he should explain, is their personal beliefs –political and economic, as well as spiritual – which allow them to condone violence as an acceptable and perhaps even preferable tool for accomplishing their objectives.

Senator Obama is Christian, a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.  It is a church with a reputation for its ministry endorsing anti-Semitic beliefs, including those of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan.  According to a CBS News report, Senator Obama has characterized the prejudicial rants of former TUCC Pastor Jeremiah Wright as those of “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with.”  (References to Senator Obama’s relationship to the Trinity United Church of Christ and Pastor Wright are from the CBS News report, “For the Record:  Barack Obama,” February 28, 2008, currently running on www.CBSNews.com.)

The thing is, Senator, he is not your uncle.  He was your Pastor, and spiritual mentor.  If you honestly found his preaching and advice to be unacceptable, you could have acted over the past 20 years to have him replaced, or affiliate you and your family with another church.  How would you feel if you were running against Mayor Michael Bloomberg or some other Jewish candidate who was a member of a Temple where the Rabbi professed prejudice against African Americans?  I’m pretty sure you’d be out there insisting that he resign his membership, and chiding him for having put up with it for the past 20 years, calling into question his qualifications to be President.

So, Senator Obama, let me get this straight – because this is the message I’m getting.  There’s something wrong with being a Muslim, and you can tolerate some anti-Semitism as long as the ones professing it are people you like.  And you want to be President of the United States?  Well, let me give you some advice in the form of a quote from another US President:

“We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

That was written by Thomas Jefferson, Section II from a draft “Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia,” 1779.  The italics are mine.  Jefferson, in Section III to this same bill, further asserted that freedom of religion was one “of the natural rights of mankind.”

It’s not just about the right to worship, is it?  It’s also about not being penalized for holding any particular religious belief, about appreciating the fact that people of different religious beliefs can share the same core principles of our democracy, and can be equally effective in the management of its government.  This may not be something every American accepts today.  If not, that’s a change you can help accomplish.  Before that, you’ve got to believe it yourself. 

“I opposed this war from the start.”

A Criticism of the Clinton Campaign

February 27, 2008

Today’s quote is offered, in the strongest possible terms, as a criticism of the Hillary Clinton campaign.  I’ll be brief.  Let me refer you to a more explicit piece I wrote a few days ago called “Reckless Endangerment.”

The title quote, in case you didn’t recognize it, is by Barack Obama, said innumerable times.

From the outset of his campaign, Senator Obama has had Senator Clinton on the defensive regarding her vote to permit the use of military force in Iraq.  That vote, which she explained in her speech on October 10, 2002, on the floor of the Senate, was to authorize the use of military force, as a last resort, to protect the United States against what were then believed to be chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons in the possession of, and/or under development by Saddam Hussein.  In retrospect, that vote, which was approved by three quarters of the House and Senate, is regrettable – but that’s hindsight.  It was the right thing to have done at the time

Senator Obama did not vote for that resolution because he was an Illinois State Senator.  What he did instead was deliver a short speech 8 days earlier in front of an anti-war rally in Chicago.   He acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein and the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and yet, in the same short speech, called the use of military force, as a last resort, in defense of the United States, “dumb.”  His word.  His opposition to the use of military force – There was no “war” at the time. – is not something about which he should be boasting.  It was then, and still is  a sign of immaturity, of naiveté and irresponsibility – proof positive of his lack of readiness to be President.  The question isn’t whether or not Senator Obama “opposed this war from the start,” it’s whether or not opposing the war from the start was the right thing to have done.

Not interested in my opinion?  Fine.  Read his speech, and then ask yourself, if you were President and believed that a “brutal” and “ruthless” dictator had “developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity,” would you have considered the use of military force, as a last resort, to defend your country against these weapons “dumb”?

In his speech, Senator Obama says “I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States.”  Excuse me, but he had no way of knowing that.  It was his opinion, not an assertion of fact that he was offering.  So just how certain was he, or could he have been given what was known at the time?  It’s one thing to believe in something as a matter of principle, or to pander to a crowd.  The man does love his rallies.  To be President, and actually responsible for the lives of your countrymen and women, is another thing altogether.

Senator Clinton, if you or any of your campaign staff are listening, instead of defending your position or apologizing for it, you need to stand by it and challenge Senator Obama’s on the basis of his own words delivered in that October 2, 2002 speech.  Ask his supporters what they would do as President, if they believed, as he did, that the threats against our country were real.  Make it clear that his mantra, “I opposed this war from the start,” is the best argument yet, certainly on the subject of national security, in favor of your candidacy.

Either you make this point now, or I assure you John McCain will make it later.