The scary side of Obama

[Wretched Excess]

The scary side of Obama

Barack Obama's rousing speech on Martin Luther King Day showed his potential to redeem America -- or wreck it.
Or maybe it just revealed his potential to be the latest in a long line of airy idealists who crash to earth after colliding with the reality of politics.

In the speech, the Illinois senator evoked America's highest ideals while simultaneously telling his listeners: "We must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean" -- conveying a sense that he didn't reject his political opponents, yet wanted to draw them into a great mutual enterprise that could finally erase the nation's greatest failures. He stirred his listeners, yet never lost control of himself or his audience.

Those leaders who can genuinely evoke the nation's ideals rouse us. Those who can touch our emotions thrill us. John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan come to mind. Obama may be in their league. That is why, no matter what the polls or pundits say, or how many votes he won Saturday or will win in the next few weeks, he is likely to remain a force on the American scene.

Yet his speech also showed weaknesses, as a politician and a leader. In Atlanta, he took as his theme, "Unity is the great need of the hour." But, as many commentators have pointed out, partisan strife, not unity, is a sign of political health. Only dictatorships produce 100-percent unity.

The dangers of Obama's approach became clearer as he got into the heart of his speech. He said he was most concerned about a deficit, but not the trade or budget deficits. "I'm talking about a moral deficit," he said. "I'm talking about an empathy deficit."

What an insight! All societies fall short in ethics and compassion. Politics rightly try to improve the world, not make it perfect. As many have noted, the drive for political perfection usually backfires. Anyway, the trade and budget deficits are more than enough for most politicians to handle.

Moreover, a trade or budget deficit can be discussed in non-partisan terms; a moral deficit cannot. A leader might bring together both sides in a debate, but no one can unite right with wrong.

This kind of moral confusion leads to ideological confusion. To pick one example, Obama declaimed: "We have a [moral] deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others."

White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was accused in the CIA leak case. His career was ruined, he spent a fortune on his defense, and he was convicted. In Jena, La., the media may have badly distorted confusing incidents of teens fighting and a noose that may or may not have had racial implications. Legal cases are still pending, and the full story has yet to be made clear.

The point is that in both cases the truth is complex and can be debated. But Obama ignored the complexities and nuances. He couldn't resist the cheap shot, the flawed symbol. That is a dangerous weakness. It hints that his aura of being above the fray might not be durable.

As many have noted, when Obama speaks, he gives few specifics. Eventually, however, a president must make decisions. In the speech, he decried the "moral deficit" that appears "when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged."

But what would a President Obama actually do? Would he pull American troops out of Iraq, only to send them to Darfur? I'm not saying that would be good or bad. I just would like to see candidate Obama say that right now in front of an audience of Democratic activists, or a group of suburban mothers and fathers.

His speech revealed other weaknesses. He lamented the moral deficit "when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit." He also said that resistance to health-insurance reform happens because "the insurance companies and the drug companies won't want to give up their profits."

If investors can't make a profit, people won't be able to buy homes or new drugs. Someone who doesn't grasp that shouldn't be president. Or perhaps he just can't resist the demagogic power of such a charge. I can't decide which is scarier.

Perhaps these are minor slips. All candidates are mixtures of things. Perhaps the cauldron of a campaign will refine Obama, and leave him a wiser man and stronger candidate. But on balance, the Atlanta speech suggests that his strategy is unstable and his ideology unsound. The speech may long be remembered, but possibly only as a haunting reminder of what might have been.

Link

I have made this observation before.  if you listen to what he is actually saying, his speeches are much less soaring that they are scary.

[DixieBelle]

All of his sides seem scary to me. I'm worried that people are pinning their hopes on him. He's playing that "just like JFK" card and is appealing to Dems who hate Hillary. Poor Silky Pony is out in the paddock!!!