The Fly's Thursday Election Coverage Extravaganza

First thing's first today: a couple of administrative notes. First, I edited this month's Stuff Fly Wants list to reflect some stuff I bought at the end of last month that wasn't rescinded before I posted it. Second, I've added this link to the appropriate section of Wednesday's post. Third, after doing what I could to verify that he was who he said he was, I've added Duffle Bag Depot to the military gear section. It appears that there's a good selection of tactical gear for the soldier, Marine, or contractor. If you fit the bill, go check it out. And now, on with the show.

So, here's my first attempt at a weekly election coverage spot. If you think I can make any improvements, please feel free to let me know. This week's edition is going to take the form of brief descriptions of some articles I've picked up over the preceding week.

Color Coding - Apparently Senator Obama's team told folks, to include the Senator, to avoid wearing green because it's the color of both Islam in general and Hamas in particular. Not so much a massive gaffe on the Obama campaign's part, just entertaining.

Barack Obama: voters are nervous about me - According to Senator Obama: "This is going to be a close election for a long time because I'm new on the national scene and people sort of like what they see but they're still not sure." Maybe they're nervous because he's been either colossally partisan, or exceptionally inconsistent, on every policy issue that he's addressed in any detail... Not to mention the this sort of cultish status surrounding his campaign, which is getting more and more media attention as time passes.

Obama's campaign strategy: whining - As reticent as I am to criticize a candidate on a sort of "style points" system, there are several issues in this vein that I believe to be relevant. As mentioned in Senator Obama's quote in the previous article, he's "new on the national scene". I'm not alone in believing that a great deal of his success in the primaries was directly attributable to the fact that nobody really knew anything about him, beyond his ability to speak well. This got him enough traction early on that he was able to sustain loss after loss to Senator Clinton once people actually started learning about him. His recourse has been less than inspiring.

I'd like to explore that last point a bit more. As I mentioned, Senator Obama's traction in the primaries resulted from his status as sort of a novel, well-spoken newcomer. People took him at his word that he was really different than the rest of the politicians in Washington, because there was no evidence in the public sphere to either prove or disprove his statements. Now that more information is out there, and people have begun criticizing him on his proposed policies, or taking issue with the way he conducts himself, Senator Obama's recourse seems to be either outright dismissal of legitimate issues, or snippy remarks about those who criticize him and his associates. There are a few examples of this.

When Senator Obama's alleged spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, was shown to be a revisionist, liberation theology-inspired bigot, Senator Obama erroneously claimed that Wright's remarks were being taken out of context, even though any further investigation of either Wright or the Trinity United Church of Christ showed Wright's remarks to be consistent and prolific in their odiousness. This also showed Senator Obama to be inconsistent, as he claimed Wright as his spiritual mentor of nearly twenty years, while simultaneously claiming that he'd never witnessed such remarks. He tried to have it both ways, and he was called out on it, so he criticized the people who called him out on it. That's bad mojo.

Whereas the majority of potential first ladies act matronly and apolitical, Senator Obama's wife Michelle has made remarks that offended many Americans. Her statements have been partisan and incendiary on a number of occasions. To most people, these statements move her into the sphere of legitimate criticism; and most haven't impugned her character, they've reasonably attacked the statements themselves as evidence of the attitudes and beliefs of both of the Obamas. However, Senator Obama isn't most people, because he essentially demanded a cessation of all criticism of his wife. She can make incendiary political statements, and yet she's untouchable? Again, inconsistency, bad mojo.

Others in Senator Obama's personal orbit include Bill Ayers, a former anti-American terrorist, and Tony Rezko, a real estate developer and political fundraiser convicted of fraud and bribery. Given Senator Obama's near-complete lack of a political record, one would think that those he's associated with would be legitimate sources of insight into his character, judgment, and lifestyle. Instead, Senator Obama has balked at any such associations and refused to address them. More inconsistency.

Another item has been Senator Obama's alleged Muslim background. Now, I'm definitely not claiming that he's a Muslim, and I want to make that clear up front. However, there are a number of reasons why this belief has persisted. His father was a Muslim, and according to Islamic law, a child is considered to be a Muslim if his father is a Muslim. Senator Obama also touts his time as a "street kid" during a few of his younger years in Indonesia as sufficient foreign policy experience; he's even talked about how he had to study the Quran in school. However, instead of addressing these items calmly and rationally, he writes them off and claims that he's a Christian*, and that he's always been a Christian and never a Muslim. On this one, he could have it both ways to some degree, but the fact that he won't address this issue at all is another element of his inconsistency and, yes, bad mojo.

Is this the political strategy we want from a potential president? A refusal to acknowledge any mistake at all, to include having been incorrect about the potential success of the Iraq surge strategy? As much as some people (to include Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas advisor) want to compare him to President Kennedy, his liberal policy proposals and "blame everyone else" mentality demonstrates far more similarity to President Carter, who is perhaps the most colossal failure in American history (rivalled only by New Coke). As much as I dislike both former President and Senator Clinton, I'll admit that they're good at two things: appearing moderate when it suits them, and taking criticism in stride.

I considered posting a dramatic video comparing some of Senator Obama's campaign "promises" to a number of recent news clips, but I think I'll save that for next week. Instead, here's an outstanding video from Senator McCain's YouTube channel of a recent speech he gave.



Okay, folks, that's my political blurb for this week. Check back tomorrow for a post unrelated to the campaign. In the mean time, have an outstanding day.

* The Bible says that "by their fruit you will recognize them", meaning that if someone says something (like "I'm a Christian") and doesn't act consistently, that their actions will demonstrate the truth. As far as Senator Obama's "fruit", he's compared James Dobson to Al Sharpton, spent twenty years as a member of a revisionist/liberation theology church (apparently without paying enough attention to realize what kind of church it was), he's both pro-abortion and pro-gay (whether those are sincere - or just politically expedient - is unclear), and he's claimed that people in small towns "cling to guns and religion" because they're "bitter". This is just a sampling of his "fruit". Only Barack Obama and God know Obama's heart, but as far as his "fruits" - the actions coupled with the rhetoric - he's left me unconvinced of his religious sincerity. Senator McCain's a different story, but I'll save that for next week.