Sunday, March 16, 2008

Cunning II

In the post below, I revealed what has now become obvious. Hillary's attack, utilizing Geraldine Ferraro, was a planned hit that went better than anyone could ever have imagined. Incredibly, it turned out to be the campaign equivalent of softening up the defenses with an air assault prior to the ground invasion.

To be clear, it was no mistake that the Rev. Wright video, which has been in the public domain since the start of the campaign, received broad public exposure this week. Once the Ferraro remarks drew Obama into playing the race card as described below, Hillary's friends in the mainstream media started running stories on Wright as a means of saying, "Oh yeah pal? Who did you say is running around with racists?" This certainly explains why Ferraro agreed to run point on this attack since it was all but certain that once the public was exposed to Wright's noxious racial theories, Ms. Ferraro's comments would drift out of the public consciousness.

Incredibly, Obama continued to fumble this story going into this weekend. First, the Wright attack was brilliantly timed so that it would receive Thursday and Friday news cycle airing, while any Obama denial would land in the Friday night/Saturday morning graveyard of public attention. Further, instead of remaining consistent with his theme of new politics and change we can believe in, Obama seems to have resorted to unbelievable, Clintonesque denials:

"...The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.
...Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good."

Who does this guy think we are? Whether or not Obama actually sat in the pew during one of this loathsome man's tirades is hardly the point. It simply defies credulity that the good Senator, who titled his book Audacity of Hope after Wright's sermon Audacity to Hope, was blissfully unaware of this Wright's views. Furthermore, if he somehow was unaware of these views, what does this say about his judgement?

Unfortunately for the Senator, there are folks out there on the other side of the political divide looking at the evidence. Check out this post from Rich Lowery over at the corner which seems to indict the truthfulness of Obama's denial of knowledge. Key quote:

"And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. As the sermon unfolded, though, the stories of strife became more prosaic, the pain more immediate. The reverend spoke of the hardship that the congregation would face tomorrow, the pain of those far from the mountaintop, worrying about paying the light bill…"

So Obama is a liar or at the very least, a typical politician looking to cast himself in the light most favorable to his target audience. This second alternative really seems to be the case. In the early part of his career, he apparently adapted his views to those of his predominantly black constituency, nodding in apparent agreement with the Reverend Wright during one of his explosive sermons. Now, the Senator is repackaging his image into a post racial appeal that necessarily requires him to turn his back on some of the more questionable associations that helped fuel the early stages of his career.

As a result, we see today that the good Senator has been caught between his old life, and the sanctimonious image he has crafted for himself in this new stage of his career. These two points are irreconcilable, yet instead of coming clean for the electorate and admitting that he may have made some mistakes in the past, he is choosing to follow the Clintonesque path and lie in order to have it both ways.

The problem is, we already have a Clinton in this race and she, at the very least, is clear about who she is and what she will do to get elected.

No comments:

Post a Comment