Well, of course they are

I think Hugh Hewitt’s missing the point a bit on Barack Obama (which is rather like a donkey telling an elephant his nose is unimpressive, but bear with me). Hewitt writes,

What Obama has won is the heart of the left, and they don’t care that he cannot win Pennsylvania or Ohio in the fall. They want one of their own. They prefer six months of theater they produce to four years of power in which they have supporting roles.So the Democrats, fresh off the 2004 rejection of an elitist senator from the far left edge of their party, will choose to nominate an elitist senator from an even farther left precinct of their party, only one much less experienced than John Kerry.

Now, I don’t disagree with any of that; but the key here is, the Soros/MoveOn/DailyKos crowd do. First, they think Sen. Obama can win in the fall. Second, even if, should someone press them, they might concede that Hillary Clinton would have a better chance, they wouldn’t care: they believe the current climate is hostile enough to Republicans that this time they have a shot at electing a President who straight out thinks like them. They believe that this year, they have a real shot at electing “an elitist senator from an even farther left precinct of their party,” even though that didn’t work four years ago, and they’re not willing to give that up for a less-satisfying victory (another Clinton). After all, if Sen. Clinton wins, their odds of electing someone as liberal as Sen. Obama President any time in the near future go down; whereas if John McCain wins, they’ve convinced themselves that their odds of getting what they want will be even better four years from now (scroll down to the first comment). With that sort of mindset, whyever should they settle for less than what they really want in a nominee?

This is the ending of a beautiful friendship

and from the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.’s perspective, Barack Obama started it; Barack Obama betrayed him first. That piece in the New York Post has to make Sen. Obama, David Axelrod, and the rest of the folks in that campaign break out in a cold sweat for what the Rev. Dr. Wright might say or do next. I criticized the Rev. Dr. Wright yesterday for betraying Sen. Obama’s friendship and the good of his country, and I still think his willingness to hurt this country in order to take down Sen. Obama is despicable; but what I wasn’t thinking about yesterday is, as a pastor, how would I feel if I were in his shoes? How would I react to being dumped, downplayed and disavowed by someone whom I’d pastored for twenty years, whom I’d mentored and supported and encouraged and poured my life into, and whom I considered a friend? I’ve seen that sort of thing happen to colleagues (admittedly for much lower stakes than a presidential race, and for much less provocation than the Rev. Dr. Wright has given), and I’ve seen how it devastated them; now that I’ve thought about it, I have a much easier time understanding where he’s coming from. I still think he’s in the wrong; I still think he should follow Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek (and that his tendency to preach that to white folk and not to himself and his own congregation captures much of what’s wrong with his understanding of Christianity); but his behavior makes more sense to me now. There but for the grace of God . . .

In the meantime, though, it’s interesting what this whole episode has revealed about Sen. Obama (and, as Hugh Hewitt notes, to wonder what more it might yet reveal; if someone sits down with the Rev. Dr. Wright to ask him a couple hours’ worth of questions about his twenty-year friendship with Sen. Obama, he may very well answer them fully). As more than a few people have noted, the Rev. Dr. Wright didn’t say anything about HIV, or 9/11, or Louis Farrakhan, that we hadn’t heard before—the only new material he had was aimed squarely at Sen. Obama; it was only when the Rev. Dr. Wright came after him that he felt the need to denounce his “former pastor.” Thus Anna Marie Cox asked on Time‘s blog,

Is it overly cynical of me to think that Wright diminishing Obama as a mere politician was the true tipping point? Because that seems to be one of the few new arguments (ideas? rants? conspiracy theories?) that Wright made. Sadly for Obama, it may also be the only correct one.

Perhaps even more telling is Scott Johnson’s comment on Power Line:

In Obama’s eyes, the most serious wrongdoing in Wright’s statements is their disrespect of Obama. From the revered father figure who could not be disowned, Wright has become the the father from whom separation must be achieved in favor of his own identity, or the boorish relative who cannot be tolerated. The adolescent grandiosity and adolescent pettiness of Obama’s remarks are perhaps the most shocking revelations of this entire episode.

The further Sen. Obama goes, the smaller he gets (and with him, his poll numbers). He’s even managing to make Hillary Clinton look good by comparison.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

When Steve Sailer wondered back in January if the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. was trying to submarine Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, I could see his logic, but I thought it was a classic case of logic subverting reason. When Michael Barone wondered the same thing a month ago, building on Sailer’s argument, I started to consider the idea, because Barone’s just too good an observer to dismiss—but still, the idea seemed crazy. Occam’s Razor seemed to suggest that the Rev. Dr. Wright was saying and doing the things he was saying and doing not out of any ulterior motive, but simply because this is who he is; this is what he preaches because this is what he believes. (He also believes, it appears, that black folks and white folks have different brains, which is a bit of racist crackpottery I’d normally expect out of the very KKK he attacks.) He might have been damaging Sen. Obama’s campaign, but it didn’t seem necessary to conclude he was doing so intentionally.After the Rev. Dr. Wright’s media offensive this past weekend, however (I use the term advisedly), I’m not at all so sure. Marc Ambinder says that “Wright is throwing Obama under the bus” (an ironic return for Sen. Obama’s attempt to save his pastor by throwing Granny under the bus), while Clive Crook, Dana Milbank and Joe Klein have now come to the same conclusion as Sailer and Barone. Indeed, Klein takes it a step further:

Wright’s purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself—the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton—and destroy Barack Obama.

Certainly it’s hard to come to any other conclusion than that the Rev. Dr. Wright deliberately “reignited a controversy about race from which Obama had only recently recovered—and added lighter fuel.” Some people are even wondering now if the Clintons put him up to it.The sad thing is, it may very well work—and I do truly believe it will be a sad, sad day for this country if it does. Granted, I had no intention whatsoever of voting for Sen. Obama, but I wanted to believe in his integrity and his vision even if I can’t accept his political ideas; I wanted to believe that win or lose, he could help America take another step or two away from the racism of the past. Now, after all we’ve seen of his friends, his view of the people of this country (which echoes his wife’s bitterness at America) and the way he plays politics, I can’t respect him anymore, and I definitely want him to lose on his merits. That said, if 15% of the electorate votes for John McCain simply because Barack Obama has dark skin, as some sharp observers think will happen, that would be a shameful thing, and I don’t want to see that. But that’s where the Rev. Dr. Wright is heading us—that’s where he’s driving the bus—and it seems, increasingly, that he’s doing so because he’d rather inflame and exacerbate our nation’s internal divisions than be proved wrong about them. If so, that’s despicable. Barack Obama should have exercised much better care in his choice of friends; he shouldn’t have wasted his time on a pastor who could betray him (and his country) like that.

“Winning” doesn’t mean “easy”

Unfortunately, our quick-fix minute-rice instant-oatmeal fast-food culture has largely lost touch with the fact that some struggles take a long time, and that even tough, long-term fights may well be not only worth fighting but necessary to fight. I think most of our churches have lost the stomach for that, which is why the long victory of discipleship, with the lifelong struggle to put sin to death in our lives and replace it with trust in Christ, is foreign to so many who consider themselves Christians; and I’m quite sure we’ve largely lost the stomach for it in our politics. We may talk the talk of long-term effort, but we don’t often walk the walk. That I’m sure is at least part of the reason (along with partisan opportunism) why the war in Iraq became so unpopular: it stopped being easy. Once it no longer looked like a cakewalk, a lot of folks stopped supporting it.

I’m glad, though, to see President Bush (finally?) call that attitude out:

I have to wonder (not originally, I know) what that reporter, and our press corps as a whole, would have made of World War II, or the Civil War . . . (According to Wikipedia, the American death toll of the entire Iraq War through the end of this month stands at 4,058 deaths, 3,320 in combat. In World War II, the Battle of the Bulge alone claimed 19,000 American dead.)

HT: Ed Morissey

Don’t be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”

So says 1 Corinthians 15:33; and if there’s a lesson from the Obama presidential campaign, increasingly, that would seem to be it. First we heard about Antoin “Tony” Rezko, and friends of Rezko’s like Nadhmi Auchi; then we learned about the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright (anyone wanting additional context can find it here); then some folks started complaining about another black South Side pastor with whom Barack Obama is associated, the Rev. James T. Meeks; then it turns out Sen. Obama is good pals with founding members of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn. Sen. Obama tried to brush that off by saying, in essence, that their bad side was ancient history, and now they’re mainstream. Unfortunately, given these audio clips and these video clips of Ayers and Dohrn (to say nothing of Ayers’ blog), that’s not very encouraging. If this is Sen. Obama’s idea of “mainstream,” we have reason to worry. No, no one accuses him of holding the exact views of Ayers and Dohrn or the Rev. Wright; but as Mark Steyn says, “this is the pool he swims in”. Then, finally, Sen. Obama received a new endorsement—from Hamas; and while he’s tried to minimize that by denouncing Hamas, John McCain has a good point: that doesn’t mean much when Sen. Obama has already said he’ll meet unconditionally with the Iranian government, which controls Hamas.

No one denies Barack Obama is a good man; but the company he keeps is dragging him down.

The clans of Yale and the tribes of America

In the course of reading Redstate.com’s analysis of the Philly vote in this week’s Pennsylvania primary (an analysis which convinces me that, despite the smooth assurances that the Democratic coalition will come back together just the same as always once Sen. Obama limps to the finish line and finally secures the nomination, the Obama-McCain general election is going to look very different from what we’ve been used to seeing lately), I found a link to an old piece in the Village Voice written by Michael Gecan (a community organizer in the footsteps of Saul Alinsky, as Sen. Obama was) titled “The Tribes of Yale.” It’s a fascinating piece of cultural-political analysis; and if Gecan’s assertion that conservative political leaders “don’t know what in the world—in the bigger, broader world where most moderate Americans live and work, play and pray, and try to raise their kids—they are for” is inaccurate, as I’m quite sure it is, I think his broader argument that they’re driven more by what they’re against than by what they’re for is thought-provoking, especially in the context of his overall understanding of the liberal/conservative cultural clash. Even if his conclusions are incorrect, the story he tells is an important one, I think, for those who would seek to understand American politics in the first decade of the third millennium AD.

Not so new after all

So Barack Obama is now looking to turn his back on public campaign financing in favor of a “parallel public financing system”—which is to say, on the same old way of raising money; and why not, really, when he can spend a day hobnobbing with billionaires and raise $3 million. The thing is, though, given some of the things Sen. Obama has said in the past, that starts to look more than a little like rank hypocrisy; as Zombie contends,

Michelle Obama (and other Obama campaign spokespeople) aren’t telling the truth. It seems that a signficant portion of Obama’s monthly campaign contributions are coming from “large donors”—i.e. rich people, not just the “$20 to $50” donations they’re constantly bragging about. . . . The single most insidious aspect of American politics is that candidates often must pander to and do the bidding of the wealthiest Americans, who have the funds to get the candidate elected. It’s so commonplace, we no longer think of it as “corruption,” but that’s basically what it is. So when Obama spends all day doing nothing but going to a series of private fundraisers populated exclusively by the wealthy, the only “change” I feel are the coins jangling at the bottom of my pocket.And I don’t like hypocrisy.

Neither do I; which is why, when you combine this with the evidence that Sen. Obama is, in the end, just another Chicago machine politician, I’m coming to the point where I agree with Peter Wehner:

Early on in this campaign I was impressed with Barack Obama as a thoughtful, inspiring, and admirable (if far too liberal) political figure. As the months have worn on, it’s become increasingly apparent that the candidate is projecting mere shadows on the wall. Our Republic deserves better.

Sen. Obama inserts foot in mouth, commences chewing

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them—like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they’ve gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

So says Barack Obama, as of April 6 in San Francisco, in an astoundingly condescending moment which demeans many Americans on multiple levels; and in defending himself, his response has essentially been, “Why all the furor? All I did was say what everyone knows is true.” Paging Thomas Frank . . .To this, Hillary Clinton responds,

You know, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a matter of Constitutional rights. Americans who believe in God believe it is a matter of personal faith. Americans who believe in protecting good American jobs believe it is a matter of the American Dream. . . The people of faith I know don’t “cling to” religion because they’re bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich. Our faith is the faith of our parents and our grandparents. It is a fundamental expression of who we are and what we believe.

And,

I saw in the media it’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard every day for a better future, for themselves and their children. Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them; they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.

On Commentary‘s “Contentions” blog, Jennifer Rubin called that first comment “probably the smartest thing she’s said in her entire political career”; I think Rubin is right. Of course, John McCain’s campaign is on top of this as well, as witness this quote from one of his advisors:

It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.

The theme is clear here: Sen. Obama is an out-of-touch ivory-tower elitist snob who looks down on ordinary folks. As David Paul Kuhn put it,

Last year [Sen. Obama] responded to an Iowa farmer’s concerns about crop prices by asking if “anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” There are no Whole Foods in Iowa. Recently Obama tried to bowl in Pennsylvania and looked like the sort of Democrat who thinks of Whole Foods when discussing crop prices. Now Obama talks about what drives rural voters’ cultural concerns and ends up looking like the kind of Democrat who bowls a 37 in seven frames. Soon there is a storyline. The silly is now serious.It seems that every time Obama makes a mistake he brings it up again, offers context, laughs about it, and then defends it. No matter, the bowling and arugula mistakes were still small time. But the bitter remark was a game changer.

Unfortunately for the Obama campaign, this is a theme that reminds a lot of folks of the Jeremiah Wright diatribes against America and Michelle Obama’s “the first time I’ve ever been proud of my country” comment; it seems to fit with them all too well. The question is, is this his helmet-in-a-tank moment? Certainly it looks like it might be in Pennsylvania; and while it’s too early to tell for the long term, you can be sure that if Sen. Obama manages to hang on and win the nomination, we’ll be hearing a lot about this from now to November. Sen. Obama shot himself in the foot good and proper; now he’d best just hope he doesn’t get gangrene.

Score one for SCOTUS

The Supreme Court of the United States struck a blow for national sovereignty recently—and along with it, a blow for the separation of powers. Medellín v. Texas is a decision that deals with some weighty issues of domestic and international law, but I think the Court made the right decision; I appreciate that they stood up to an attempt by the Bush administration to overreach the authority of the executive branch, and even more that in doing so they didn’t claim more authority for themselves, but rather upheld the proper sovereignty of the legislative branch. Most of all, I think they were right to say that while the US must honor its treaty obligations, it’s the principles of our own Constitution rather than the diktat of international organizations which determine how we do so.

A further point of interest to this decision, noted by the article to which I’ve linked here, is that it deals a body blow to the efforts of pro-abortion activists to use international organizations and treaties to overrule pro-life laws here in the US; this too is a good thing. In general, I’m not a believer in surrendering any part of our sovereignty to international organizations which all too often don’t have our best interests at heart; I particularly oppose allowing the opinions of folks in other countries to determine important issues like abortion policy.