like the annoying blasphemous questions from infidels
April 25, 2008
Obama's Revealing 'Distractions'
By Charles Krauthammer
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?
What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations
and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the
media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these
questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be
president are less important than the "issues." As if some political
indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through
his 21st -- and likely last -- primary debate without being asked
about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting God-loving
Pennsylvanians.
Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of
having run into each other at the DMV. In fact, Obama's political
career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers' home. Obama's own
campaign says that they maintain "friendly" relations.
Obama's defense is that he was 8 when Ayers and his Weather
Underground comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S.
Capitol and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said
publicly that he doesn't regret setting bombs. Indeed, he said, "I
feel we didn't do enough."
Would you maintain friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist?
Would you even shake his hand? To ask why Obama does is perfectly
legitimate and perfectly relevant to understanding what manner of man
he is.
Obamaphiles are even more exercised about the debate question
regarding the flag pin. Now, I have never worn one. Whether anyone
does is a matter of total indifference to me. But apparently not to
Obama. He's taken three affirmative steps in regard to flag pins.
After 9/11, he began wearing one. At a later point, he stopped wearing
it. Then last year he explained why: Because it "became a substitute
for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that
are of importance to our national security."
Apart from the self-congratulatory fatuousness of that statement -- as
if in this freest of all countries, political self-expression is
somehow scarce or dangerous or a sign of patriotic courage -- to speak
of pin-wearing as a sign of inauthentic patriotism is to make an issue
of it yourself. For Obamaphiles to now protest the very asking of the
question requires a fine mix of cynicism and self-righteousness.
But Obama needs to cast out such questions as illegitimate
distractions because they are seriously damaging his candidacy. As
people begin to learn about this just-arrived pretender, the magic
dissipates. He spent six weeks in Pennsylvania. Outspent Hillary more
than two to one. Ran close to 10,000 television ads -- spending more
than anyone in any race in the history of the state -- and lost by 10
points.
And not because he insufficiently demagogued NAFTA or the other
"issues." It was because of those "distractions" -- i.e., the things
that most reveal character and core beliefs.