The Company You Keep Or...Turn-Off Politics

By any accounting, this has not been a good few days for Barack Obama. As he was recovering from the uncomfortable racial spotlight thrown on him by Geraldine Ferraro's identity politics comments, the McCain campaign exposed some incendiary passages from sermons given by Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright. This prompted Obama to do some serious denouncing and rejecting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23649347#23649347
Then Obama made a pre-emptive admission that his pal Tony Rezko actually gave a total of $250,00 to his state and US Senatorial campaigns, not the $150,000 originally reported. The only good news was a pick-up of more delegates through the continuing caucus process in Iowa.

Now, obviously, all campaigns have these periods of damage control. Each of the remaining candidates have been through them recently. They've all had to repudiate associations with controversial people. The question is, are these associations a valid measuring stick by which we should evaluate them? Is the company they keep a fair aspect of the vetting process? I say yes and no.

I think candidates should generally be held accountable for actions and relationships. In Obama's case, the Rezko matter offers an example of poor political and ethical judgment. That should be noted. And he should be questioned as to whether he has learned a lesson. Ditto for McCain's Vicki Iseman scenario. Forget the sexual innuendo, a Senator who rails against pork and special favors for special interests should not be flying on private corporate jets alone with a lobbyist. That's just stupid. Has he learned from that? And where do we begin with Hillary's transgressions and relationships (Whitewater, Vincent Foster?) Has she learned from them? So there is a value to a level of scrutiny.

But what we're seeing now in this campaign is not mere scrutiny. It's the ugly side of politics. The side that makes Americans apathetic about the process. And we can call it a number of things, but Obama's recent "vetting" is just race baiting. Sure, you can make a case that Obama should denounce a pastor who says, "Hillary's never ben called a nigger" or "Not God Bless America, but God damn America". You can say it may be worthwhile to know how Obama segregates his personal relationship with Wright from the Pastor's political views. But the reality is, the McCain camp used standard political playbook tactics to conjur up some doubt about Obama's fealty to radical black orthodoxy. Now, if Obama had given any indication, at any time, that he shared Wright's views, this would be a valid exploration. But clearly, Obama never has. In fact, he has gone to great pains to be race neutral. But it's standard racial politics to make white folks think that it's all an act. That this mild mannered black guy is really plotting the destruction of white America. And don't think this is anything but that. I have been an ardent supporter of McCain's integrity on the trail, but it's now clear his campaign will play gutter politics when it serves them. For example, McCain raised eyebrows a while back when he completely distorted Mitt Romney's comments about a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. And he was willing to look Romney in the eye at a debate and lie about Romney's position, leaving the former Governor dumbfounded at the audacity.

We can also look at the pattern of Clinton tactics, starting with the email that Obama's Muslim, to comments about cocaine use, to Jesse Jackson references, to the 3 AM phone ad, to Ferraro's comments, all of which reduce this exciting, trailblazing race to...well, race. .

So what's the problem with these lines of attack? There are two of them. First--forgetting the racial component--all of this 'vetting' leads to one unflattering conclusion: They all do it. The Richard Nixon defense. All the candidates have relationships and supporters and past behavior that are questionable. For every Geraldine Ferraro there's a Samantha Power or a Bill Cunningham. For every Norman Chu, there's a Tony Rezko. For every John Hagee or Norman Parsley there's a Jeremiah Wright. And then there's Vicki Iseman and corporate jet setting when you claim to be anti-lobbyist. But this is, let's say it together, politics. Of course unsavory relationships enter into the mix. And adroit damage control doesn't mean that something fishy isn't going on.

The second problem is that the campaign becomes about one thing: fear. And this is where we're heading now. All fear, all the time. He can't keep you safe at 3 AM. She's going to make Bill her co-president. He's going to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. He sounds like Bobby Kennedy but he's really Malcolm X. I just heard on Fox news an anti-Obama analyst say this thing with Jeremiah Wright was "going to stick. The voters know". Know what? No one asked that question. No one had to. They all knew what she meant. It was just left hanging in the air. And that is what fear does. It hangs in the air. Unnamed, but present. And that's when politics is reduced to the message that "the only thing we have...is fear itself." It's a message that worked for George Bush in 2004, but how's it working now?

Judging by his words lately, not so good. A few days ago, The President spoke of wishing he could be on the front lines in Afghanistan, saying that it could be considered almost a 'romantic' adventure? What? Obviously, this comes from a guy who never faced combat--and maybe even training--when he was a National Guardsman during Vietnam. Then he gave a speech Friday to the Economic Club of America. Not the greatest example of leadership I've ever seen. In fact, as he listed his perspective on the various disasters this country has weathered, it made me realize why we're in the mess we're in. Check it out. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23632324/

So the question of the day is: Is it enough for Obama to repudiate the words of Jeremiah Wright, or is he going to be held to a different standard than Hillary or McCain because this issue is really about racial fear? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.