Hit Parade
Anyone who is not deeply naïve about American politics had to know it was coming: an intense assault on Barack Obama's character, his past, and his judgment. Now, as the previous fragments of rumor, innuendo, online reporting, and political gamesmanship are intersecting into a broader tale, we are about to see what Senator Obama -- and the United States of America -- are made of. We are about to move from "the silly season" to "the ugly season."
The sudden surfacing of a picture of Obama in traditional Somali dress; the charge that he had plagiarized his friend and advisor, Governor Patrick Deval; Senator Clinton's recent incensed discovery of leaflets circulating in Ohio exaggerating her support for NAFTA -- all of this is trivial in relation to the hit parade that is coming. Ties to Arab-American money and influence, Iraqi Baathist billionaire money, the PLO, domestic American terrorism... follow the money, connect the dots. This is now what is gaining traction (and detail) on the conservative blogs. It is just a matter of time (my guess is, a few days to a week) before it hits the mainstream press and the nightly news.
The timing is probably no coincidence. This week is probably Hillary Clinton's (and everyone else's) last chance to stop Obama from winning the Democratic nomination -- or at least from winning the primary elections and caucuses so decisively that the Democratic Party would be shattered if it then tried to deny him the nomination at its Denver convention on the strength of votes by "superdelegates." For weeks now, Senator Clinton's campaign has been trying to stimulate media interest in the story of Obama's Chicago past, to little effect. Now, finally, many of the threads have been picked up, extended, and woven together by conservative New York radio talk show host John Batchelor, in two extended blogs on the website, humanevents.com.
The implication of the story is that Obama got his start and rose to his heights in Illinois politics with the support of crooks, terrorists, and foes of Israel. Obama's early ties to Tony Rezko, a Syrian-American businessman about to go on trial next week for corruption (whom Hillary Clinton denounced in an earlier debate as a "slum landlord'), is the one part of the story that is more widely known. The idea here is that Rezko was a seminal figure in helping to fund Obama's political rise, and that he introduced Obama in 2003 to a shadowy Iraqi-born British billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, who is allegedly implicated in financial wrongdoing or criminal activity on three continents. Other strands involve Senator Obama's associations with Professor Rashid Khalidi (then of the University of Chicago, now of Columbia University), who is alleged to have worked for the PLO in the late 1970s and is an outspoken critic of Israel, and his interaction with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, former members of the revolutionary, terrorist organization of the late 1960s and early 70s, the Weather Underground, which was responsible for several bombings of government buildings.
Much of what hangs out there on the Internet now amounts to innuendo and guilt by association. No one is alleging that Obama has done anything illegal. Rather, the implication is that this is not the sort of man you would want to trust the future of your country to. And to the Jewish-American community: This is not the sort of man you would want to think about entrusting the security of the state of Israel to.
Many people (Jewish and otherwise) who have come to know Obama, watched him grow, and taken the measure of the man have come to feel differently. If every president (not to mention presidential candidate) had to agree with the views of or be held personally accountable for every individual he or she had met, served on a board or committee with, or taken a campaign contribution from, it is hard to imagine who we would have left to serve. I tried to think of a president in the post-World War II period who had not had to deal with a serious scandal in his administration. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and on, they all had skeletons tumbling out of their presidential closet. For a moment I thought, well, there was Jimmy Carter, who promised the country "a government as good as the American people." And then I remembered his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance, who was forced to resign over allegations of prior financial mismanagement.
There is a lesson in Carter's experience. There are no angels in politics, and aspirants to the presidency should not present themselves as such. Politics does not attract angels. It attracts people who want to get close to power to advance their interests (which often include getting richer than they already are), and it attracts people who want power for a variety of reasons (which often include making the country and the world a better place). In the mix, we get corruption, scandal, or sometimes simply bad judgment. It seduces even people who think of themselves as honest: witness Senator McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal, or the recent allegations in a New York Times article of his close relationship with a lobbyist. It is important that Barack Obama's avid followers not idealize him into something he is not, and that he not mislead his devoted following and the country into thinking he is something superhuman in a moral sense. He is fallible and imperfect, and so has been every president in American history. The questions are ones of scale and balance, of what is left when you account for the fallibility, and of how a president, or would-be president, acknowledges and learns from his mistakes.
As the multiple strands of the story are seized upon, worked, researched, and vetted by major media outlets, we will see what is left to it. My guess is we will find that Chicago machine politics remain afflicted with many of the problems that have plagued it for decades, and that a young aspiring politician without deep roots in the city made some errors in judgment in associating with Rezko, and with Auchi if that is established. There is another story to be explained: how a prominent member of a violent terrorist organization 4 decades ago, who was quoted only some years ago as having said, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough," became an influential professor and member of the Chicago social and political establishment. But that is hardly a story that Barack Obama has to answer for.
What Senator Obama will not be able to do is simply dismiss all of this as more "politics as usual" or "silly season." It may be politics as usual, but it is politics that can be deadly in a general election. Whether Obama used drugs as a young person is not really relevant to what kind of president he will be a generation later. But who he has worked with and depended on for his political advancement is not irrelevant. Barack Obama is not responsible for the views and associations of everyone he has ever associated with. But he would be wise to respond quickly and forthrightly as these questions come to the center stage. He must define in this context who he really is. If he does not do so, the Republican attack machine will be happy to do it for him. And we saw what they did four years ago to a war hero named John Kerry.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Republican Attack Machine will and is no more or less "evil " than the Democrat Attack Machine... With that being said , Obama has the advantage of the "race" card in that every sentence uttered will be scrutinize
What you're ignoring is that Obama's comfortable wins in the last 11 states is evidence that the country is tired of the same old dirty politics. So, you hacks can keep spinning away, trying to feed the flames, while the rest of us walk past and elect someone who will actually be a people's president, not a special interests politician.
What you're ignoring is what the columnist is pointing out, viz. that Obama will be scrutinized, fairly and unfairly, and that his response will have to be swift and aggressive. You ignore the reality of American politics at your own peril. You may think that the Americans, mostly from the Democratic party, who voted in the primaries are representative of the American public in general, but you would be wrong about that. Primary voters tend to be more informed and more involved than most Americans who vote in the general election. You may not like to hear that, but I give you 2000 and 2004, two elections that were lost by Democrats, rather than won by George Bush.
Do you mean the same 'smart' country that went for the sub-prime mortgages they couldn't afford, drive gas guzzling SUVs, drink $4 cups of coffee, have no savings and are maxed out on their credit cards? That smart country is now going to vote for Obama?
also don't forget the amount of people who crossed over to vote Obama whow normally vote Republican because Hillary was percieved as unbeatable
For a moment I thought, well, there was Jimmy Carter, who promised the country "a government as good as the American people." And then I remembered his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance, who was forced to resign over allegations of prior financial mismanagement.
----------
So it's not okay to blame Obama for getting money from Rezko, but it's okay to blame Jimmy Carter because some guy who worked under him turned out to be corrupt?
That was just low.
Obama is being promoted by the same group of ultra-rich eastern liberal Internationalists that promoted Jimmy Carter from the peanut fields to the White House. Obama advisor Ziggy Brzezinski, Former National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter bring people like David Rockerfeller and George Soros and the support of the MSM.
"And to the Jewish-American community: This is not the sort of man you would want to think about entrusting the security of the state of Israel to."
Maybe it's just me, but I thought we were electing a President of the United States, not Israel.
No, it is not just you.
For many people in the USA (and not just those of one particular religion), there is a firm belief that maintaining the security of Israel is required to maintain the security of the USA.
For people who were the target of extermination and who have been the target of persecution for centuries, one might understand a concern about having a "haven".
Of course, the $64,000 question here is what is the best way to real, durable security.
Bush was bailed out by some seedy types from his business fiascoes, mainly Arabs. The Democrats have been ineffective in the slime machine politics. Clinton should have nailed Poppy, too. I full well expect there to be many revelations about the way politicians come up from obscurity and enrich themselves while seizing power. Obama is a human being but that may be his strength. Hillary is robotic and controlled so what is that?
Hillary was so "middle of the road" and in the pocket of the wealthy "DLC" that she cannot be a "change agent." She just now admitted her mistake on the vote for the authorization for the use of military force in Iran, then refused to go along with the Levin Amendment, and has only now attempted to back off on NAFTA - but not the tax benefits for outsourcing, just the enforcement of the side agreements in those foreign countries about organizing labor and environmental issues.
Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and left a trail of scandals so that there are many issues that will pop up again. Either way, we are screwed. Obama was in Chicago politics. My grandfather was, too. Capone put a gun to his head and told him that either you play or pay. Then they tried to take him out. Chicago is not a nice place.
Hillary blew it for women by selling out. Hopefully, Obama will be tested and not destroyed. I thought that Kucinich or Edwards would have been better.
President Pan's best friend James Bath, who he spent time with in the Texas National Guard, defending America (successfully I might add) from a sneak attack from Mexico or was it Guatemala - worked for Khalid Bin Mahfouz. KBM was involved with BCCI and eventually the Saudi authorities stripped him of his shareholding in National Commercial Bank Saudi Arabia.
You'll remember President Pan's wise investment in Harken Oil (and his even wiser timing to sell). Lots of Saudi money in Harken. Abdullah Baksh for one. Who was the guy who bailed out Harken when Pan's wise leadership didn't result in tangible monetary results.
But this proves what?
Politicians are corrupt.
Really? Wow!
Let me write that down so I don't forget.
"Rather, the implication is that this is not the sort of man you would want to trust the future of your country to."
this implication coming from the party that gave us W - the bush family's friends and allies are no less suspect.
hypocrisy.
Obama and his supporters are in for some serious let downs. They have no idea what is coming. And it will come and it will stick. Mark my words: The media is not in love with Obama. They have only been sleeping with him, waiting for the Democrats to break up with Hillary. Then they will turn on him. It will be ugly.
The Democrats have been played big time, and the so-called progressive left has fallen for all of it. It makes me wonder if they are just stupid or if they really have never been on our side to begin with.
Yeah, the entire media is working telepathically in one concerted effort to damn us to hell for all eternity. All the polls that show Obama's base is smarter and better educated must be wrong because you're with Clinton and anyone who isn't must be a moron. Genius.
You may be too young to remember McGovern. A candidate who fires up the progressives is totally capable of losing 2-1. In fact, the McGovern scenario is exactly what the Repos are hoping for. I hope I'm wrong, but the media is going to make Obama look like Osama Hussein before it's all over and the average swing voter may not be smart enough to tell the diff.
Totally agree zozosmom. Sometimes I wonder how so many "progressives" were so easily fooled.
Ajita, Obama supporters may be "smarter and better educate", but that doesn't mean they will not be had over by a salesman. Plenty of smart people buy Mercedes and make other stupid decisions because they were fooled by a smooth talker.
And I don't think the media is fooled at all. The Republican race has been a snooze from the start, while the Democrats have all the color and controversy. They proped Obama up to fight against Hillary because it is the best for raitings, and they want Obama in a general because he is, again, better for raitings.
Why is it that Obama magically gains in every poll in the weeks before a primary? Makes things interesting no? Makes people turn on the TV on election night for sure. Never mind that the polls in NH and CA were completely and 100% wrong.
Yes SHE Can
The media sided with Bush against Gore and Kerry like they've sided with Obama against Hillary. Now, McCain has been their favorite, too. So, it might be a toss up in McCain vs. Obama. Some might call it fairness but it's been so long we might not recognize it as such.
The favorite parlor game for Clinton backers and Republicans is the "Seven Degrees of Barack Obama." Find a new game. Batchelor's article centers on a handshake -- politicians shake hands. ... I believe Clinton carries a bottle of antiseptic. The people who shake her hand should be thankful.
Has politics truly been reduced to not just vetting the candidate, but every one of the thousands of people a candidate meets and greets? Welcome to Amerika.
He'll have to be ready and he'll have to be effective. That's just true and there's no sense in explaining that away.
That being said, the Clintons are nowhere near fully vetted for this election cycle. Business dealings of Bill's, greasing palms of Kazakhstan dictators, uranium mine deals -- if you think the Clintons are immune to a whole new slew of scandals (purported or real, doesn't matter), you're sadly mistaken.
All pretty much true, but on the other hand I recall that "a prominent member of a violent terrorist organization," a certain Menachem Begin, became the leader of Israel a few decades after his terrorist days were done, and our government treated him very, very well.
If anyone is going to run for the most power position in the world,they better be able to take the heat. I hope Barack is pounded time and time and time again from all sides.
The position he seeks is not the local PTA.
Every vote, every speech, every donor needs to be examined and examined again and again.
Hillary was not allowed to confront him head on due to the harm it could have caused the party as a whole. The Republicans will not be under those restrictions.
How well will the media be able to protect him?
Will any insult, instantly be percieved and reported as racism?
Game on.
"Will any insult, instantly be percieved and reported as racism? Game on."
It'll be a test. So far, Chris Matthews has been able to carry the gender bias ( via bile) effectively on MSNBC. Let's see how far the idiot can go with Obama --
I see a powder keg brewing..
The old addage of "What you eat is what you are" goes hand in hand with another old addage"What you practice is what you are". Obama practices "HANGING" with seedy characters. Facts have a way of sorting out the differences between "fairy tales" and reality. The reality is, Obama is dirty.
I believe firmly that these stories should have received attention and discussion much earlier. So if the Democrats find themselves with a candidate who is unelectable, they can blame themselves.
Sigh...whe
Actually, if the Dems "find themselves with a candidate who is unelectable", I will place the blame squarely at the door of the HRC campaign.
Exactly. They circled the wagons to protect Obama but if Hillary loses Texas and Ohio and drops out and THEN something comes out, oh shit.
I love your article and you are correct: The stories you narrate against Obama will become the Swifboarding of this Election.
The economy in the year 2008 will remain on a down side. If you remind yourself what party made this country "broke" then you can clearly see how McCain is going to have difficulties selling his a "100 yeah war" idea.
Credability of Washington estblishment is and will continue to deminish.
Hopefully you are right and Obama will properly address any mud the Republicans can sling at him. I'd hate for a repeat of Kerry's indifference to the swiftboat adds which likely cost him the election. I also find the timing of these things coming up suspicious. The Republicans are attacking him now before he has secured the nomination. Makes you wonder if they don't want to face him in the fall?
They look forward to facing him and hitting him hard on every issue under the sun. Many Republicans voted for him so that he would get the nomination. He will lose independents in the fall.
Is this more bluff, bluster and baloney from Rush? Yeah I'm sure Obama will be hit hard, but do you really believe this is going to be a cake walk for the Republicans? I don't.
I love it when people say the 'timing was suspicious'. You know they would say that no matter when something happened whether it was a month ago or 2 months from now.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
