GordonWrightMusic.com Beta

I’ve tried to claim, throughout my many posts endorsing Barack Obama’s candidacy, that I have not let foggy notions of hope and a selfish sense of liberal condescension cloud my independent judgment about the upcoming presidential election.

To wit, David Brooks’s much-emailed op-ed today in the Times, How Obama Fell to Earth. If nobody emailed it to you, essentially he says that the damage has been done and now Obama is a pedestrian pol with all the double-talk, false promises and pandering that entails. The unsullied usher to the promised land has been reduced to that basest of human life-forms: the politician.

Ready for my retort? Well, I don’t have one. I completely agree. It’s been hugely sad to me to watch Obama engage in all the games he said he wouldn’t play and the tactics he said he’d never use. All along I’ve been worried about his pledges to bring our troops home from Iraq unequivocally, thinking surely his lawyerly prudence would assess the situation from inside the Oval Office and make the best decision for our country and the world. And actually I think this is still the case, but now veering even slightly from his current prescription will mean he lied outright. And that’s really disappointing.

I still find him hugely inspiring as a leader, thinker, speaker, and yes, even as a politician. For as much as he has sadly succumbed to the lowest common denominator, he still stands head and shoulders above the field. As a supporter, one can only hope that Clinton’s unabated and opportunistic attacks have only tempered the steel of his electability and promise, and not done any permanent damage heading into November.

God help us, when we make it to November, that is…

Okay, I thought it would blow over. A comment on my blog actually predicted that this little rain shower that began behind closed doors in the Foggy City would swell into a tropical depression, and whaddya know. We may even be heading for a full-grade tropical storm if the Clintons can’t find another self-defeating maneuver to stop the gracious amount of momentum the gaffe has received.

Now, loyal readers of course know that I’m an Obama supporter. Naturally, I was inclined to put the most positive spin on his statement. In retrospect I think he chose his words poorly, but it seems ludicrous that his mild comment could be used by Clinton or McCain to show that they are somehow more authentically in tune with rural voters.

Still, BO hasn’t done the best job killing this one. I think his intention was better stated by Lancaster, PA’s mayor, J. Richard Gray:

I don’t think he’s demeaning religion or guns. He’s saying the use of those issues as wedge issues plays on the bitterness that people have and diverts attention from the real economic issues, like the disparity between the wage earner and the rich.

The tragic thing to me about Obama’s now regrettable comment is that he was caught in the act of doing exactly what he pledges is his greatest strength: building bridges. He was at an intimate meeting of well-heeled Bay Area liberals, and he was explaining to them why they should care about what rural Pennsylvanians think, and why in the end, there are core social and economic goals they can all agree on. Just as he did in the race speech, he was able to step out of the room in a rural town hall with farmers and factory workers, and into a room on the other side of the country with left-leaning rich folks (and probably a few homosexuals, eh?) and share his same message of hope: simply, let’s come together and improve things. And he does it without the pandering or shape-shifting that has come to typify Clinton’s need to win at all costs or McCain’s fumbling attempts to court a divided electorate.

The other day I once again praised Obama on my blog, this time for his speech responding to Rev. Wright’s statements (a.k.a. the race speech). In my corner of the insulated, left-wing blog world, it was a pretty innocuous entry.

To my surprise, I received a considered rebuttal from a close friend of mine. To wit:

Personally, I have a problem with someone whose entire candidacy is based on “bringing people together,” yet whose “political and spiritual adviser” for the past 20 years is a person who spews hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-American, homophobic garbage on a regular basis. Even if Obama doesn’t believe those things, why would he closely associate himself with someone who does, and expose his family to it every Sunday? At best, it raises serious questions about his integrity and character. Ask yourself this: Would you give a Republican a pass who had a similarly close relationship with David Duke, and dismissed any criticism by merely saying he rejected his “controversial” statements about black people? I would hope not.

I left this buddy of mine anonymous, since he chose not to make his comments public. I don’t blame him, I can certainly understand his not seeing this blog or its readers as the safest of havens for open political debate (what, did the title “Even the Stupid People” seem somehow unwelcoming?). However, I happen to know there’s a few of you out there who would echo his criticisms, and perhaps offer an even more scathing rebuke of my Obama adulation (Obamulation? Maybe that one’s a stretch, sorry…).

Speak up if you’re out there.