Forget about the rancor of the Democrat Primary season. That is all history now. In truth, the heated rivalry between the two candidates was hardly an indicator of any philosophical or moral differences between them, but only a strident argument about which liberal “messiah” deserved to be president. Even the fierceness of their efforts was itself a reflection of comparable components of raw ambition that each possesses.
One had to win eventually, so the fact that it was Barack Obama does not suggest a prevailing trend from “near left” to “far left” in the nation’s heartland, or anything nearly so profound as that. Rather, after a jackrabbit start in the early primaries, follow by mixed messages of tepid support and resounding rejection in later states, his supporters insisted that the momentum had begun to snowball in his direction. And since the Democrat playbook relies so heavily on the bent of the news media, their chosen candidate was bound to eventually prevail.
So, what might an Obama presidency portend for this nation? The thought is frightening indeed. On many fronts, too many fronts, it would amount to a “third term” of the Clintons. And that is bad enough. The telltale signs are far too numerous to ignore, particularly since the Obama/Democrat/media political spin machine is offering its own alarmist rhetoric asserting that a John McCain administration would amount to “Bush III.”
The profusion of Obama gaffes, retractions, and obfuscations of the past several months lend ample evidence to the concept that liberalism, whether delivered by Obama, Hillary, or any of the other notable liberal Democrats on the political scene, is merely liberalism. And in the rare event that a Democrat politician attempts to rise even to a slight degree above the cesspool of leftist thought, as has Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the rest of the pack is on hand to either beat him back into line, or otherwise punish him for committing the transgression of independent thought. In the end, the mindless ideology of the left will prevail, no matter how many of its principals end up as casualties.
Thus can be explained Obama’s odd behavior in response to the “Reverend Wright” debacle. First, Obama thought it best to castigate Wright’s critics, and deflect criticism by attempting to point out faults among the race of Wright’s presumed detractors, including Obama’s own white grandmother. Then, when this ploy proved ineffective, Obama did the exact thing he had previously insisted he would not do, which was to disavow Wright who was, it turns out, expendable.
Most telling of all was Obama’s inarguably “Clintonian” excuse for the switch, claiming lamely that Wright’s latest anti-America rants were a manifestation of some new malevolence that was never before revealed to Obama. No doubt. And everyone likewise accepted the excuse that Hillary, reputedly the most brilliant woman to ever tread the hallowed halls of Washington, could competently manage the international affairs of an entire country while remaining blissfully ignorant of her own husband’s affairs within the walls of the White House.
Were this mode of rationalization to be believed, one might wonder just how long it would take Obama to grasp the reality that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also hates America, being that two decades of such virulence against the U.S. from his own pastor was somehow lost to the amazing young politician. But to even ask such a question would require a profound extension of faith in Obama’s sincerity. To date, few on either side of the aisle are expending much energy in the effort.
In truth, across the political spectrum it is generally recognized that Obama merely invented a new excuse when he realized that the first approach was not going to succeed. And while those on the right find his demonstrated lack of character thoroughly defining, within his camp such behavior simply represents the “business as usual” as they have come to expect it from their “leaders.”
On another notable occasion, Obama credited his own birth to an airlift that brought his father from Kenya to America. Though dramatic and compelling on the campaign stump, the event actually occurred when he was four years old. Here again, he reveals a disturbing similarity to Hillary who once pandered to the New Zealanders, claiming that she was named after famed mountaineer Sir Edmund Hillary despite the fact that his fame for being the first individual to scale Mount Everest was not attained until almost six years after her birth.
Equally “unforgettable” (excepting that Obama apparently “forgot” all of the pertinent facts) is the Illinois Senator’s spurious claim that his grandfather had participated in the liberation of Auschwitz, most likely while under a hail of Bosnian sniper fire.
Illustrating something beyond a tenuous connection with reality, such juvenile story telling by Obama and Clinton actually points to an inherent contempt for their audiences, who are expected to take the bait without question. It is further telling that both have clearly been surprised whenever they are called on such obvious blunders.
Just as Hillary’s disdain for the sensibilities of real America was frequently displayed whenever she offered her “I don’t recall” caveat in Congressional hearings, Obama waved his own like a red flag during that now-famous San Francisco speech to a closed meeting of wealthy donors. His reference to the “angry” ranks of middle America with their phobic need for religion and guns said far more about his own elitism and condescension than it did about its intended subjects. His bonds are clearly with that arrogant class of the “privileged” where Hillary would feel right at home.
At this most opportune moment of the general election cycle, Obama has begun sounding distinctly more “mainstream” than Jeremiah Wright, just as Hillary expressed a political philosophy during the past few months that was far more middle-of-the-road than the tenets of her co-presidential agenda during the 1990s. Yet, the media have finally been willing to remind us, and in some cases, inform us for the first time, just how unacceptable of a candidate Hillary is. In reality, they are telegraphing how dangerous to America liberalism itself, and Obama by his intimate association, really are.
Young and seemingly likeable though he may be, Obama represents no worthy alternative to the nightmarish implications of a Hillary Clinton Administration. In the end, their leftist similarities vastly outweigh any differences.
James Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, has come under my scrutiny for his bias before, of course. I see one of my roles as keeping an eye on the bias in the media and to document and analyze that bias. But while I naturally focus on when the media get it wrong, I also like to point out when those who I’ve criticized get it right. Here is a case when a member of the media that I usually criticize did, indeed, get it right and this time it might get him in Dutch with his lefty pals in the nutroots. After all, the surest way to get the nutroots upset at you is to say Bush did not lie about the war. But that is exactly what Kirchick just did and he did an admirable job chronicling it, too.
