Fire at Will
And not just at Will, on Barack too. The American Thinker makes a long, comprehensive and direct attack on Barack Obama. No punches pulled. Every aspect of his foreign policy scathingly deconstructed. The first two paragraphs set the tone -- and it's all downhill from there.
The ascent of Barack Obama from state senator in Illinois to a leading contender for the Presidential nomination in the span of just a few years is remarkable. Especially in light of a noticeably unremarkable record -- a near-blank slate of few accomplishments and numerous missed votes.
However, in one area of foreign policy that concerns millions of Americans, he does have a record and it is a particularly troubling one. For all supporters of the America-Israel relationship there is enough information beyond the glare of the klieg lights to give one pause. In contrast to his canned speeches filled with "poetry" and uplifting aphorisms and delivered in a commanding way, behind the campaign façade lies a disquieting pattern of behavior.
I won't put any words in Ed Lasky's mouth, but I think it is fair to characterize his message as being skeptical of Barack Obama's policies, intentions and honesty. The more interesting question is whether this, together with Richard Cohen's Washington Post attack on black supremacist racism at Obama's Chicago Trinity United Church of Christ represents the first salvos of what liberal blogger Taylor Marsh calls the "swiftboating" of Obama: "Mr. Cohen's column today is nothing short of religious bigotry at its worst. He's insinuating that if Barack Obama doesn't disavow his spiritual leader and his home church then he's an anti-Semitic. Words fail me.... almost." But as anyone knows, words never fail pundits. They are a simply a prelude to the main orchestral movement. And here it comes from Marsh in full symphonic majesty.
So now that that's settled (until the wing-nuts join in), let's get down to the brass knuckle politics of this. Cohen is outright attempting to push the fairy tale of the Wright, Obama, Farrakhan connection in order to scare the Jewish vote away from Obama. Few things are more nuclear for a politician than what Cohen is doing. AIPAC and their Israeli lobby tentacles reach far and deep into the blood stream of U.S. politics. A politician angers this large, loosely knit group at his or her peril. This is the other side of the race - religion issue; yet another unmentionable surfacing because of the diversity of the Democrats, which traditional media will expose in order so they can benefit.
The really interesting admission in this paragraph is that the "swiftboating" isn't coming from the "wing-nuts" because, according to Taylor Marsh, they still haven't joined in. That's a roundabout way of saying this attack on Obama is originating from liberal circles. The attack is a blue on blue (in both the metaphorical and political sense). It's friendly fire. It's Democrat against Democrat. It means in particular that Richard Cohen, who has spent most of his time attacking Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and President Bush, has now found the audacity to attack "Hope". That astounding fact, more than anything Cohen has actually revealed, is the real news.
Media watchers are now likely to propose two different explanations for the internecine conflict in the Democratic Party base. One school of thought will hold that the Big Tent stands firm, buffeted by wing-nuts storms maybe, but tall and proud. The vast rents in the fabric are thus really the work of Hillary Clinton and her attack machine rather than due to any shifting in the foundations. But the other school of thought will hold the combustion is directly due to the composition of the party itself. Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post says, "It was never realistic to think that race -- or gender, for that matter -- would stay out of a contest starring the first woman and the first African American with realistic hopes of becoming president." Which implies that even if the woman candidate's name was Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein instead of say, Hillary Clinton, the same lines in the same play would be spoken by a slightly different cast. Robinson concludes:
Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young, black senator? Might that be the idea?
Who would have thunk?