Posted by
Deadpan on Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:53:08 PM
Barack Obama has gotten incredibly far in his campaign by speaking in platitudes while offering little substance for voters or opponents to focus on. That's beginning to change, as his radical history becomes clearer. You can't attend a church with a preacher like Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and be as ignorant of his bitter resentment of America as Obama claims to be, and you can't claim to reject the virulent paranoid views expressed by Pastor Wright without being able to point to anything you've done to correct or moderate his angry fire and brimstone judgments of this nation.
His speech calling for
yet another "conversation on race," and his criticisms of other candidates or commentators for
"divisiveness" suggest that he's either a simpleton or just being evasive. I don't think he's a simpleton. Today's speech on the economy was more of the same, although he made it clear that he would support more regulations of financial markets and probably expensive bailouts of people caught short by adjustable rate mortgages for which they should not have qualified in the first place.
This analysis of his attacks on NAFTA demonstrates the shallowness and dishonesty of his positions.
Although, I tuned away from Hugh Hewitt's playing of excerpts of Obama reading his books (really boring radio), he did make the point that Obama is not the clean cut naif his vague rhetoric might suggest. His first book, at least, is full of vulgarities, obscenities and language that a church-going Christian would be embarrassed to read for the audio version. This is not by itself a basis for dismissing him as a leader, but it is part of a pattern that is becoming clearer as his campaign has run into some turbulence. That pattern is one of a person who is deliberately running as a blank slate, avoiding any positions that might reveal him to be the big government liberal he is. He poses as a mediator between the races, but it's very doubtful that he would maintain that pose after taking office.
He seems to be unwilling to debate concrete specifics, preferring politically correct objections like "You're using divisive tactics," as if politics isn't inherently divisive. The whole point is to let voters know where you differ from your opponents. If you refuse to do so, I see no reason to trust you, especially with the Presidency of the most powerful nation on earth.
The strangest thing about his campaign to me thus far is his reputation for great oratory. His actual speaking style is well modulated, but hardly rousing or spirited. It's more like that of a professor lecturing a class, and it's a long way from matching John F. Kennedy's speeches.
'