It's Time To Look Past The Mask

(This post has been updated)

I’ve written a few posts on Sen. Barack Obama, mainly focusing on the dynamic and disconnect between his true socio-political positions and his followers’ perceptions of those positions. I’ve been meaning to dedicate a long post comparing the media-protected narrative about his record with his actual legislative record (or lack there-of), but Karl at Protein Wisdom beat me to it. Go there and read the whole thing. Karl more than proves his point, but I'd still like to add a few things here.

No one can deny that the rapid ascent of Barack Obama is phenomenal. But to say that this rise has been due to his success in his field is ludicrous. He and his handlers have carefully crafted and focus-grouped his image and message over time, and they've become masters at planning, directing, and controlling his scenes of political theater. Despite what Obama and his propagandists want us to believe, he has no record of actual leadership, bipartisanship, or post-racial unity. Because Obama has no real experience in elected office, all he has to rely on as indicators of a successful presidency are his eloquence and his judgment. He’s said as much personally, and is described by many as being like a Rorschach inkblot upon which voters project their own morality and political philosophy. And since no one would doubt his eloquence with a prepared speech, we’re left to evaluate his judgment:

---

It seems like every time we take a close look at who he judges to be a valuable friend or adviser, we find corrupt insiders, racists, liars, crooks, terrorist sympathizers, and domestic terrorists. So Sen. Obama starts screaming about how such investigations are “distractions” from the real issues. And when we start focusing on how his scant record shows a tendency to elevate posturing and demagoguery above substance and reform, he and his advocates in the press scold us for looking deeper than his promises of good future judgment.

Apparently, those who find fault with his actions are supposed to rely more heavily on his words. And those who find fault with his words are suppsed to rely more heavily on his own version of his past and his promises of future actions.

It's almost as if he's playing a game of musical chairs. Only, in Obama's version of the game, the rules are different. Whenever Barack finds himself without a seat, he gets to scream about how the game is unfair, how it's fraught with distractions, and how we all need to just move on to the next round of music. Anyone who points out that he cheated is deemed by him and his apologists as being "stuck" in the "failed politics" of yesteryear.

To paraphrase the 'New Politician' himself; "he is the distraction he's been waiting for."

It’s about time a few national reporters grew some backbones and demanded that the candidate actually defend some of his abstract propositions and criticisms without dismissing the deeper follow-up questions. This guy has a (perhaps better than) 50/50 chance of being at the helm of the world’s only superpower. I think the voters at least deserve to know what he realistically expects to accomplish if he were to be elected President.

Enough with the abstract posturing. I want to hear how he, as the President, would influence policy. I don't want to hear about how "We are the change that we seek." Change starts with legislation and everyone knows that Congress makes the laws. Obama has been in Congress for four years now, and he hasn’t proposed legislation for any of the reforms he now claims to represent. To put it more bluntly, when he's had the opportunity to lead people in a a call for change, or to merely support it, he voted present.

But then again, that kind of criticism speaks to his actual record. And he’d prefer that we only focus on his talk. Not his, you know... walk.

---

UPDATE:

Jonah Goldberg senses the evolving media narrative:

The left loves to characterize conservative dislikes and disagreements as "phobias" and other maladies of the mind. Specifically, conservative "hate" is based on "ignorance" and "fear." Rhetorically, this tactic amounts to a way for liberals to avoid arguments on the merits. It goes something like this: Conservatives have an inordinate fear of Communism, gays, blacks, women, sex, fun, whatever, and so we don't have to deal with them for we are confident lovers of both truth and change!

Barack Obama, as we speak, is being added to that list. If you don't love and embrace Obama, you're afraid of him (and, again, fear is the root of racism, etc etc.). You're fearful of change, scared of hope, terrified of progress.

I know. Scaredicats like that are so distracting.

What Jonah talks about isn't a new phenomenon. I've covered it before here.

UPDATE: This was the next logical conclusion. In the international mindset, to vote against Obama reveals not only one's inherent racism, but also one's Americanness.

---

UPDATE 6/20/8:

David Brooks looked past the mask in today’s editorial and exposed Obama’s habit of talking about selfless positives while acting on very selfish negatives. He conjured images of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in his critique:

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

Read the whole thing.

It's a great piece, and I don't presume to be a better writer than the estimable David Brooks, but wouldn't Dr. Obama and Mr. Hyde Park have been punnier?

And Stephen Spruiell summed up Obama's decision to renege on his celebrated promise to use public funds for his campaign:

Barack Obama masquerades as something new, but he is just another politician, albeit one with a surpassing ability to make us feel good about ourselves for liking him. When he looks out over the crowds and sees all those adoring faces ready to hand the reins to the free world over to a rookie senator with a good sales pitch . . . well, no wonder he thinks he can say one thing, do another, and convince us the whole thing never happened.

Exactly. As someone who works in marketing, I recognize a clever re-branding campaign when I see it. Like I said before:

Barack Obama represents what good marketing can do. His political philosophy and policy proposals have been overwhelmingly rejected by voters time and time again. He's offering nothing more than an old, undesirable product wrapped in a shiny package. You could say he's the SPAMBURGER of the Presidential contest. But consumers are an odd bunch, and they often base their purchases on impulses rather than reasoning. And sales of actual SPAM are on the rise, so who knows what that portends for Obama's chances?

We'll just have to wait and see.