January 13, 2013
Email Friend | Print Article | | Share Share

December 12, 2006

Anointing Barack

By Teri O'Brien
The latest excuse for the media to publish hagiographic photos suggesting a place on Mount Rushmore, inaccurately apply adjectives like "moderate," "centrist" and "non-ideological," and otherwise indulge its embarrassing schoolgirl crush on Barack Obama was his December 10, 2006 trip to New Hampshire.

The New York Times writes about his "message of hope."  The New York Daily News 
said he "took New Hampshire by storm," and writes of people who came to see him "leaving with their eyes shining." The Los Angeles Times headline says it all:  "Crowds Adore Obama." (Just like the LAT editors)

Let's not leave out Sen. Obama's hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune. Things haven't been going well for the Trib  for the last few years, and is it any wonder? Other than the brilliant and talented John Kass, this rag has had very little to recommend itself for years.

With its December 6, 2006 editorial, "Obama Should Run,"  the Trib surrendered any claim to being a newspaper that serious people can take seriously. Allowing itself to be seduced to the point of publishing puerile nonsense like the following on its editorial page is another:

What would he bring to the race that others don't? The most obvious is an approach that transcends party, ideology and geography. In his convention speech, Obama demolished the image of a nation of irreconcilable partisan camps: "We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states." 

No one else has shown a comparable talent for appealing to the centrist instincts of the American people--instincts that often go unsatisfied as each party labors to rally its most uncompromising factions. After the divisive events of the last decade, the nation may be ready for a voice that celebrates our common values instead of exaggerating our differences.

Any presidential race is a long shot, and there is no guarantee that Obama could succeed. But he may never again find such favorable circumstance.

With his unifying themes, he would raise the tone of the campaign. His intellectual depth--he was editor of the Harvard Law Review and taught law at the University of Chicago--and openness would sharpen the policy debate. He could help the citizenry get comfortable contemplating something that will happen sooner or later--a black president. His magnetic style and optimism would draw many disenchanted Americans back into the political process. 

He and the nation have little to lose and much to gain from his candidacy."
Where do you start with this foolishness? "An approach that transcends party, ideology and geography?" Barack Obama (or at the risk of antagonizing E.J. Dionne, Barack Hussein Obama) is an extremely partisan, left-wing democrat. (If you don't believe me, read his discomfort at even the suggestion that he would throw in with the moderate Democratic Leadership Council.) Also consider his voting record:
  • Sponsored a pointless and burdensome unfunded mandate requiring local police departments to racially profile every traffic stop (because of course categorizing citizens by race is the most important problem local law enforcement must address. One wonders: if Sen. Obama gets stopped, which box do the police check for him? Is it just me or should he, given his mixed race parentage be the last person suggesting such a stupid law?)
  • Voted No on Constitutional amendment banning so-called "same-sex" marriage
  • Supported including "sexual orientation" in Illinois anti-discrimination laws
  • Opposes gun rights (NRA rating-F; Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control Rating-A)
  • Voted Against prohibiting early release for criminal sexual abusers
  • Voted "present" on a law prohibiting pornographic bookstores and strip clubs to be fewer than 1000 feet of schools and churches
  • Supported legislation making health care a "constitutional right," promoted by left-wing Physicians for National Health care, whose goal is socialized medicine for America, a goal Obama apparently shares
  • Opposed the state version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would require medical attention be given to babies fortunate enough to survive a botched abortion
  • Favors allowing partial birth abortion, which his wife called a ‘legitimate" medical procedure in a fund-raising letter
  • Voted "present" on a law requiring parental notification before a minor's abortion
None of this matters, of course, because of his "magnetic style and optimism" and his "voice that celebrates our common values instead of exaggerating our differences." I ask: what in the above-referened list suggests that Sen. Obama shares the values of the average American? Another question: do you suppose at some point any one of the courageous defenders of the people's right to know will insist that He Who Walks on Water really answer a question about a single one of these issues? Don't hold your breath. It didn't happen in 2004.

And let's not forget who one of his best friends is, none other than anti-American, pro-drug legalization goofball George Soros.  Many noted that the man-god met with Soros last week , and have probably forgotten that  he also helped bankroll his Senate campaign in 2004. 
With this fawning superficial Valentine, the Trib (or should I say the Lib?) has descended into Chris Matthews territory, and that's no place for anyone with more than a double digit IQ to be.

Teri O'Brien blogs here.
on "Anointing Barack"