Obama's Judgment

On this day of primaries that may decide the Democrat nominee for president, the Washington Post delves into the Obama "movement."

Another rally, another rapturous crowd.

At around 1 p.m. Wednesday, less than a week before today's crucial primary vote, a few hundred supporters lined up outside Duncanville High School, about 15 miles south of Dallas. Buttons were sold, three for $12. Shirts too, $10 each. Three hours later, the packed gymnasium of more than 2,500 -- with at least 500 more stuck outside -- spontaneously erupted into chants. The right side yelled, " B ARACK!" The left side screamed, " OBAMA!"

The candidate had yet to take the stage.

And down on the floor stood Rhonda Friedberg, a roll of duct tape encircling her right arm like a loose bracelet. A slender, striking woman with more than a passing resemblance to Diane Keaton, Friedberg calls herself "the tape lady." She's taped signs in restrooms, posters on walls and electrical wires to the floor so people don't trip.

This has been a season of many "firsts" for the 46-year-old molecular biologist: the first time she's volunteered for a campaign, the first time she's served as a precinct captain in an election, the first time she's given money to a candidate.

Every time Friedberg drives her 1991 red Toyota pickup truck out of the driveway of her Dallas home to attend another meeting of Obama's precinct captains, she surprises even herself. Before, she was "a homebody," as her husband of seven years describes her. Now, she feels she's part of a movement.

"Whether or not he wins the nomination, whether or not he makes it all the way to the White House, this is a movement," Friedberg shouts above the roar of the crowd. "A movement is when you're emotionally involved, and that's where I am."

She pauses, then says "And, you know, it's not about Barack Obama. It's about us. He's expressing what we need expressed and what we've been needing expressed for years."

...Never mind the gladioluses and calla lilies that need planting in her small front yard. Forget the novel she picked up about two months ago.

Over the past month, Friedberg's priority has been to make sure Obama's supporters in her precinct know about the Texas two-step: First they have to vote in the primary, then show up at 7 p.m. for the caucus.

By Monday morning, she'd made more than 700 phone calls on Obama's behalf. Being inside the arena, enveloped in the roar of the crowd, listening to Obama and his promises of hope and change, she feels part of something.

I think Friedberg nails it when she says that "it's not about Barack Obama. It's about us."

It seems to me that there are a lot of people wanting a purpose, something to believe in. What's weird is that the purpose seems to be Obama, not a cause or a goal or a philosophy.

"He's expressing what we need expressed."

OK. That's just sad. What's he expressing?

Barack Obama is supposed to be about changing politics as usual. Is that what we need expressed?

Unfortunately, his words ring hollow.

The movement is fraudulent.

From FactCheck.org:

Barack Obama's campaign is distributing a mailer in Ohio that plays upon anti-NAFTA feelings in the Buckeye State. But the flyer is misleading:

---Obama is quoted as saying that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." But those figures are highly questionable and from an anti-NAFTA source. Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain.

---The mailer quotes Hillary Clinton as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York and America." That quote, however, is taken out of context. She also said in that same news conference that NAFTA was flawed and old trade deals needed to be revisited.

That's definitely politics as usual.

Obama is not the man he claims to be. And if Obama is not the man he claims to be, then the movement falls apart.

On Monday's Nightline, Obama was interviewed by Terry Moran.

On the question of experience, Obama welcomes the contrast between him and Clinton, who has repeatedly described herself as someone who is "tested" and "ready."

"I think the question is, how do you know any president is ready?" Obama said. "[Until] you're president, you haven't made these decisions."

"What people can take a look at is how I exercised judgment on key foreign policy questions over the last several years," he said. "And I think they can have confidence. ... More often than not, I have shown judgment that was superior to some of these people who are claiming much lengthier experience."

As part of her proven experience, Clinton has highlighted her visits to more than 80 countries, her time spent in the White House and her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Look, I've lived overseas," said Obama. "I have family overseas. I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

I can't believe that Obama has the nerve to consider living overseas and having family overseas to be foreign policy experience. That's idiotic.

He claims that he has superior judgment compared to "people who are claiming much lengthier experience."

Yeah, he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. How many times have we heard that? Obama's always yapping about Hillary voting for the war and he didn't.

He didn't have to cast a vote on the war because he wasn't a U.S. Senator at the time!

How long does he think he can use his statement on Iraq as an indication of his superiority?

If Obama has such superior judgment, then why does he make "boneheaded" mistakes and surround himself with a weird band of buddies and associates?

Obama's spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., shares the views held by terrorists.

On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies.

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

Obama's campaign has said, “Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church.”

Really? I question Obama's judgment on that.

Wright isn't the only questionable person close to Obama.

He's friendly with Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi.

[Khalidi is] a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department.

Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

And then there's William Ayers.

Jonah Goldberg writes:

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 -- a few hours before Al Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.

Hanging out with former members of the Weather Underground isn't using the best judgment in my opinion, particularly since Ayers has no regrets about declaring war on the America. That's not good.

Now, we get to Tony Rezko.

Obama and Rezko have strong ties.

In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

I think Obama's relationship with Rezko speaks volumes about his judgment.

From Nightline:

Obama's critics point to Tony Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer, as a reason to question Obama's brand of politics.

Rezko, who has raised a lot of money for Obama over the years, goes on trial this week on corruption charges. Rezko has ties to many politicians, but it is a real estate deal Rezko participated in with Obama in 2005 that enabled the senator to purchase his current home, that has brought a lot of scrutiny to the candidate's campaign.

For Obama, who has called himself a reformer and touted his judgment, some voters might ask how could he enter into this transaction with a longtime contributor who, at that time, was known to be under investigation for corruption?

"I've already said that that was a mistake, even though it was completely above board," said Obama. "Because he had been a contributor, I shouldn't have entered into any real estate transaction with him."

What a lame response!

Obama doesn't personify honesty. He's not about change. He insists that he has superior judgment, but I don't see the evidence.

It's pathetic that so many people are spellbound by someone they really don't know. And at least some of what they think they know about Obama is not true.