Two characters, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, nearly derailed the Obama campaign for similar reasons;  they held extremist policial and social opinons, and Barak associated with these men.  There is little doubt that both Ayers and Wright are “extremist” in the sense that they espouse fringe views outside of mainstream acceptance.  Reverend Wright preached firebrand sermons chastising “evil” white America, and Ayers undertook radical actions in the form of domestic bombings.  Even still, the American voters looked past any association with these unseemly people.

This is because Barak quickly flashed his autonomy by publicly denouncing both Ayers and Wright, even going as far as to leave Trinity United permanently.  He poignantly argued that Ayers was a marginal person in his life, then made a historic speech where he accurately critiqued Wright’s fatal flaw (thinking that white America is stagnated in hate and brutal domination).  Truth be told, there was little physical social association with Ayers whatsoever, and a mainly political association with Wright (Obama desired a foothold in South Chicago community affairs and the most expeditious route ran directly through the Trinity United megachurch).  Befriending these two knuckleheads may say something about his character, but he successfully exuded an intellectual soundness and a stoic demeanor that confirmed his overall personality of moderation.

While the right-wing radio personalities (Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, Savage, Cunningham, Beck, ect…) indicted Obama as a radical terrorist-sympathizer, he continued to put forth a relatively gentle aura of thoughtfulness and familial balance (he seemed more likely to read bedtime stories to Sasha and Malia than plot anti-American activities in terrorist enclaves).  In other words, the rhetoric from the airwaves did not match the reality on the ground.  This same dynamic worked against Bush in the years following the Iraqi invasion.  His rhetoric of progress and “victory” was in direct conflict with the true reality occurring on the ground, consequently leading to a loss of public support.

In the case of Obama, the anti-American narrative was never corroborated with tangible evidence.  They could not tie Obama to extreme issue positions, and more importantly could not tie Obama’s “radicalism” to any eventual public policy outcomes.  One could not prove how his extremism (in terms of supposed thought and action) would eventually impact us as citizens, because the radicalism tag itself was built upon a fallacy.

Much of his cabinet is assembled from Clinton-era bigwigs, lobbyists (how is former Senator Daschele not a lobbyist?), and characters of moral turpitude  (Daschle, Killefer, and Geitner are all accused of tax evasion)… the same old players within the same corrupt political framework.  Just because they represent political allies does not mean they should be governing the nation.  The President’s choices call directly into question the ethos of accountability and honesty that Obama’s campaign exuded with passionate vigor.  It also calls into question Obama’s judgement to a certain degree… it at least casts doubt on the vetting process taking place behind the scenes!

It does appear that Obama is attempting to govern pragmatically from the middle of the ideological spectrum.  While this approach departs from the narrow right-wing idealism of George W. Bush, it will still not produce anything dramatically different.  Abrupt and comprehensive “change” in terms of the power elite and policy ideas will not happen anytime soon…

Since I began writing this piece Tom Daschele and Nancy Killefer have withdrawn their nominations.  This is a positive step forward in terms of the administration regaining ethical superiority (a perception that is crucial to Obama’s success).  All is not lost.  We must remember that the Obama administration is in it’s infancy (like a zygote) and that no administration is perfect no matter how well intentioned.  It is unreasonable to assume that Obama will assemble a government full of fresh faces with a “new” way of doing business.  The Dascheles, Clintons, Killefers and Geitners of the world will always be first choice…

While the American government doubtless supports Israel and their national interests at every turn, there is a bit more of a gray area in terms of underlying fault.  The hardline nationalist “Ariel Sharone” voice in Israel decrys Palestine’s mere existence and is quick to annex Palestinian lands and take heavy-handed approaches toward their neighbors. This subtle and tangible anti-Palestinian bias engenders an animosity and militancy among Palestinians leading to terrorist activity wielded against Israel. Thus, the vicious cycle is put into place…

If peace is to be ultimately achieved, Israeli leaders must remain open to meeting with the Palestinian Authority on neutral grounds.  Just as Hamas and militant Palestinians must put down their mortars and come to the negotiating table, Israel must acknowledge the right of Palestine to exist as a legitimate global player.  I am by no means exonerating Palestinian terror directed towards Israel…  I’m merely pointing out that both sides hold some blame in this perpetual travesty. Let’s hope these competing voices take up the challenge of moderation, compromise, and mutual respect…  hope…

While Palin did breath new life into the presidential campaign, the governor will (at least in the short-term) remain a secondary player in terms of both national politics and the GOP hierarchy for two primary reasons.  One, she failed to demonstrate a depth of factual understanding and vision on critical issues related to the fiscal crisis and foreign policy.  And two, her electoral appeal, while penetrating, is centered almost solely upon social conservatism; an ideological wing whose political influence has been waning with shifting electoral dem0graphics and general levels of social tolerance.

On the one hand, Palin’s rousing convention speech was eventually overshadowed by intellectually defunct  performances with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, and then later on the campaign trail.  She failed to articulate an answer about her “reading materials” much less provide a coherent framework of public policy in terms of the economic fallout and foreign policy objectives.  Through introspective study and critical thought, the governor can rectify this weakness in her political character and emerge as the GOP policy wonk of the future.  That being said, her conservative fervor must be tempered in order to appeal to a wider swath of the body politic.

Sarah pronounced and positioned herself as a staunch, puritan social conservative on such issues as abortion (Criminalized at all levels including cases of rape and incest), homosexual rights, and the standard litany of church vs. state issues. Indeed, she articulated her views on these issues most deeply/clearly, and quickly became the darling of the Hannity right.  However, the new voice of the Republican Party, in my opinion, will need to shift to the center/middle especially when it comes to “personal privacy” rights dealing with sexuality, obscenity, and censorship. Sarah Palin is not that voice and she never will be.

The Reagan Era dominance of right wing idealism is all but extinguished; at least in terms of social/cultural issues, as a fresh generation of younger and more educated citizens are entering the electorate with a penchant for social tolerance and personal privacy.  That does not necessary mean that younger or more tolerant voters are less religious or spiritual, just that they are routinely separating personal faith from public policy.  They may, for example, accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, but also respect the genetic (i.e. natural) foundation of homosexuality that allows same-sex couples to experience a love commensurate with any hetero partnership… and thus may support legalized same-sex marriage as a public policy.

Conservatives always repeat the mantra of smaller government, but are ironically the most apt to inject a heavy authoritative hand on the rights of certain minority groups, and restrict personal choice and behavior.  While few desire a wholly secular society void of healthy religiosity, the future voice of the GOP must continue moderating  its political stance on issues like reproductive and homosexual rights, drug usage (non-violent) and prayer in school… a hard-line stance will only work to alienate the shifting demographics and preferences of modern American voters.