Having spent so much time researching this candidate for President that I nearly exhausted myself, I can honestly report back to you that I tried as hard as one could to find 'dirt' on this guy, but have come up with little more than conjecture, rumor, speculations, and outright falsehoods. Never in a million years would I have imagined myself writing this in the manner it's being written, but the truth is the truth, there's no avoiding it. Every one is guilty of something, aren't they? Possibly, but then again, maybe not Obama.
Right wing media pundits have tried time and again to smear Obama, from the innuendos about 'shady' land deals and cronyism during his time as a state legislator in Illinois, all the way to trying to spin the origins of his name. Believing the spin myself, I thought this was going to be a slam dunk, almost like the war in Iraq, but have found instead that there may actually be an honest politician in the so called top tier of this Presidential race.
Tracing Obama's political career, and knowing the ways of Chicago politics, I just knew that Obama was dirty, and so I started with the obvious land deal accusations, only to find they were perfectly legal, and no wrong doing had occurred. The worst thing any one could actually come up with was an accusation that he had given the son of a political supporter a job, and labeled it cronyism. As far as I can tell, again, strictly conjecture on the part of our responsible media.
All sides have taken shots at Obama's 'lightweight' law maker status, but a perusal of the Thomas Register shows Obama has introduced legislation that helps the people of this country, in the forms of S.1194, S. 1426, S. 1920, and S. 3988, which are bills to better regulate the tracking of spent nuclear rods, make sure we all have safe drinking water, establish a renewable diesel standard, and improve services and health care for veterans. Do I have to tell you who voted against every one of these measures? Yep. The neo-cons.
Indeed, it has been the Clinton campaign, more than any other, who has resorted to the politics of the smear than any other candidate thus far. It was the Clinton campaign's staff people who came up with the patent falsehood that Obama's past proves that he is anti-Jewish, anti-White, and that Obama's past schooling was at a 'madrassa' that taught Obama that all non Muslims had no rights.
It has been suggested by 'experts' that Obama is a 'Manchurian' candidate, who will lead us all down the road to Mecca, but again, these attacks come with absolutely no proof of any Obama connection to the Muslim faith, other than the fact that he studied it. His Christian faith has been attacked as a 'cover', again without anything to back it up, and the church that he attends has been so closely scrutinized, one would think it was a terrorist cell.
We can also examine the fact that Obama did indeed accept PAC money in the past, and has been taken to task by a slew of hypocritical candidates who themselves have so many PAC contributions they can't possibly lead our nation without any sense of 'owing' themselves to support a PAC agenda. But these PAC contributions were when Obama was running for the Illinois legislature, and not while he's running for President. The distinction seems to fall on deaf ears though, as critics always try to paint Obama as being in the pocket of Big Business. It's just not true. I looked. And Looked. And looked some more. Like I said, I wanted to find dirt here, but came away convinced that it was me who needed to change the way that I was viewing this entire debate.
My analysis? Obama is as crooked as a Sunday school teacher, and actually does have a lot to offer in the change in Washington category. He also has a good grasp on the finer points of diplomacy, has proven that he can withstand assaults on his character, has a plan to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe even get people in this country to start talking about the future again, instead of quibbling over petty issues.
That being said though, I personally reserve the right to revisit this issue, which I will, and to do a complete flip flop if facts so merit. This shouldn't be read as an endorsement of Obama either, just that maybe this guy is the real deal, and is worth a second look, beyond the color of his skin.
Lastly, maybe the media needs to stop trying so hard to discredit someone who may actually have what it takes to lead, but that would mean having to accept that the American people do not like the current status quo, and actually want change in this country, and the way that we conduct business. I see that change here, in this man's campaign, and am cautiously optimistic about his chances in the primaries. If anyone can actually PROVE some type of wrongdoing, let them speak up, but if not, then let's give each candidate a fair tree shaking, and see what drops out. Kind of like what I'm about to do to good old Mitt, for whom I only had to stand under his tree, and watch the skeletons fall by themselves. Batmanchester