A Plea to the Obama Saturated Fence Sitters...

When so many people become so mesmerized by a political candidate they know so little about, the only explanation is that it is the superficial, not substantive, issues attracting their favor. This is the only possible explanation and I can prove it…ask a typical Obama supporter what they like about their candidate and you will inevitably get to one of the following responses:

I like Obama because he’s for change.

 I’m tired of Bush.

 Obama represents hope.

 These regurgitated marketing lines reveal someone who is not only the product of a successfully run image campaign (congrats Obama strategists…I heard they were original members of the “By Mennen” team too), but also reveal a person incapable of formulating an intelligent response not already spoon fed to them. This isn’t to fault the Obama supporter necessarily, I know a lot of very intelligent liberals, but they have virtually nothing substantive to stand on here, as eager as they may be for it (minus the outlying individuals on the extreme left, they have plenty to like from the man ranked last year as “The Most Liberal US Senator"). Saying you are voting for Obama because “He’s for Change” is like defending your choice to drive a Chevy because it’s "Like a Rock.” It’s a nice sounding mantra but you’ll look like a fool if hoping to impress the Ford Truck crowd with that type of emtpy intellect.

Barack Obama has impressed me with his ability to persuade so many while revealing so little. It’s a tactic often used to quickly maximize net appeal, as voters are always more likely to turn against a known extreme and toward an intriguing unknown (“there's something about this new guy over here..."). He’s a skilled orator who successfully avoided a political pigeonholing during much of the campaign and it worked. Unfortunately it’s a game that can only be played so long with such an important result on the line before people want a closer look.

How can a junior senator with one year of national political experience (of course the following 2 years spent preparing for a White House run) suddenly rise to the top of the Democratic Party, topple the Clinton-machine in the primaries to secure the Presidential nomination, surpass one of the most venerable and bi-partisan Republican opponents in early summer election polls, and then out of nowhere lose an unbelievable 7 point lead to fall a full 5 points behind in a matter of two weeks?? Because he’s a great and talented senator? No, and I’ll prove that one too, name one piece of significant legislation with his name on it…it doesn’t exist and he knows it. Even worse, when asked at the Saddleback debates about his ability to “reach across the aisle” he cited HIS BEST EXAMPLE of bipartisanship work as a US Senator as the time he worked with McCain on campaign ethics reform...turns out he showed up on the first day to help then sent a letter to McCain the next morning announcing his immediate withdrawal from the effort. We found out later the reason being it interfered with his Democratic Party's own agenda items...wow. This isn't nitpick muckraking, this is Obama's own best example he chose to share (afterall, it sounds good) I just don't think he expected to be called out on it.

So how do you explain this sharp drop? What’s going on? Perhaps finally getting to know the merely mortal man beyond the Messianic media image may have something to do with it. The past two weeks have offered John Q. Public some well overdue insight to finally evaluate this potential Commander in Chief.

First a glimpse of the real domestic Obama from the Saddleback debates last weekend

Warren: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Obama: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

I’ve heard the liberal supporters’ response here, “Obama was showing a side of courageous humility with that answer, it is too complex an issue to just arrogantly pretend to understand.” Before you jump on the “we support the one for change” bandwagon on this issue too, look a little bit deeper at what this response is telling us about the man who so desperately wants to be our next President.

First of all, the truth is not a single one of Obama's votes on the matter were ever placed in favor of restricting abortion or for protecting life in either the Illinois or US senate, so arguing that he may be showing a sign of accepted humility on a complex situation, and therefore deciding it best to just “sit this one out” is immediately erased and proven false by the demonstrable actions of his voting record (it never seemed to be above his Illinois senate or US senate “pay grade” in the past).

Secondly, his personal pro-choice or pro-life stance is not at all what I’m concerned with addressing, but rather the obvious flaw in his logic. To say one is not sure when a fetus deserves human rights suggests uncertainty on such an extremely important matter – in essence this is determining whether or not an aborted fetus has been robbed of its most basic human right, a right to life, and whether the act would then be a legal abortion or a murder. This is understandably a difficult issue. However, Obama’s claim that he does not feel comfortable responding to, or the matter is not “within his pay grade” to respond, suggests logically that he’d want to approach the situation cautiously and objectively until the necessary information was made available to help him answer that question with the specificity he indicated not currently possessing. As I heard originally and very wisely pointed out Dennis Prager, if Obama admits that this is a complicated area above his immediate understanding, then why in the world would he NOT err on the side of human life until he DOES know?

Not to trivialize the matter, but this is analogous to saying it is widely believed a certain grain pesticide may be causing a form of malignant cancer but the detailed information required to properly assess and respond to the crisis is not entirely available, so until then…we shall err on the side of continuing to use the pesticide. Can you imagine the outcry?! A few hundred people got salmonella last summer and the US tomato industry shut down for nearly two months! When human life is concerned, you always err on the side of caution.

The position of the “humbly uninformed” can ONLY be held by a pro-life stance. That is inherent to being pro-life, one feels they do not know enough to decide and therefore will not participate in potentially restricting life until rightfully informed. Again, indepenent of what he really feels, by his statement he’d have to be either a.) Pro-life (which we know he's not), b.) Pro-choice and logically flawed, or c.) Yet again placating the masses and revealing his true incapability to handle the important situations.

It would have just been easier for Obama to display his voting record and let it speak for itself. Pro-choice, supported partial birth abortions and induced labor abortion, therefore believes a fetus gets rights only upon intended birth. Next question.

So if he can’t play the humble “above my pay grade” stance on the question (has never in the past, why start now?) or if he truly believes in his position as being uninformed or unqualified to determine the matter (making him then logically and morally flawed by his voting record), then what was he doing? I do not believe for one second Obama honestly finds this question above his pay grade. But to prove another point, let’s imagine he really does believe this. Then that is perhaps the most frightening aspect of this all. Unfortunately, he is not running for a position which allows him the comfort of taking this stance. The next President will not only oversee the most pro-choice/pro-life split House and Senate (and American public) this country has ever seen, but also undoubtedly hold sole responsibility for appointing at least one Supreme Court Justice during this next term, forever establishing America’s future precedent on this debate. If you want to play coy and reserved on this issue, run for county traffic board…the stakes are too big for the next American leader to honestly believe any issue of this importance “above their pay grade.”

And a glimpse at the real foreign policy Obama

This recent insight into the real Obama on domestic issues was also seen during a true “3-am moment” in international policy last week. The common denominator between the Saddleback debate and the recent unwarranted occupation of Georgia by Russia is the impromptu way each issue caught both candidates off guard, unscripted, and requiring on-the-spot leadership void of campaign strategist meetings. True character and experience shows in these moments, not after a weekend spent tracking polls with advisors and calculating a response.

Obama’s Two Responses

 "I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia andRussia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war.”

His apathetic response, riding comfortably down the center of this issue, lacked the appropriate condemnation of Russia’s attack on the innocent. This would have been an expected response from someone detached from foreign policy, perhaps some movie star guest on The View stressing another typically uninformed peace-activist agenda, but he wants to be leader of the free world and is too naïve and inexperienced to properly deal with an on-the-spot act of illegal aggression by a world power on a US ally. This response revealed to the public Obama’s sudden realization that “playing President” all summer, with his presumptuous speeches around the world and photo-ops with foreign heads of state, means also having to make the tough and timely decisions impacting innocent people’s lives. This was the first time the public saw an Obama caught with the “deer in the headlights” look with no advisors immediately close by (he was vacationing in Hawaii at the time). His initially pitiful response to this blatant act of aggression on the young democracy was then retracted two days after an international outcry on his foreign policy naivety and then replaced with a more appropriate Commander in Chief response condemning Russia specifically.

"I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire... Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."

You don’t get the benefit of arguing your input doesn’t matter at this point as only a Presidential candidate…you’re trying to convince an America that knows nothing about you that you’re ready to lead us in the world in a matter of months. What you choose to reveal to us in both your calculated moments (hope! change! not Bush!) and, more importantly, your unexpected moments is all we have to work with. There is no 20 year policital voting record to gauge you by. Only one year of radical voting placing you further left than any other US Senator, some catchy bumpersticker taglines promising the world, and then these few glimpses into your real self.

On the contrary, the public saw a ready and capable McCain getting to really show off his foreign policy prowess, bi-partisan capabilities, and readiness to spring into action on moments of international crises. As pointed out by several critics on this issue between the two candidates, McCain “didn’t need to google Georgia to know who’s side we’re on and what to do.” Before Obama had retracted his statement and been advised on the proper approach, McCain had strongly and appropriately reproached Russia, called an emergency UN Security Council meeting, and encouraged the unconditional American and international support of our Georgian ally during the invasion.

Maybe the tactic of say-little-and-attract-all has expired and we’re getting the first real view of how ready Obama is to lead. Two of Obama’s largest Democratic Party figures, Daschle and Feingold, who have worked extensively alongside McCain over the years, have said they will of course support their fellow Democratic candidate for the position but would "not lose a nights sleep if in the end McCain beats Obama.” I wonder how many of McCain’s close colleagues would say this about the Obama they’ve seen do virtually nothing during his lengthy year in the US Senate (except getting ready to spend the next 2 years running for President).

Obama is a pop culture icon. The closer we get to him the increasingly less impressive he is. His camp has shot back at McCain for the recent advertisements comparing him to the glorified American pop celeb, Paris Hilton, and have argued those cheap shots show how immature McCain is and what little ground they have to attack him with as far as substance and policy. Well, as you finally begin to reveal more substance and policy you've for so long kept from the public view to not deter voters, those will fall under fire as well (they already are - you fell from a 7 point lead to a 5 point deficit in two weeks with only the above mentioned events occurring in this time). But even still, its funny how quick Obama is to attack McCain on a comparison he's calling "juvenile" and "immature" in regard to his pop status and how quick he is to hide the fact that he sees himself the same way. Here's the running joke Obama used multiple times during the primaries before McCain ever put it back in his face:

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

In fact, I think his camp is terrified about how true this actually is. Pop fads come and go, and as we get closer to November people will want more of what Obama can not offer - substance. Now he just needs to hope, like any one-hit wonder riding temporary fame to the next album release, he can continue to fuel this superficial pop status for two more months until Election Day.

I didn’t write this for the Obama fanatics, you’ve made up your mind and I can see why – he’s a very appealing candidate on the surface. His ambiguous approach on the important issues is understandable if he wants to sell a hidden socialist agenda to the vast moderate center. If I were trying to run on a platform of increased taxes, raised income taxes for the wealthy (tax the job creators and they create less jobs - in my past 6 jobs, I’ve never worked for a poor man…), increased capital gains taxes, increased government size and power at the expense of the individual and private sector, increased government regulations, decreased freedom of speech (Fairness Doctrine), increased government spending on social programs, socialized Medicine, blocking the drilling of American oil, and decreased military spending…I’d probably be a little ambiguous too and stick to the empty “change” and “hope” bumper-sticker taglines.

But for the fence sitters who have been bombarded by the Obama pop culture message, maybe you’re part of that 5% tidal wave that began 2 weeks ago to see this guy up close for once, or maybe you’re just beginning to ask yourself these bigger questions – Whichever candidate steps into office in 2009, who is better fit to handle the following problems awaiting them? A soon-to-be nuclear Iran verbally threatening to “wipe Israel off the map,” an increasingly aggressive and defiant Russia, a slumping private sector, the growing need for increased national security and protected borders, increased global Islamic fascism threatening the West, social American policies threatening international competitiveness and trade, and a need for America’s independence from foreign oil?

If the question were just as simple as, “Who appears to be more for hope and change?” I’d have sided with that Obama guy a long time ago...