Obama Op-Ed: Where’s the flak for Obama? ~ Editorial


May 24, 2008

“I admit I am not fond of Obama on a political level.”

The media’s honeymoon with Barack Obama should be over by now, but apparently it is not.

Sure, he’s hip and charismatic and he represents equality of opportunity in American politics, but he does not deserve a free pass from the media.

I usually do not focus on verbal gaffes in politics, but Obama deserves his fair attention. Last week, at a campaign stop Barack claimed to have campaigned in all 57 states. For those unaware, the United States only has 50 states. Now, this gaffe did receive some media attention, but mainly from commentators who insisted Obama said the comment out of exhaustion. That is a fair theory, but the media has given him a free pass on it. A candidate’s knowledge is an important consideration. This is the same candidate who said that he would contact the Canadian president over NAFTA.

That he made a verbal gaffe is not the issue, it is the media treatment of it. One blogger pointed out that if you did a Google search on Dan Quayle, the former Republican vice-president, you would be offered hundreds of hits. President George W. Bush has every one of his missteps subject to severe scrutiny from both news reporters and editorial writers.

To be fair, Obama received flak over his connection to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but that has largely fizzled since his decision to ‘repudiate’ Wright. But, in a political culture where any link to past segregationist politics can sink a Republican or Democratic candidate, is it fair that Obama’s connection to Wright is not further scrutinized?


Wright has never distanced himself from his support for Louis Farrakhan, a man known for anti-Jewish statements and spewing anti-White venom.

The media seems to treat the manner as if all is forgiven. The larger question they need to ask is why did Obama support Wright until now? Before his comments came to light, Obama seemed to overlook Wright’s extremism. Apparently, it is also okay to eternally demonize the religious right in America, but not the religious left, which is also a source of extreme rhetoric.

I admit I am not fond of Obama on a political level.

I have stated before that I believe Clinton and McCain are better choices. But, I don’t think this diminishes my arguments.

Beneath his persuasive rhetoric about “hope and change,” Obama has a voting record that is not given real scrutiny. McCain’s record certainly has. He is already being called a hypocrite on ethical issues for the presence of lobbyists on his campaign team.

When Obama speaks eloquently about transcending party lines and reaching out to disaffected Republicans, he deserves scrutiny. His record clearly shows that he is a very liberal Democrat. This is hardly a basis for unity with swing Republican voters.

The biggest sin of omission, overall, is the inordinate attention being placed on the Democratic race.

Sure, there are two diverse candidates on the Democratic side. But, there are also other issues, such as the future of Iraq and Afghanistan and who has the best plan. Two Democrats want to leave as soon as possible, the one Republican does not.

What does McCain have to do to get media attention? I am afraid of the answer.


The Politico writes this morning that “many top GOP strategists believe (McCain) can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004.”

Politico‘s David Paul Kuhn reports that:

Some Republican strategists can envision a scenario in which Obama wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College — he might galvanize Southern black turnout, for example, but still fail to switch a state in the region.

Among the 10 strategists interviewed by Politico for this story, there was near-uniform belief that had any other Republican been nominated, the party’s prospects in November would be nil. …

The case they make for a comfortable McCain win is not beyond reason. Begin with the 2004 electoral map. Add Iowa and Colorado to Obama’s side, since both are considered states Obama could pick off. Then count McCain victories in New Hampshire and Michigan, two states where McCain is competitive. In this scenario, McCain wins the Electoral College 291-246, a larger margin than Bush four years ago.

If Obama managed only to win Iowa from Republicans and McCain managed only to win Pennsylvania, McCain would still win by a much greater margin than Bush – 300-237.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: