Forgot password? | Register here

Editor's Picks

How Obama Got Elected

More Videos
Current Featured Debate

Closer Than He Should Be

Robert Novak | Primetime Politics

McCain Takes Aim at Obama’s Character

Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin | Politico

Audacity Overload

Kathryn Jean Lopez | National Review

Current Featured Debate

India Shows the Way

Editorial | Investor's Business Daily

Failure Is Not an Option

Victor Davis Hanson | National Review

Send in the Marines

Arthur Herman | New York Post

Government “Fixes” Slow Recovery

John Stossel | Townhall

Obama Should Look Into Putin’s Record, Not His Eyes

Gary Kasparov | Wall Street Journal

An Auto Bailout Would Be Terrible for Free Trade

Matthew J. Slaughter | Wall Street Journal

Bridge Loan to Nowhere

Jim Manzi | New York Post

Tennis Shoes and Stolen Toilets

Reuben F. Johnson | The Weekly Standard

Ignore the Stock Market Until February

Andy Kessler | Wall Street Journal

The Bank Terrorist

Editorial | Investor's Business Daily



Article

The Rules Are Changing for Obama

Michael Barone | Primetime Politics 4 Comments Discuss
Added: April 19, 2008

Barack Obama seemed puzzled. Angrily puzzled. The apostle of hope seemed flummoxed by the audacity of the question. At the April 16 Philadelphia debate, George Stephanopoulos, longtime aide to Democratic politicians, was asking about his longtime association with Weather Underground bomber William Ayers.

The Weather Underground attacked the Pentagon, the Capitol and other public buildings; Ayers was quoted in The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”

It was at Ayers’ house that Obama’s state Senate candidacy was launched in 1995; Obama continued to serve on a nonprofit board with Ayers after the Times article appeared.

Obamaites live-blogging the debate were outraged. The press is not supposed to ask such questions. They are supposed to invite the candidates to expatiate on how generous their health care plans are. Or to allow them to proclaim that “we are the change that we are seeking.” Or to once again bash George W. Bush.

There was some of that in this debate. But Obama was asked about his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his remarks about wearing an American flag lapel pin, his comment that “bitter” small town Pennsylvanians “cling to guns and religion” and his “friendly” relations — “friendly” is his campaign adviser David Axelrod’s word — with William Ayers.

Did Obama expect that this would never come up in the campaign? He certainly gave that impression. The normally poised candidate looked irritated and weary. “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English” — actually, it’s education — “in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.”

He compared Ayers to Sen. Tom Coburn, who has advocated the death penalty for abortionists. But of course Coburn has never advocated bombing their houses or clinics.

“A guy who lives in my neighborhood.” Debates are held not just to learn the details of the candidates’ health care plans — which given the complexity of the issue will probably be considerably altered if they are ever actually put on the table — but also to learn who the candidates are.
And that includes learning about which guys who live in their neighborhood they chose to befriend. About Obama almost all Americans knew next to nothing when he got up on the podium of the 2004 Democratic National Convention and instantly made himself presidential candidate material.

His gracefully written autobiographical “Dreams From My Father” — we could learn, if we could get through all 464 pages — is a story not of transcending racial barriers but of developing a black and African identity.

The presidency is a uniquely personal office, and each incumbent puts his individual stamp on it. Obama’s choice to join Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church and his choice to befriend William Ayers were not those most Americans would make, and Hillary Clinton was quick to declare, perhaps opportunistically, they were not choices she would have made.

This doesn’t mean that Obama is responsible for Wright’s outrageous statements or for Ayers’ criminal acts (the charges against him were dropped because of government misconduct). But Obama’s choices to associate with Wright and Ayers tend to undercut his appealing message — very appealing after 15 years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — that we must strive to overcome the racial and cultural and ideological divisions which have dominated our politics They are something that voters are entitled to weigh as they make their decisions.

Obama fans are upset that ABC News’ Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson broke the unwritten rule that you are not supposed to ask Democratic candidates about these things. Associations with unrepentant radicals and comments made to contributors at a San Francisco fund-raiser in a billionaire’s mansion are supposed to be kept indoors. Only the face that the candidate wants to place before the public should be seen.

Beliefs that most activist liberals share should be kept under wraps if they are unpopular with most of the voting public. That is how mainstream media have operated for the last generation or more. But not at Philadelphia’s Constitution Center on April 16. The rules had changed. And Barack Obama was not well prepared.

(c) 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Comment Email this Article Post an Article

Comments

“...And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.”

It’s not about how old you are when he did his crimes, but your relationship with him now.

If I had an association with a thug bomber, I would CONDEMN and DENOUNCE HIM, not embrace him.

That’s what man of character and honor do

Posted by popman  on  04/19  at  08:07 AM

The greatest weakness Obama has is the content of his character.
It’s not the company he keeps but the company he chooses.

Posted by David Adams  on  04/19  at  09:07 AM

When you think about how things would be if a conservative was in a similar situation to Obama right now, like Peter Wehner did at Contentions the other day (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/3456),
it tells you all you have to know about today’s Democratic party.

We have to keep these people away from the White House, that’s the bottom line.

Posted by rookie  on  04/19  at  10:46 AM

Obama has a pretty skimpy resume. He doesn’t say much in his speeches except he’s for change. So a rational person look s at who he associates with and the record isn’t pretty…

Loony racist minister Jeremiah Wright
Anthony Rezko .. briber and fixer
Michelle Obama --- racist loose cannon
Bill Ayers—unrepentant terrorist

What’s really cool about Obama is he left zero paper trail when he edited the Harvard Law review. Very puzzling, did someone advise this stealth course?

Posted by dennisw  on  04/19  at  02:48 PM

Name:

Email:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Comment Policy

Please keep comments on topic and civil. Comments deemed by the editors to be rude, obnoxious, mean-spirited, or off topic may be removed without notice