Obama's "Jewish Problem" (?)

There is no evidence that Barack Obama has a "Jewish" problem.

The problem with guilt by association arguments is that they tend to render insignificant the degree or quality of the association that allegedly tarnishes one participant.

Tony McPeak is an adviser to the Obama campaign, and he is verbose and colorful enough that Obama's press team likes to use him as a surrogate. McPeak happens to have some very strong opinions, one of them being the clumsily coded belief that New York Jews are responsible for the United States's locked-in alliance with Israel, which McPeak seems to believe is damaging. To hold Barack Obama personally responsible for McPeak's views -- which is the consequence of an argument that uses McPeak along to make the case that Obama has a Jewish problem -- is simply not logical. (Does Howard Dean have a Jewish problem? McPeak endorsed him too, in 2003.)

In the same way, John McCain does not have a Catholic problem because his campaign made the dumb mistake of publicly seeking and touting the endorsement of John Hagee. McCain's campaign has the problem, and McCain is implicated indirectly, only, in the sense that he was eager to associate himself with Hagee without checking to see what Hagee believes or has said.

Those Obama staffers who use McPeak as a surrogate are the ones who, if there is a problem at all, have to deal with it. Here's betting that McPeak will not find himself asked to do many surrogate interviews from now on.

Why would I defend Obama from McPeak's views, which reasonable people certainly can find offensive, and defend McCain from Hagee's views, which reasonable people certainly have found to be offensive?

Because there are indeed cases where the guilt by association argument is not out of bounds, where the choice of an association has political relevance.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright had long been one of Obama's closest personal advisers. Obama chose to associate with Wright and chose to continue his association with Wright even as his own views diverged from Wright's. Obama's association with Wright is a real one. His association with McPeak is an artifact of the campaign. If there's blame to be had, blame the Obama campaign staffer responsible for vetting potential endorsements.

To close off this post with some substance, Gallup finds that Obama and Clinton are splitting the Jewish vote, hardly evidence that Obama currently has a "problem" with Jews.

Comments

Would it be wrong to say the Cubans in Miami have an inordinate amount of influence on our policy towards Cuba?

Posted by Sean Braisted | March 26, 2008 9:50 AM

Hey Marc,

Instead of beating the Obama-Jew Dead Horse, why do you not have any interest in the connection between the Clintons and Richard Mellon Scaife?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/8177/19959/626/484477

Posted by RKA | March 26, 2008 10:01 AM

Obama and Clinton are splitting the Jewish vote, hardly evidence that Obama currently has a "problem" with Jews.

Keep Dreamin....

Posted by Michael Ramirez | March 26, 2008 10:05 AM

"Hey Marc,
Instead of beating the Obama-Jew Dead Horse, why do you not have any interest in the connection between the Clintons and Richard Mellon Scaife?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/8177/19959/626/484477
Posted by RKA | March 26, 2008 10:01 AM "

All the stuff about the Clintons is old and has been around for years. They have lived their lives in front of a video camera for the past 16 years. We know them; warts and all.

We don't know Obama. He has just begun to be vetted. That's why there's more attention paid to his relationships.

Posted by JanetP | March 26, 2008 10:16 AM

it's LONG past time we start talking about whether or not McPeak is actually right, rather than playing off of the "oo this might be offensive to some people" dodge. the AIPAC DOES have an inordinate amount of influence on our foreign policy, for God's sake, and it's time we at least opened a discussion as to whether or not this is a good thing. offensive be damned, it's time to get serious.

Posted by BA | March 26, 2008 10:19 AM

Nice talking points, JanetP.

But can you explain to me why the Clintons are collaborating with the same people who accused them of murder?

It's a bit odd, don't you think?

Posted by RKA | March 26, 2008 10:21 AM

am I reading this right and Marc is suggesting that McPeak is like Haggee? Really?

I think the relevant Sciafe point is that Hillary was sitting next to him yesterday doing an interview for his paper in Philly--the man who invested millions in defeating her and Bill and who accused her of murdering Foster.

Posted by lfo | March 26, 2008 10:23 AM

RKA

you beat me to it.

Posted by lfo | March 26, 2008 10:25 AM

Perhaps my favorite line of argument in this campaign has come from the Clinton campaign, arguing that they and their supporters are only doing their job by going hard into the gutter with Obama because, after all, it will happen to him in the general anyway. It's such a precious argument. Do these people have the slightest idea how vitriolic the Republicans would be with HRC, and only with respect to what's happened with the Clintons since 2000? But it's not helpful to go there, because this is a PRIMARY. If all that stuff is going to come out in a general, so be it. It's not the job of a primary candidate to his or her opponent. What Clinton is doing now is comparable to if Huckabee had stayed in the race only to scream "SENILE KEATING FIVE SENILE KEATING FIVE SENILE KEATING FIVE SENILE KEATING FIVE" at every turn. It's just sad.

Posted by Bill | March 26, 2008 10:29 AM

McCain and Huckabee have both shown themselves to be more honorable people than Hillary Clinton over the past few months. And I usually resent preacher types and old fart warmongers.

Posted by TH | March 26, 2008 10:42 AM

Also, I find it really funny that Hillary people are criticizing Obama for having Tony McPeak on as a foreign policy advisor, when Bill and Hillary had such a warm and close relationship with Yasser Arafat.

Posted by Sean Braisted | March 26, 2008 10:44 AM

"To close off this post with some substance, Gallup finds that Obama and Clinton are splitting the Jewish vote, hardly evidence that Obama currently has a "problem" with Jews"

That is correct Marc, but the more interesting comparison would be to compare how Obama is doing amongst Jewish voters vs. how previous liberal, insurgent candidates have done in years past. For example, Bradley vs. Gore in 2000, Tsongas vs. Clinton in 1992, Hart vs. Mondale in 1984. The "beer-track/wine-track" dichotomy is shallow and overused, but there is a kernel of truth to how Democratic voters break down. If I remember correctly, Jewish voters have gravitated more toward the Bradley/Hart types by a significantly higher margin than Obama is getting.

Posted by Adam | March 26, 2008 10:46 AM

JanetP said... All the stuff about the Clintons is old and has been around for years. They have lived their lives in front of a video camera for the past 16 years. We know them; warts and all.

Really? I missed the details about all of the Clinton pardons. The last I heard, they were locked up at the archives. I missed the details of where the money has come from for the foundation. Can you provide them to me please? I missed the details of how they made so much money that they could afford to loan their campaign $5 million. Could you provide a link to their tax returns? I missed the details of the NAFTA meetings she attended, the ones where she opposed it. Can you point them out to me?

These requests should be easy if they've already been vetted.

Posted by LFC | March 26, 2008 10:48 AM

There has been enough exposed about the Clinton's for one to judge their character, ability, patriotism, and experience, and to form a fairly accurate opinion of what a Hillary Clinton Presidency would look like. One can find plenty of reasons to accept them, and likewise to reject them.

We don't have that perspective about Barack Obama. I was one of the ones totally smitten by him. But the more I learn about him, the less there is to love. We know very little about his 8 years in the Illinois Senate. To my knowledge he has not distinguished himself in the U.S. Senate (that might be a little unfair given his short tenure.)

Obama has no military experience, no business experience; he was never a governor of a state where he had a cabinet, submitted a budget, or negotiated with a state legislature.

And, like it or not, we are judged by the company we keep. His 20 year association with Rev. Wright can't be dismissed and it's sad but true that Obama shares his aura.

I passed off the statements made by his wife as just jitters, or a misstep, but after reading the church's mission statement her remarks seem to be consistent with their ideology.

Posted by JanetP | March 26, 2008 11:05 AM

The problem with this analysis is that Barack's spiritual advisor also has a problem with Israel. Remember, he criticized Israel in one of his famous speeches and gave an award to Farakhan. The analogy to McCain and Catholics is also false and misleading. Unlike Obama, McCain has never asked Hagee to appear for him on television and state the campaign's positions. According to your posting, Obama has indeed used McPeak in this capacity. Moreover, the left-wing blogosphere clearly wanted to create a Catholic problem for McCain with the endorsement from Hagee. In fact, your colleague Andrew Sullivan mentioned it several times as did the New York Times Magazine section.

Posted by Stephen | March 26, 2008 11:10 AM

BA,

Wesley Clark said what you did. Does Clinton have to kick him to the curb now?

Posted by Cee | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

Stephen,

Go and read the NYTimes Magazine interview with Hagee. McCain SOUGHT his endorsement! Then proudly appeared with him on TV, touting that endorsement. WTF are you talking about!

Posted by John | March 26, 2008 11:16 AM

Stephen,

Go and read the NYTimes Magazine interview with Hagee. McCain SOUGHT his endorsement! Then proudly appeared with him on TV, touting that endorsement. WTF are you talking about!

Posted by John | March 26, 2008 11:16 AM

Hello Janet P,
Looks like you are only capable of understanding the most nagetive aspects of things with a predetermined distaste. You are too hopeless!

Posted by PH | March 26, 2008 11:23 AM

First, Obama has a staff that has been extremely pro-palestinian. There is a track record of bad judgment on Obama's part. First Samantha Power (Says we should invade Israel) then you have another froeign Advisor Robert Malley. Then you have reverand Wright and then you have other staffers that are members of Nation of Islam. All these sart to compile a record of bad judgement on Obama's part.

Lets face reality, and not be blind to all these issues that are piling up against Obama.

PS: I am an Independent and have no party affiliation, but Obama is starting to scare me.

Posted by Blind to Obama's staff problems | March 26, 2008 11:26 AM

The bigest Obama's problem is jewish problem.
Obama's problem is that he love America more then Israel.

Posted by Ivan | March 26, 2008 11:53 AM

The bigest Obama's problem is jewish problem.
Obama's problem is that he love America more then Israel.

Posted by Ivan | March 26, 2008 11:53 AM

The problem is that it seems every one of Obama's advisors/friends/etc. (at least the ones dumb enough to open their mouths) disagrees with Obama's stated position on Israel. At what point do you start to suspect Obama is giving Jews the old okey-dokey?

Posted by Rusty | March 26, 2008 11:58 AM

It is amazing to what lengths Obama's apologists are willing to go to, to maintain his saintly image. He engaged Samantha Power, McPeak and Zbigniew Brzezinski as his foreign policy advisors presumably because he agrees with their general positions and would reasonably be expected to hire them in some foreign policy or Defense capacity if he is president. How can Obama's supporters argue that it is the "campaign's" (whoever THAT IS) fault and that Obama may not subscribe to these peoples' foreign policy views. Really! How seriously can he be taken if he engages spokesmen without having an understanding of, or concurrence with, their views? With all her bloviating, it would be a good bet that the "resigned" Power will still have significant influence (in some capacity) on Obama's foreign policy.

Does anyone seriously expect Hagee to have a job in a McCain administration?

Posted by J. B. Yahudie | March 26, 2008 12:03 PM

Wes Clark should be Obama's #1 pick for Vice President, in my humble opinion. Hillary can't afford to kick him to the curb.

P.S. no-where does Sam Power say we could or should "invade Israel". you should try actually reading her books instead of regurgitating pre-digested neocon information pellets. yes, i will be the first to admit his FP advisers are far more even-handed about the Israeli-Palestinian situation than any in recent memory, but so what? that's just my point. we need evenhandedness and a thorough discussion of the situation, because guess what, it is a central foreign policy issue.

who knows, maybe our conclusion will be the status quo is the best option. but allowing an extremely powerful lobby to dictate the discussion is not a reasonable policy nor is it in keeping with Obama's larger government ethos.

Posted by BA | March 26, 2008 12:14 PM

Every day i am so fortunate to be welcomed by my computer with a new, outlandishly insulting talking point from a Clinton operative. Makes me not even want to follow the election, or news, for that matter. It's depressing. maybe that's Hillary's secondary objective when she sends out thugs to do these kind of things. Turn the electorate off so much that the optimism of the upcoming election is turned on its head. She knows she can count on the true blue Dems to vote, but lets do all we can to keep others from entering in to the process.

Can the spineless Dem leaders(Gore, Pelosi, Reid, Edwards) speak out and end this once and for all.

Posted by dave | March 26, 2008 12:16 PM

"Hello Janet P,
Looks like you are only capable of understanding the most nagetive aspects of things with a predetermined distaste. You are too hopeless!

Posted by PH | March 26, 2008 11:23 AM"

It serves no purpose to engage in personal attacks because one disagrees with your point of view; likewise it serves no purpose to respond to them, so I won't.

I will make this observation: I think when one resorts to personal attacks it is an absolute admission that the argument has been lost on all legitimate grounds.

Posted by JanetP | March 26, 2008 12:42 PM

So Janet, in other words Hillary has lost the argument.

Posted by Eric k | March 26, 2008 12:56 PM

JanetP - "We know very little about his 8 years in the Illinois Senate. To my knowledge he has not distinguished himself in the U.S. Senate (that might be a little unfair given his short tenure.)

Obama has no military experience, no business experience; he was never a governor of a state where he had a cabinet, submitted a budget, or negotiated with a state legislature."

Hillary Clinton has also failed to distinguish herself in the U.S. Senate, and has never served in a state senate. She also has no military experience, no business experience; was never a governor of a state where she had a cabinet, submitted a budget, or negotiated with a state legislature.

So essentially, you're saying that we should throw out his 8 years in state government because there wasn't a paid staff member recording his schedules? And that we should vote for Hillary Clinton solely because she's spent more time in front of a camera over the last two decades?

Posted by Howard | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM

Interesting analysis. One other factor that could well play into the question of "Does Obama have a Jewish problem?" is the matter of Farakkhan. That should be added to the McPeak brew when considering a more complete picture. Taken individually, probably no problem. But, people do not usually look at isolated components.

Posted by christinep | March 26, 2008 1:49 PM

Obama does not have a Farrakhan problem nor a Jewish problem. Obama simply loves America and is unabashedly and unapologetically pro-America. He choses to focus on the very real foreign policy criteria that American has only permanent interests. She does not have permanent allies.

Every single American who places any foreign governments interests above those of America is simply unpatriotic.

Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Rev Wright were recognized with honor in the Rose Garden by Reagan for having the leadership and diplomacy to have Lt. Ron Goodman released from Syria.

Neither of these men have at any time exhorting American citizens to violence or led a hate attack against any Americans. Farrakhan has not incited anyone to violence and his intemperate words about Jews are over 30 years old and no actions on his part have in anyway resulted in attacks on the Jewish community. The same goes for Jesse Jackson and Wright. So, the hysteria about these men and the constant yammering about 20 year old statements is ludicrous and specious.

From what I have read about Brezinzski's Powers and McPeaks foreign policy postures they are all very pro-American and looking out for what is best for America.

In fact, what the Clintons have in common with the Schaifes and Kristol is that they and their foreign policy advisors support a neo-con view of America's foreign policy thrust.

That is the common denominator. Whereas, Obama's foreign policy advisors are all pro-american and non-supportive of the neo-con global view of America's role abroad.

This is also why it is extremely important that Obama's campaign has been primarily funded by ordinary Americans. He is not beholded to special interests that have hijacked America's foreign policy to the extent that we are placing America and her citizens in harms way by having permanent allies which are not in the best interest of America and our economy and citizens lives.

All Americans who put America first should be elated that Obama's foreign policy advisors are breaking the strangle hold special interests have US foreign policy.

The individuals who have not been vetted are the Clintons who will sell out America to pursue their own personal ambitions. The Clintons clearly have no intention of putting America first.

It is all about them and anyone who can't see this is being willfully blind.

Posted by vicissitudes | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM

Remember Sidney Blumenthal, long-time friend and senior advisor to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the man who coined the term “vast right-wing conspiracy,” during the Lewinsky scandal? The selfsame Sidney who blew through Greeley Park at speeds in excess of 70-mph., in a 30-mph. zone. Had Barack Obama's pastor, the Reverend J.A. Wright, been behind the wheel, would it be a “minor blip?” Sidney was booked for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated, DWI. So, isn’t Sidney still Hillary’s chief political advisor? I rest my case: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 26, 2008 3:38 PM

Well,except for the fact that he has surrounded himself with people who have a great deal of hatred for Jews, such as his "spiritual advisor" and his foreign policy team which advocated using US military force to confront Israel in accepting a Palistinian state in 2001 in response to the 2000 Jenin hoax, he does not have a Jewish problem.

Of course, his belief that all the turmoil in the Middle East will be solved with the elimination of Israel probably makes him a hero for the radical left, of which he is a member.

Posted by LogicalUS | March 26, 2008 4:12 PM

"Splitting" Jews (with a slight edge for Clinton) might mean Obama doesn't have a Jewish problem if not for the fact that Jews are probably the most affluent and educated demographic in the United States, which means that Obama should be carrying them handily. Instead, the half of Jews who don't support Obama are the major exception to his strong support among affluent/educated voters. And it's no mystery why... talk to any middle-aged or elderly Jews, and you'll hear all kinds of rumors about Islam, black nationalism, and anti-Zionism. The Jewish community could probably have won Obama New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, and Massachusetts if they had been united in their support for Obama. But the various bigoted rumors floating around made this impossible.

On the other hand, most younger Jews I know (myself included) are Obama supporters. I think it's a generational split.

Posted by Dave | March 26, 2008 4:13 PM

"So essentially, you're saying that we should throw out his 8 years in state government because there wasn't a paid staff member recording his schedules? And that we should vote for Hillary Clinton solely because she's spent more time in front of a camera over the last two decades?"

Posted by Howard | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM

I'll disregard the mockery of your question and respond as though it had dignity.

Let me put on the record that I am not a big supporter of Sen. Clinton; I fell out with her over illegal immigration. However, there are three candidates left in the Presidential race and I think that Hillary is less dangerous than the other two.

As to Obama's service in the state senate, it is on the record that he habitually voted 'present' rather than registering an up or down vote. This is sheer cowardice.

Some of the legislation was important to Illinois; it was not naming a building after someone. When a legislator takes that course it is to provide political cover so that he don't alienate those on either side of the bill.

Sadly, it could be said that Obama took this same position with Rev. Wright. He didn't challenge him on the hateful speech until it became a political crisis and was in his self interest to do so.

These are not the actions of a leader; it is the action of one that goes along to get along. Perhaps Sen. Obama will ripen into presidential material, but in my opinion he is not there yet.

Posted by JanetP | March 26, 2008 4:35 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/968407.html

So much for Marc's insistence that Obama doesn't have a Jewish problem

Posted by Kate | March 26, 2008 4:51 PM

Obama's "Jewish problem" is that he hates Jews.

Duh.

Posted by Gary | March 26, 2008 5:12 PM

Obama has on heck of a problem with THIS Jew and it has nothing to do with Tony McPeak. It has plenty to do with Rev. Wright, who if scratched a bit will reveal more than a little Jew hatred beneath the surface. Anyone who can hand out an "achievement award" to Calypso Louie has to have at least a little bit of Jew hater in him. If Obama is that worried about his "street cred" he needs to look elswhere for a vote.

Posted by Richard Fagin | March 26, 2008 5:12 PM

I think Marc has it completely backwards. The political advisors or endorsers who have diverent or embarassing viewpoints should be thrown overboard in an instant -- their function is completely political and if they ar interfering without the political objective, good riddance!

But saying, "Rev. Jeremiah Wright had long been one of Obama's closest personal advisers" is disingeneous because he has been a spiritual advisor, not a political advisor, and the relationship has been a personal one, not a political one. Does a candidate now have to vouch for the political views of every long-time friend or relative? What about the little old lady next door who was the babysitter years ago that is still called "na-na"? How about the college roommate who is a very dear friend who many people now consider an obnoxious lout? If it turns out they've posted some wacko statement on a right-wing webpage, is the candidate required to renounce the friendship? That seems very wierd and not a good place for us to be going as a society.

Posted by Bill | March 26, 2008 5:24 PM

"Obama's "Jewish problem" is that he hates Jews."
Perhaps,perhaps not. But he certainly seems to attract more than his share of advisers and supporters who do, or who hate Israel. And he seems not to think through the consequences of their positions and support.

But I love Marc's distinction that reasonable people HAVE found Hagee's views offensive,whereas reasonable people CAN find McPeak's views offensive. Both statements are true, but Marc's choice of words suggests that whereas reasonable people CAN find McPeak's views offensive, so far no one but unreasonable people actually HAVE found them offensive. Perhaps reasonable people will in the future, but only after all these unreasonable and hysterical Jews and Republicans have calmed down, right, Marc?

Posted by Ahad Ha'amoratzim | March 26, 2008 6:13 PM

More evidence Marc was wrong. Hey Marc, are you going to come out and admit your error??

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/107716.html

Posted by Kate | March 26, 2008 7:52 PM

Michael Goldfarb has a problem with Jews and Barack. Barack-an African name with the Hebrew origin, Baruch, or blessed. For those who believe in ‘bashert’ (destiny) this is a good start. If anyone bothered to listen to Pastor Wright's entire sermon instead of the few excerpts that the media keeps revisiting, you may find yourself in agreement with Wright on some issues. This is precisely the kind of fear invoking verbage that made our country believe Japanese Americans were a threat to us during WWII. It's the type of propaganda that the Nazi regime used to set the stage for their persecution of the Jews. What is true is that Barack Obama stands for vision, integrity and taking action to fix our divided country-the U.S.A. As Jews, Israel is important to us as well. In this regard Senator Obama has stated publicly his support for the State of Israel’s security as well as the acknowledgement of Israel’s unique position as the only democracy in the troubled Middle East. Unlike most of the other candidates however, he also recognizes the business synergies that exist between the U.S. and Israel in the areas of high technology. This is an economic benefit for both countries. Barack Obama has the kind of experience that is most needed in our next President -- bringing people together no matter their political affiliation, race, gender, or religion. Our country needs his leadership, commitment, integrity and a bit of Baruch.

Posted by Sue Dinetz | March 26, 2008 9:31 PM

It's not clear to me if Obama hates Jews, or he just hates all white people. I'm willing to give the traitor Obama the benefit of the doubt and just assume he hates all white people equally.

Posted by jim | March 26, 2008 9:32 PM

Jim - it must be very difficult for you in there. Anyway, Obama doesn't have a problem with Jews......Jew's have a problem with Obama.......Obama = anti-war - Israeli/Jewish supporters = pro war. There is an age range in there too.....older Jews typically see little to no difference between Jews and Israeli's......younger Jews don't see it that way since it becomes an issue of serving in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force)or not.

Posted by TerenceC | March 26, 2008 9:57 PM

Electorally the problem isn't with Jewish people.

Obama's problem is with Evangelical Christians.

American Jews are, for the most part, not particularly hawkish with 59% to 31% majority of Jews disapproving the way the US is handling the ‘campaign against terror`.

Evangelical Christians on the other hand are are very strong supporters of the 'war on terror'. And there are 10 times as many Evangelical Christians as there are Jewish people in the USA. There seem to be very few Evangelicals who are non-plussed with Reverend Wright's rhetorical excesses.

And, in point of fact, most contributors to AIPAC are non-Jews.

Also, to many of the misinformed who post here, AIPAC is forbidden by law from making ANY contributions to ANY political candidates election campaigns.

Posted by anon | March 26, 2008 10:16 PM

Merrill "Tony" McPeak is a total douchebag. Ask anyone who served in the USAF during his tenure as Chief of Staff. His biggest accomplishment was changing the dress blue uniform to look like United Airlines' uniform--which was quickly corrected after his time was up. The fact that McPeak is Obama's military cheerleader speaks volumes for his lack of support in the military community--hell, Wesley Clark looks like Douglas MacArthur by comparison.

Posted by mike | March 26, 2008 11:53 PM

He may not have a Jewish problem, but he certainly has an Italian problem now. I refer to Rev. Wright's recent 'eulogy' in Trumpet magazine where he calls Italians 'garlic noses' and Jesus' crucifixion 'a public lynching Italian style." And that's all beside the usual racist rhetoric of America being run by white supremacists and the KKK. And that is from THIS MONTH'S ISSUE, LOL!Somebody remind me not to have this guy speak at my funeral.

You know, even the most gracious of us will tolerate somebody's crazy uncle acting out for only so long. If Obama's Titanic of a campaign hasn't been sunk by the Wright iceberg, it is most surely sinking. And he just keeps ramming into it.

Posted by JohnnyT | March 27, 2008 4:05 AM

Actions speak better than words.

Before the negative press, Mr Obama had on numerous occasions declared Mr. Wright as his mentor and spiritual teacher for the past 20 years and even went so far as to include Mr. Wright in his election staff, these are the actions of Mr. Obama. When the press found out about the Hitleresque personality of Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama’s spin machine immediately created a rebuttal of hyperbole that amazingly some people actually believed.

But regardless what Mr. Obama and his staff reply, Mr. Obama cannot retract his clear public proclamation that Mr. Wright has been mentor and spiritual teacher for over 20 years. And that up to the negative press, Mr. Wright was on Mr. Obama’s Spiritual Advisor Committee campaign team.

If you make the choice to listen and learn from Hitler every week over 20 years, do you expect me or any other rational being to believe that you wouldn’t be or want to be influenced by Hitler’s ideas? And what does that say of your personal integrity if you chose American hating Mr. Wright, or Mr. Hitler as your guide in life?

Action is the real measure of a person, not their words. We know who Mr. Obama is by his life and his teachers, not the words he spins. And we can only imagine the amount of hatred Mr. Obama will unleash once he achieves ultimate power. And woe be the whites, the poor, those of the Jewish faith and anyone else Mr. Obama thinks deserve retribution. Maybe I am wrong, but considering Mr. Obama’s religious education, is such a risk worth the gamble?

And also consider recent announcement that the chief of the firm involved in the State Department’s passport breach is one of Obama’s adviser. (And why is this not being discussed?) And that Obama has been caught lying about Rezko, regarding the amount of money Rezko gave him, and that Obama still hasn’t come clean about his Rezko land deal. Or further, how Mrs. Obama makes a phenomenal $317.000 a month at a hospital in Chicago that is famous for turning away the poor, especially the black poor.

If Obama were to become president, what would stop Mr. Obama from appointing Mr. Wright to his cabinet? And after Mr. Wright’s appointment, if anyone complained they would be called racist. And it seems as if this strategy - that it is racist to criticize a black man - is already in effect as Mr. Obama can do anything corrupt with minimal impunity by the public or the press. But if Hillary so much as sneezes, she is taken through the laundry and hung out to dry and then beaten some more. Such an obvious bias treatment towards Mr. Obama because of his race is racial discrimination. And I believe another reason why Mrs. Clinton is unfairly criticized to such an extreme is because a handful of powerful men in the media can’t stand the idea of a woman for president – likely a libido thing.

We should have as our country’s leader someone with wisdom and knowledge, whose goal is the selfless betterment of the world. We should not elect someone with a personal agenda of personal power or select them because of the fashionably of their race or the preference for a gender.

Obama is not old enough or experienced enough to take on the role of the president, and if had simple wisdom, instead of a misguided desire for power, he would know this.

Posted by Thomas Richards | March 27, 2008 12:32 PM