As of this writing, Barack Hussein Obama appears to be the Democratic Party’s candidate of choice for the General Election in November. Various commentators have been all over the map with their takes on what this nomination means but it’s the ‘little’ and unsaid things that garner my attention. They tend to get drowned out by the drumbeat; however, that doesn’t render them any less important and it’s those details that I believe are vitally important to think about going forward.
First, did you notice that Howard Dean handed Michigan delegates to Obama even though his name wasn’t on the Primary Ballot? No, I’m not a Clinton supporter and this isn’t about her. It’s about manipulating the electoral process to award votes to a non-existent candidate. Perhaps you find that acceptable – I don’t.
Next, I was struck by House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s warning to Clinton in a brief soundbite to ‘watch her tone’ going forward. Inasmuch as Clyburn is black, I found his comment remarkably arrogant and hypocritical given the flagrant racist ‘tone’ consistently flowing from the Obama camp, of which we’ve all been witness.
Several commentators spoke to the historical importance of Obama’s nomination based upon his skin color; however, I believe that the real issue rendering this campaign historical is the apparent collective willingness to simply accept this candidate at face value, no questions asked, i.e., if he looks good and sounds good, he must be good. It’s my belief that the public face of any candidate should never be the determining factor in how a vote is cast, yet I continue to see example after example of a willingness to brush aside traditional American values like honesty, integrity, patriotism, and service in order to hand Obama a residency in the White House. I find it troubling that the collective moral conscience of this nation has decayed to that extent – and even more troubling that a candidate’s embodiment of that decay appears to be the primary qualification for electability.
Hatred is responsible for where Obama stands today, not his record. He has no notable record. Hatred – for anyone that believes the country, its flag, and its Judeo-Christian heritage are worthy of respect – the gun and religion ‘clingers’ Obama so haughtily spoke of. A belief that America is evil (or ‘mean-spirited’ as Obama’s wife put it) coupled with an unbridled hatred for George Bush by the Radical Left, backed by Soros money, defines the machinery driving Obama’s candidacy. Hatred defines those who surround him – hatred of whites by Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation theology, hatred of whites by the congregation who applauds him, hatred on parade by Michael Pfleger, hatred of America by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, and hatred of the ‘Establishment’ by William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. All, by definition, are anarchists and each has played significant and long-term roles in the formation of this candidate. He continues to welcome them as friends.
As the election process moves forward, I believe the real choice is about proven track records and indisputable values. A blurring of either risks placing the fate of the nation in the hands of inexperience, pseudo-character, pseudo-patriotism, and known affinity for anarchists and their message. This is America - that’s not good enough.
