"Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers' unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.
First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with -- let alone serve on two boards with -- an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?
Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success."
1 comment:
I think this outrage and concern about "character" coming from neocons like Krauthammer and Kristol is completely bogus.
Ayers is a well known figure in the Chicago establishment, and many prominent Chicago politicians (R and D) worked with him. See this post for more http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/7/131120/885/357/622049
That said, there's no question Obama is extremely ambitious and knows how to use people. Nobody could rise from nowhere as far and as fast as he has without these qualities.
At the same time I'm not familiar with a single instance where he either abused his authority or let himself BE USED by others.
That's the difference between Rezko and Charles Keating or the Troopergate case. McCain and Palin abused their authority for personal gain. Obama did not.
And until there's evidence otherwise, all this is just classic Rovian guilt-by-association.
Post a Comment