The problem with Obama

Bert Prelutsky has a great column titled A Lot of Reasons I Won’t Vote for Obama which begins this way:

I have a friend who could very well be a speechwriter for Barack Obama. Although I consider her a liberal, I’m sure she regards herself as a moderate. To prove it, she makes a point of condemning politicians of both parties as partisan hacks. Actually, with precious few exceptions, I agree with her. However, she likes to say she wishes that those on the Left and those on the Right could put their differences aside and come together for the sake of the country. It sounds so nice and reasonable, just like the bilge coming out of one of Sen. Obama’s love fests. The problem, of course, is that when it comes to the issues, there’s no way to work out a compromise.

Obama is currently in the business of trying to be all things to all people. He figures that so long as he avoids commenting on actual issues, Hillary Clinton will eventually remind the country why so many of us couldn’t stand her when she was merely the most obnoxious First Lady we’d ever had. But the fact remains that he’s a liberal from a very liberal state and, if elected, would bring a left-wing mind-set to the White House.

He then goes on to detail a long list of liberal positions from which Obama has shown no interest in distancing himself.  Most of them are issues which do not easily lend themselves to the kind of “split the difference” compromises that Obama seems to be trying to convince people he will be proposing at some vague point in the distant future.

Often the price of leadership is taking a stand… whether or not it is popular!

Profiles in “courage”

Here is some of the latest “courageous” statements from leading candidates instructing us poor backward Christians in the finer points of “morality”:

Meanwhile, Michael Crowley of The New Republic reports that both Obama and Hillary Clinton have now taken a position on whether homosexuality is immoral (we noted their evasion yesterday). First Obama:

As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.

And here’s Mrs. Clinton:

Well I’ve heard from a number of my friends and I’ve certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not working.

Apparently Obama and Mrs. Clinton, having had time to think it over, decided that an evasive answer to the question would do them more political harm than a pro-gay answer–even though, according to several polls cited in this American Enterprise Institute report (PDF, see page 4) slightly over 50% of Americans think homosexual activity is morally wrong.

Actually, Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s answers weren’t exactly pro-gay, but anti-antigay. Using the double negative and saying homosexuality is “not immoral” is a little like telling a woman (or John Edwards) that she is “not unattractive.” It’s considerably less than a ringing endorsement.  (Best of the Web Today, Opinion Journal Online)

I wonder if General Pace could be convinced to run for President?

A sense of perspective

The high-stakes war to stabilize the fragile democracy in Iraq is a serious, costly and controversial business. But so have been most conflicts in American history. We need a little more humility and knowledge of our past – and a lot less hysteria, name-calling and obsession with our present selves.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson once again provides another important reminder of the sense of perspective that has been completely lost in the public debate over Iraq. The mainstream media continually paints this as the “worst military disaster” that has ever taken place… and they are consistently wrong in that characterization. Hanson catalogues a whole series of mistakes and disasters that make anything that has gone wrong in Iraq pale in comparison. (see Hanson’s most recent column Iraq War Recalls Past US Conflicts, Controversies)

I do think has been rather interesting that the press has been focusing on “growing” problems in Afghanistan the last several weeks and not saying too much about Iraq. Cynical as I have become about the biased press, that makes me wonder if the President’s troop surge plan in Iraq isn’t starting to work. If it wasn’t, we sure would be hearing about that, wouldn’t we?