There is something about Obama that worries me…even sometimes ruins a good night’s sleep. I just can’t put my finger on the guy. Is he a well-spoken “gangsta” in a good suit or is he an honest broker who’s seen all sides of the argument? Is he “preternaturally” cool (as some have suggested) because of his training at Harvard Law or is he the self-chosen “supranatural POD” (pick-of-destiny)?
Whatever we might think, Paul Shlichta separates the component parts of the corpus Obama with the meticulous detachment of a forensic scientist. Here’s a link to his article in today’s American Thinker…
Here’s an excerpt…
Senator Barack Obama’s repudiation of Reverend Jeremiah Wright has inspired the praise of some and the denunciation of others. This broad spectrum of opinion reflects the strange opacity of Obama’s character and motivation.
We know all too well what makes Hillary tick and McCain seems to be an open book. But Obama is a man of mystery; someone has called him “a man in a fog”. And he himself admits that voters ask “what do we know about him?” To date, we are still not sure whether he is mendacious or confused, open or deceitful, an idealist or a shamelessly glib opportunist.
Therefore, since we conservatives pride ourselves on our objectivity, I propose that we follow the legal dictum of “innocent until proven guilty” and give him the benefit of the doubt, just as he says he did with Rev. Wright. Let us, at least provisionally, try to construe all of his actions in the most favorable possible light.
Let us first concede his strengths. He has an excellent stage presence and is a gifted and persuasive speaker. Admittedly, most voters over thirty do not necessarily consider these to be virtues; they tend to associate such qualities with con men and used car salesmen. But one can be winning and eloquent and still be honest; think of Ronald Reagan.
Let us accept Obama’s claim that, throughout twenty years of close association, he never noticed that Wright was a cesspool of anti-white hatred. Let us assume that, like many of us in church, he slept through the reverend’s sermons and never heard Wright call on God to damn America or describe AIDS as a government plot against blacks. Let us further accept his reluctance to repudiate Wright as a noble loyalty to an old friend and mentor.
Let us also accept the innocence of his associations with questionable characters like Tony Rezko, Emil Jones, Robert Blackwell, Hatem El-Hady, and William Ayers. Let’s attribute these and other unfortunate liaisons to an inability to judge people, or perhaps to a naïve nature, so high minded and forgiving that it only sees the good in others. This view would be in keeping with the idealistic character of the speeches that have made him famous.
Let us accept his habit of abstaining from voting, even in critical issues such as abortion and the budget, and his refusal to respond to Votesmart’s 2008 Political Courage Test to a conscientious man’s reluctance to make decisions hastily. This would also explain the vague, ill advised, or even inane statements that he has made about many important issues. Similarly, his inaccuracies of statement and occasional deviations from fact might be ascribed to honest human fallibility.
Let us also assume that the vagueries of his political philosophy, such as his failure to define “change” and his apparent flirtations with Marxism, black liberation theology, and the Black Muslim movement, are not attempts to deceive the public but merely reflect the vagueness of his innermost thoughts.
But if all this is true, then however much we may admire Obama’s character, we must dismiss his candidacy on the grounds that he is utterly unfit to be President.
Read the rest here…“Let’s Give Obama the Benefit of the Doubt”!