The Whole Truth About Barack Obama

Barack Obama was cruising along to the Democratic Presidential nomination on a wave of political goodwill unprecedented in modern history, followed closely by an embattled Hillary Clinton. Prior to the "Big State" primary day, the media was pretty much settled on Obama as the nominee. But then, something happened.

As if some spell had been broken, the media suddenly turned on Obama, and a slew of charges and smears that had been bubbling just below the surface were suddenly thrown in the candidate's face. Perhaps it had something to do with Hillary and Saturday Night Live "working the ref", crying foul on the easy treatment they feel Obama has received compared to Hillary. Maybe it was the sheer aggregation of the smears reaching a tipping point. Obama's weakness with blue-collar whites in Ohio certainly had to play a role.

Whatever the case, there has been little substance to these smears, and most analysts agree that Obama's lead is insurmountable, but the net effect is to slow Obama's roll, endangering the Democrats' chances in November. His campaign has responded ably and consistently, but without the force necessary to blunt the impact of these accusations.

After the jump, everything you need to know about Barack Obama, including why I am endorsing him for the Presidency of the United States of America.

I know what you're thinking, who gives a rat's rectum who Tommy Christopher endorses? Actually, it's a great point, since I've already endorsed two losers in this primary, Chris Dodd and John Edwards. I would respond, though, that perhaps this demonstrates a real emphasis on substance, rather than a desire to "pick the winner and be right."

I am not a believer in endorsements, per se. What makes my endorsement different from Ted Nugent's or Pete Rose's? Nothing at all, if those two can provide a fair evaluation of all of the candidates and support their endorsement with a compelling rationale. If you hate me, for the good of the country, set that aside and just read what I write.

I want to begin by saying that I am a longtime admirer of Hillary Clinton's, and believe that she would make an excellent candidate. At the outset of this campaign, I had some doubts about her candidacy, but she has proven herself to be a superior Democrat to her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Although I have disagreed forcefully with her campaign tactics these last few weeks, my opinion of her as a candidate has not changed. My endorsement of Obama is not meant as a repudiation of Hillary's qualifications to lead.

Of John McCain, I can only echo the sentiment of Barack Obama, that he is indeed a brave American and a patriot, and I am certain is guided by a sincere desire to do what is right for America, but he is out of step with what Americans want and he is wrong about the ways to achieve our objectives. Additionally, any chance he might have to do some good is mitigated by the fact that his own party repudiates his most moderate positions, and would not aid him in their execution.

Barack Obama has come under fire recently for his associations with several controversial figures. Before examining these, I want to first say that this type of smear is unimpressive to me no matter whom it is hurled at. Hillary Clinton has had reams of these charges thrown at her, and John McCain is under a less intense scrutiny for his acceptance of endorsements by religious figures, and these mean nothing to me. None of these inferences has any substantive effect on anyone's ability to lead.

Having said that, I think that the uproar over Pastor Jeremiah Wright is overblown and misunderstood. I said as much in the comments section of David Knowles' story on the subject:

DK, I agree with you politically, he should distance himself from Wright, but I disagree that Wright is a bigot, at least in the sense that most people think of it. There has been a lot of talk about "reverse racism" in this campaign, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the black experience in America.

I don't claim to know all about it, but I do know that a defensive reaction to centuries of oppression is not the same thing as KKK style racism. I do know that most white people think blacks have it pretty good here, even though they are still largely concentrated in cities, still get followed around in the department store, still have to fear whenever a police car pulls up behind them at a traffic light,(even Ronnie Spector) still must endure the display of confederate emblems and a largely segregated entertainment landscape.

The idea of reverse racism is false, at least in that it creates a false equivalence there. Pastor Wright's speech is inflammatory to you and me, but to his audience, a default setting of mistrust of white people is not remarkable. If this was the worst they could find, I'm not impressed. Watch some Katrina video and tell me there's no cause for bitterness.

His remarks about 9/11, while incendiary, are not far removed from Ron Paul's explanation of blowback to Rudy Giuliani at the debate. When he says, "God damn America", it's a nice Gotcha soundbite, but in context, it's just a rhetorical flourish to make arguable points. Should God Bless America for slavery, Jim Crow, the internment camps, the firebombing of Tokyo? Of course none of that plays in modern American politics, where you must love everything "America" does or you're a commie, and there aren't enough speeches in the world that can explain this to the average white American. So Obama should denounce Wright, and Wright should take it.

The hysteria over Barack's church seemed false to me at first, an absurd "Helter Skelter", Charles Manson-esque fever dream conjured up to give people an excuse to back away from Obama. I have since come to understand that, for a great many people, it is a real fear that stems from estrangement from black people.

This is the heart of this misunderstanding about so-called "black racism." Obama's church is committed to "black values" in the same way that Greek Orthodox churches hew to the Greek culture, but to an America steeped in Willie Horton and OJ Simpson and fears about the Black Panthers, and knowing of the terrible resentment that must be present in black Americans for things that modern day whites feel no responsibility for, they see an equivalence there to white supremacists and their ilk.

The fact is, Barack Obama was only getting a slight majority of black votes prior to South Carolina. I don't pretend to know what happened to cause that number to balloon to 90% in Mississippi. I would bet it had a lot to do with perceptions, true or not, that the Clintons were running a race-baiting campaign. Bill Clinton's comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson was clearly an attempt to marginalize him.

Trust is difficult to build, easy to lose, and nearly impossible to regain. The tremendous goodwill that the Clintons had fostered with black voters was eroded quickly by things like the Jesse Jackson comparison, Bob Johnson's remarks, the Somali Robes photo, and endless chatter by pundits of a splintering electorate. The relentless internet "spampaign" to paint Obama as a closet Muslim no doubt had the effect of rallying some black voters to his side.

But, then, there's the effect of voters simply getting to know Barack, and liking what they saw. In any case, the total number of black voters isn't nearly as large as the number of white and hispanic voters who say they would not vote for any black candidate. The notion that, on balance, the black vote will deliver the election for Obama is not borne out by the facts.

Obama has been the subject of a lot of innuendo about Tony Rezko, a longtime booster and fund-raiser. The important thing to know here is that Obama is not accused, or even suspected of, any wrongdoing in the Rezko case. All politicians have political patrons, and some of them turn out to have problems. I care as little for this as I do for Norman Hsu, or the ridiculous suggestion that Hillary Clinton is under the sway of some Asian-American cabal. As long as the candidate is clean, you can take your "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" scandals and walk.

To decide a presidential election on these bases would be an affront to Democracy.

Another charge that is leveled against Obama is this notion of experience. If you look at past presidents, the corollary between experience and performance just isn't there. In fact, our government is set up to prevent the entrenchment of a single leader or party rule. The creeping fungus of gerrymandering has mitigated this somewhat, but the idea is to keep the blood of our democracy fresh.

That leaves us with the substance of these candidates. After an analysis of Hillary's platform and Barack's, I found them to be in agreement on most issues. I gave the edge to Hillary on Healthcare initially, but have since concluded that the main weakness in Barack's plan, the lack of a mandate, is crucial to getting the bill past the legislature.

I also found Obama's platform to be far more detailed and extensive, which is ironic, since opponents accuse him of lacking those details.

Still, I would be happy to call it a tie on the issues. Where the war is concerned, Obama does have the right to claim some credit for his opposition, regardless of the fact that he was not in the Senate yet for that vote. Still, his claim that he took a political risk there is a little exaggerated when you consider that he won 90% of the vote in that Senate race.

Even if we call that a tie, along with the specious "Commander-in-Chief" threshold, which suggests that there is a way to prepare for the impossible, there remains the crucial element that tips me to Obama's candidacy.

That factor is leadership. Both candidates have charm and charisma to spare. Hillary Clinton has also shown that she has more fight in her than any Democrat that I've ever seen. But Barack Obama's oratory skill is more than just an ability to give "pretty speeches." It is the way to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats. It is the way to move world leaders to act in our mutual interests.

Come November, the Democrats will likely end up with comfortable majorities in the House and Senate. The President will need to be able to project to all Americans that his or her agenda is right for all of them, not just the Democrats. Barack has the skill to do that, to help make partners of the two parties.

The current Democratic Congress has followed by consensus, rather than leading in building one. Over and over again, I've heard the lame excuse, "We didn't have the votes." Well, dammit, that's when you lead. That is when you take your case to the American people, you pull the opposition to the place where they need to be, you lead based on what is right, not on what is already agreed upon.

Barack Obama has articulated a vision of America that appeals to voters across all spectra, and armed with that kind of support, it will be difficult for opponents to stand in his way. If you believe in one America, where a God-fearing Christian conservative and an agnostic liberal can both afford Healthcare, can have access to an equal shot at education, can find a job that pays a living wage, and can feel safe in the knowledge that their son or daughter will not be sacrificed for a mistake, then vote for Barack Obama.