SATURDAY,  MARCH 15,  2008

THE GATHERING STORM

No, it has nothing to do with Churchill's writings on the coming of World War II.  It has more to do with Barack Obama.  This has been a very bad week for him, with the prospect of more to come. 

The story of his pastor is not new.  It's been around for more than a year, as Investor's Business Daily notes: 

This newspaper was the first to draw attention to Obama's hate-mongering preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, and his black segregationist church in Chicago.

Our January 2007 editorial, "Obama's Real Faith," exposed their preaching of a militantly anti-white and socialist doctrine called the "Black Value System," triggering a major story in the Chicago Tribune, which led to other stories.

Now comes the leaking of recently videotaped sermons by Wright angrily condemning whites as racists and America as evil. If you close your eyes, you'd swear you were listening to the hateful rantings of uber-bigot Louis Farrakhan.

Like the Nation of Islam minister, Wright feeds his 8,500-member flock, including Obama and his family, legends about whites keeping blacks down by getting them hooked on crack and then locking them up. He even claims whites invented AIDS to destroy blacks.

Obama is not immune to such myths. Until recently, when he was informed it wasn't true, he repeated a favorite Wright line that "we've got more black men in prison than there are in college."

For whatever reason - the arrogance of the press, obvious press bias, fears about "guilt by association," the story never broke into the mainstream with any impact until ABC News ran clips this week of the now-famous clergyman engaged in one of his anti-American rants.

Now Obama has been all over the tube trying to disassociate himself from the pastor's remarks.  The problem is, some of Obama's disavowals are strained.  He claims, for example, that he never heard Wright say any of these things.  Really?  He's been a member of that church for almost two decades.  Even if he never was in church to hear the hateful remarks live, was he never aware of them?  In all his personal talks with Wright, whom he has described as a father-figure, did Wright never mention any of his political beliefs - to a politician?

This whole thing doesn't ring true. 

I DENOUNCE...WELL, A LITTLE BIT

Obama's statements, always eloquent, sometimes raise more issues than they resolve.  As this one:

Obama spoke warmly of Wright, who retired last month as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Wright is a man “I’ve known for 17 years, [who] helped bring me to Jesus, helped bring me to church,” he said.

“I strongly condemn” Wright’s statements, but “I would not repudiate the man,” Obama said. “He’s been preaching for 30 years. He’s a man who was a former Marine, a biblical scholar, someone who’s spoken at theological schools all over the country.

“That’s the man I know,” Obama said. “That’s the man who was the pastor of this church.”

But Obama acknowledged that “there’s no doubt this is going to be used as political fodder, as it has been in the past.”

“What I hope is [that] what the American people will trust is what I believe,” he said, that “my values, my ideas, what I’ve spoke about in terms of bringing the country together will override a guilt by association.”

But the sermons, at least one of which was delivered long before Wright retired last month, revived uncomfortable questions about Obama’s ties to the minister, whom conservative critics have accused of advocating black separatism.

Only conservative critics?  You mean liberals love the guy?  I haven't noticed that.  Bit of press bias there. 

ON THE USE OF A TERM

You will notice that Obama used the term "guilt by association."  That will be the battle cry.  It's unfair, his allies will say, to hold him responsible for what someone else says.  Why, it's, it's...guilt by association.

The problem is, it isn't.

Let's look at the term.  In the political context, guilt by association implies a casual, even accidental association.  Here's a classic example:  Senator Jones goes to a meeting of, say, the Downtown Small Business Club.  He gives a speech.  Afterward, someone says, "Senator, can we take a picture of you with the officers?" 

"Sure," the senator says.  And they take the picture, which appears in a local paper.

A year later one of the officers - he's the one standing just to the senator's right - is indicted for embezzlement, and we learn he has mob ties.  It's an election year.  Jones's opponent, Mayor George Smear, digs up the picture, speaks to a press conference, and waves the photo in front of reporters.  "Now we know," Smear says, "the kind of people Senator Jones associates with."

That's guilt by association.  Jones could not have known of the officer's perfidy.  But he's linked to the guy in a classic smear. 

Obama's case is entirely different.  His "association" with the pastor is almost two decades old.  It's been close, voluntary, and detailed.  To question it is not to engage in guilt by association, but to raise legitimate concerns about Obama's judgment and the allies he chooses.

"IF IT OFFENDS YOU, I CONDEMN IT!"

That, Mickey Kaus of Kausfiles says, seems to be the Obama creed:

This seems to be the General Rule of Obama--if it's going to damage him, he condemns it! And rejects and denounces. Vehemently! The Rule would seem to apply to all past and future controversial statements--his campaign could get that sentence printed up on little laminated cards and hand them out to reporters, or include them after the statements of all Obama surrogates, like those fine-print 'void where prohibited' waivers. "Condemned if controversial."

Kaus notes:

Remember, this is a controversy Obama had to know was coming since at least (by his own admission) the beginning of his campaign. Ideally, he'd have issued his HuffPo statement many months ago. In any case, it's not something he had to hastily draft. Unless he's clueless, he's been working on it for a while.

Do you get the feeling that the awe surrounding Obama is fading fast - except among the kids, for whom awe is a constant state, directed one day at rock stars, the next at rock senators?

ANOTHER BRICK ON THE LOAD

As I said above, it's a gathering storm:  I really do hope the McCain campaign knows how to take notes.  The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama said Friday that he had made repeated lapses of judgment in dealing with an indicted Chicago real estate developer, Antoin Rezko, and acknowledged that Mr. Rezko had raised more money for his political campaigns than he had previously disclosed.

Mr. Rezko, who is on trial on federal corruption charges, had raised as much as $250,000 for Mr. Obama during his first three political races. Previously, Mr. Obama’s campaign estimated that Mr. Rezko had raised about $150,000 for him.

In an interview with The Chicago Tribune that was posted on the newspaper’s Web site on Friday evening, Mr. Obama said he had made a mistake by engaging in a real estate deal with Mr. Rezko. The deal involved a new home Mr. Obama and his family bought in Chicago in 2005; Mr. Rezko acquired an adjacent parcel of land to help complete the sale.

Coming soon to a TV screen near you - Hillary's Rezko ad, or McCain's.  We'll see by the tracking polls whether Obama slips into real trouble.  But if there's another big embarrassment out there, he's going to be damaged goods. 

Imagine - Democrats may look to Hillary for ethical government.  That's like looking to Don Imus for sensitivity.

SOME GOOD NEWS

It's great to end on a positive note.  The Washington Post features a column by a reserve Army sergeant who just received a master's degree from Johns Hopkins.  He serves in Iraq, and reports the kind of progress that's heartening:

BAGHDAD -- Since I arrived here last August, I have been struck by four things: the financial commitment we have made to reconstruction; the precipitous decline in violence; the inklings of representative government; and the small yet significant progress in communal relations between the mostly Shiite Iraqi army and the predominantly Sunni residents of this area. One often reads of the chaos plaguing Iraq. Yet the media accounts only infrequently seem to grasp the successes being achieved.

Yeah, we've noticed.  He goes on:

Even the Iraqi army has taken a turn for the better here. Not long ago its troops were seen as an obstacle to reconciliation and were accused of arresting locals without evidence, only to request ransoms for their release. There are still occasional incidents of graft and abuse, but now Iraqi troops provide security and make efforts to build rapport with the populace.

Through continuous prodding, our squadron has influenced the local army contingent's understanding of the values of civil affairs. One particularly adept Iraqi captain has coordinated numerous efforts to hand out humanitarian assistance, organized medical and dental missions in local schools, provided security for deliveries of much-needed fuel, and even delivered wheelchairs himself.

There is still much left to be accomplished in Iraq. But the successes of the men and women serving in this once explosive area of Baghdad cannot be overstated. Sitting here in Adhamiyah, one thing is certain: The surge has worked.

It's nice to hear that, and it's nice to know that attending an American institution of higher education hasn't destroyed this sergeant's confidence in our military mission.  Maybe he should give some advice to Senator Obama's minister.

Be back later.

Posted on March 15, 2008.