Obama's Revealing "Distractions"

Real Clear Politics ^ | 4/25/2008 | Charles Krauthammer

[SueRae]

Real change has never been easy. ... The status quo in Washington will fight. They will fight harder than ever to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November. -- Barack Obama, Pennsylvania primary night speech

WASHINGTON -- With that, Obama identified the new public enemy: the "distractions" foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January. "It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics" and "trivializes the profound issues" that face our country, he warned sternly. These must be resisted.

Why? Because Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)

Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.

In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?

[SueRae]

Charles nails it again. Brilliant.

[nuconvert]

“As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the “issues.” “

This is exactly what the Democrats and the MSM are trying to make everyone believe.

[Sacajaweau]

The first time I saw Obama...on Opra of course...he was promoting his book.

His Oratory Skills were the first thing you noticed. The second thing you noticed is that "he didn't say a darn thing that meant anything."

Like quagmire, the word "change" means nothing in itself without defining it...

[libertylover]

As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues."

Character IS important to me and to Charles, but in 1992 and 1996 Americans ignored the character of the Clintons and voted for them anyway. Why? Because to liberals, he's so cuuute.

[ClearCase_guy]

I think that's currently one of the sharpest divides between the Left and Right in this country. The Left thinks that character is not important and is not a leditimate campaign issue at all -- people are just wrong to bring up character or past history. On the Right, however, we think that character matters a great deal.

I've talked with quite a few people on this and difference is quite stark. Like talking two languages: the Left just doesn't see why character matters.

[Amos the Prophet]

This difference also illustrates the dislike liberals have for the Constitution. Representative government is based on the electability of candidates based on their character. When that factor is taken out of the equation we are left with party politics. This is precisely the direction the Democrat party is taking us.

They tell us that ideology is fundamental to good government. The Constitution is a flexible document in this view. It is an antique set of general guidelines written by old white men with no understanding of complex modern society. These are the words of despots, not patriots.

The choice, as always, is between people of character and those aspiring to the seat of power for the pursuit of their political pursuasion.

When politics becomes the master of government the governed become slaves to ideologues.

[Malesherbes]

Yes, brilliant article by Krauthammer about the “just-arrived pretender.” The sycophantic MSM actually has two components, the hard left who make no pretensions to objectivity, and the weasel-minded middle who claim falsely to be truth-seekers. This latter group may be nudged by an article like Krauthammer’s to look a little more critically at BO, the boy wonder.

Oh, excuse me. I hasten to add - lest I be accused of racism by the likes of Chris Matthews -that the term “boy” here has a long and innocent history when attached to “wonder.”

[uncbob]

Character sure as hell is paramount

Otherwise how can you believe any of a candidates positions as being true

[y6162]

Not to mention Obama sets off gaydar detectors.