Honor is defined by Webster as follows: a keen sense of right and wrong; adherence to action or principles considered right; integrity
Likely no greater contrast exists between this year’s presidential candidates than this definition of honor, that keen sense of right and wrong and the conduct which follows. The stark difference between the candidates on this issue alone should give us pause as we contemplate how we’re going to cast our ballots come November.
Senator McCain’s conduct while a Prisoner Of War in Viet Nam is the textbook example of Webster’s definition. Though severely injured and in obvious distress, when afforded the opportunity to put his personal well-being above others, he chose others. That is honor personified and speaks volumes regarding his personal integrity.
Senator Obama’s conduct, on the other hand, is the antithesis of Webster’s definition. When put to the test, he has consistently chosen self. That also speaks volumes regarding his personal integrity, or lack thereof.
Because of the recent flap over The New Yorker Obama cartoon cover, a significant article on Obama in that issue was virtually ignored. The link is as follows: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=1
While the article is quite lengthy, it is well worth the read. In it you’ll find examples of the political expediency which drives Obama’s choices as well as his conduct. In the end, it’s all about him and the article clearly identifies the lengths to which the Senator will go to further his personal political ambitions. There is no honor in the conduct reflected in the article, for Webster’s ‘keen sense of right and wrong’ definition is not met.
Senator Obama may be well-educated and charismatic – but he isn’t principled. He’s lacking, among other things, a conscience which instructs him to do the right thing regardless of self. The article clearly points to that and so does the Senator’s own conduct on the campaign trail where, for example, he renegged on his pledge regarding campaign financing. That action alone shows that what Obama says vs. what he does will likely not be one and the same. There is no integrity in a man who willfully chooses not to abide by the words coming out of his own mouth.
Senator Obama’s quest for the prize is marked not by desire for service to country but by what’s in it for Obama. He is driven by an inflated sense of self-worth, having appointed himself the ‘annointed one’ for this time in our nation’s history. Ever-present condescension is the trademark of the Senator’s response to questions regarding his actions, associations, votes, and background where he has consistently stated that America’s collective intellect has misinterpreted his words or actions. That exhibited sense of intellectual superiority and personal grandeur is truly remarkable in that, after all is said and done, he remains nothing but a freshman Senator from Illinois with no experience or expertise which qualifies him for the presidency. Without his advisers, he is nothing. Remove them and the teleprompter and what you get is the person we saw at Saddleback, unable or unwilling to directly and decisively respond to a simple question. Such indecisiveness is not the mark of a leader, regardless of the management level. The aforementioned article will tell you that Obama got to where he is today not because of proven ability but because he was a master manipulator who played the Chicago machine, redrew his home district to include and cultivate wealthy benefactors, won his State Senate seat by successfully removing all other names from the ballot to run unopposed, and attended Trinity United Church of Christ because of the social and political connections it offered. I’m not impressed.
