©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

Much has been already discussed about Barack Obama’s disturbing associations with a domestic terrorist (Ayers), to a prominent Palestinian advocate of suicide bombings (Khalidi), a corrupt Iraqi billionaire (Auchi), a sleazy personal fundraiser and mafioso (Rezko), and to his own genocidal maniac of a cousin from Kenya (Odinga), for whom Obama led a “positive” campaign effort to achieve his “election” a few years back. As many of us know, Obama’s camp has recently taken a defensive stance and have dedicated countless hours to spread the word around the internet that these issues are “irrelevant” to a Presidential campaign and that bringing them up are thus a full exemplification of “dirty politics”. All of this has been done while simultanously stating that John McCain would be a third term for George W. Bush because he is “associated” with him by being a member of the same party, thus implying “similar” ideological beliefs (a sound argument without a doubt, unless it applies to Obama, or so they wish to convey).

Obama’s rhetoric for the last month has been that McCain offers an identical vision for our Nation as the clearly failed one of George W. Bush, therefore making the case that he (Obama) is the only candidate who would represent a real change to our current ‘quagmire’. But all of this appears to have changed yesterday, at least for a few seconds.

Speaking at a Town Hall meeting at Reading High School in Pennsylvania, Obama said to the crowd: “You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain. And all three of us would be better than George Bush.” Obviously undercutting his own (and the Democratic Party’s) argument against McCain, he nonetheless continued arguing: “but what you have to ask yourself is, who has the chance to actually, really change things in a fundamental way?”

As could have been imagined, Obama’s comments quickly fueled another controversy, as they obviously underscored his prior statements regarding McCain’s candidacy, and they simultaneously ridiculed plenty of his own supporters who have been trying to make the opposite case throughout this election, “screaming” throughout the airwaves that only “their candidate” represents a change from Bush.

Obama, on the other hand, has not retracted from his ‘praiseful’ statements and instead has tried to put them behind him by going back to his original campaign message against the Republican nominee. This he did by continuing his campaign dogma a bit later on the same day: “We are going to bring an end to the George Bush era, his name won’t be on the ballot {but} one name that will be on the ballot is John McCain!” To make the case even stronger, he restated that: “The problem is that he’s {McCain} running for George Bush’s third term.”

The obvious irony here is hard to evade, and it once again raises many questions about the integrity of a candidate that seems to be criticizing “associations” as a weak measure of an individual’s beliefs, but then goes right ahead and makes the exact same case against his opponent (new politics?). Then, to make matters worse, he makes the dull-witted error of undercutting his own argument by stating the idea that no matter who is elected, it will clearly be a departure from George W. Bush.

What remains of Obama’s original case in favor of his Democratic nomination?

He has already proven to be highly unelectable, he has demonstrated to be so “far Left” as to virtually destroy his original contention that he would “bring the Country together”, and has personally made enough racially insensitive statements (the “typical white people” remark, and his 20 year attendance to Trinity) to destroy his aim of appearing as “post racial”. Now, to comically add insult to injury, he has given additional fodder to the Republicans to use against him and to prep up their own campaign, something that Clinton herself may have done before, but only within the context of berating her opponent, without poking holes in her entire political argument (experience, etc).

Will these statements disturb enough of Obama’s own supporters to at least push them into openly criticizing him for adding another flop to the already big list of previous boneheaded misstatements (bad judgment?), or will they once again claim that this was another simple mistake? All of this, we must understand, comes from a man who is not only trained in the art of speaking and utilizing words to reach settlements (attorney), but from one who has founded his whole premise of being qualified to lead our Nation, in his supposed ability to “inspire” people with WORDS.

A McCain spokesman rapidly responded to Obama comments: “The remark underscores that John McCain has the strength to change America and move this nation forward. Barack Obama is a new face who represents old ideas.”

©2008 Jonathan Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.