Obama: Too Sensitive To Be President

When President Bush gave a speech before Israel's Knesset on May 15th, he made some statements about appeasement. Although most of us have heard the sound-bites, we should look at his statements in context. In reference to Osama bin-Laden, Ahmadinejad, and the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, President Bush said...

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Notice that Mr. Bush did not single out any particular individual, but spoke of "some" who are "good and decent people". His statement would appear to encompass a substantial portion of today's American liberals who have little regard for the military or the use of force against terrorists, dictators and state sponsors of terror. We have heard the mainstream media drone on about the importance of diplomacy, and how the use of force only "creates more terrorists" and "energizes our enemies". Such a group would include Jimmy Carter, as evidenced by his ill-advised meeting with terror group Hamas. It would also include Nancy Pelosi, as evidenced by her ill-advised trip to Syria, a state sponsor of terror.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama was quick to denounce the President's remarks before the Knesset as a personal attack upon himself...

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack.

First of all, there was nothing "false" about the statement, as there is plenty of evidence to back it up. Secondly, it was NOT a personal "political attack" upon Barack Obama. It was a statement of fact presented in an attitude of sympathy to the citizens of Israel who have had to endure hundreds of terror attacks, wars, murders and Antisemitism since the U.N. mandate established the nation of Israel in 1948. Israelis are not blind to the delusions of "some" who think that "talking" will solve all the world's problems -- they have endured it for 60 years.

But the real story here, is the apparent sensitivity on the part of Barack Obama. Obama incorrectly perceived the President's statement as a personal attack against him, and his stated policy of being willing to meet with America's enemies without any preconditions. His own website says the following...

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions (empahsis added)...

Regional Diplomacy: Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors – including Iran and Syria (empahsis added).

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe (emphasis added). He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table

Obama's terse, reflexive response to the President's comments speaks volumes about the candidate, who tends to be self-centered, defensive, and somewhat paranoid. Obama has an over-inflated ego that basks in praise and adulation, but abhors criticism of even the most trivial nature. Such are not good qualities in a leader.

Then, a few days later, Obama told the press to "lay off my wife"...

The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record. If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.

Obama made the comments during an interview along with his wife Michelle, that was aired on ABC's May 19th broadcast of "Good Morning America". The comments were in response to a question about an online video produced by the Tennessee state GOP criticizing her for an unpatriotic comment she made last February, when she said: "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country." Obama called the ad "low class."

While it is highly doubtful that Obama will tolerate people saying "whatever they want to" about him, this statement and the Knesset episode further illustrate a pattern which started back in 2006 when Maureen Dowd of the New York Times said "his ears stick out". Obama responded by calling out Dowd...

Obama is very sensitive about his press. After his press conference, he headed toward New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and chided her -- in a kidding way -- for a comment in the 12th of 14 paragraphs in an Oct 21 column. She wrote that Obama's "ears stick out."

"I just want to put you on notice," he said. "I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears."

Said Dowd, "We're trying to toughen you up."

Since then, Obama has appeared to be "touchy" about any number of subjects that smack of a personal nature. Apparently he does not want us to learn anything about himself or his history (except what he has already published in his books). And this from a man who has spent so little time in the public arena that he has been for all practical purposes a mystery. We are not allowed to question him about his former associates, his judgment, his patriotism, or his comments. And don't even mention his race.

When Geraldine Ferraro (a member of the Clinton campaign) made a simple analytical statement which touched on the issue of race, the Obama camp called it "outrageous" and demanded that Mrs. Clinton repudiate it. Ferraro defended her comments and said she was furious with the Obama campaign, accusing it of twisting her words. “Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist,” she said.

When Bill Clinton made an analytical observation about the impending South Carolina primary, Obama said his remarks were the "hallmarks of the politics of racism." So what was the remark that was SOOO controversial? Bill Clinton simply observed that Obama was likely to win in South Carolina because "Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama has run a good campaign. He has run a good campaign everywhere." Hardly racist. Perhaps not particularly flattering for Obama to be compared with Jesse Jackson, but if Clinton had said simply that Obama would likely win the Palmetto State because there is a large black population there, such a statement would have no doubt been equally excoriated as "racist" by the easily offended Obama.

When ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous posed questions of a personal nature at the April 16th Pennsylvania Democratic debate, Obama became irritated. The next day he said, "Last night I think we set a record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people." In other words, "Let's not talk about me and my personality. Let's talk about 'issues'." Hillary used the opportunity to poke fun at Obama by saying that Obama was "kind of complaining about the hard questions... I'm with Harry Truman on this. 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'."

Apparently we are not allowed to ask questions about Obama's Muslim roots or his childhood education. We are not allowed to mention his middle name. We are not allowed to question his relationships with indicted realtor Tony Rezko, or racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, or unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. We are not allowed to question his contention that he attended a radical black church for 20 years and never heard anything inflammatory from the pastor. We are not allowed to question Obama's comment that working-class whites are "bitter" and cling to guns and religion because of their economic status. We are not allowed to question his comment that the "typical white person" is fearful of blacks. We are not allowed to question why he has refused to wear a flag lapel pin, or to hold his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem. We are not allowed to question why his wife has never been proud of America, and thinks that this is a "mean" country. We are not allowed to question his voting record. We are not allowed to question his claims of being a "uniter" when he has no history or evidence of being one. These are all "distractions" according to the man who wants to hold the most powerful office in the world.

But these are not mere distractions for the American electorate, at least for those who are interested in politics. Democrats may have no particular interest in questions which might tarnish the luster of Barack Obama, but Republicans and Independents are a different story. Those who are neutral or who may differ with his opinions, are sincerely interested to know more about who the candidate is and what he represents. They want to know what his possible election might portend for next four to eight years. They want to feel secure that the White House will not be occupied by a naive neophyte, an elitist, an appeasement afficionado, a criminal, a Marxist, or a racist. And so we will continue to ask the "tough questions", even if the mainstream media won't.

At this point I am inclined to agree with Hillary Clinton (which is a rare occasion). If Obama can't take "the heat" of public scrutiny, then why did he decide to run for the most important public office in the land? Didn't he know that the life of a presidential candidate would come under the microscope? If elected, how will Obama be able to handle the personal criticisms from his opponents on an almost daily basis? Will America be subjected to four years of Presidential whining about "Why is everybody always pickin' on me"? How would a President Obama be able to negotiate with dictators and despots who want to embarrass or destroy this country when he can't handle a crack about his big ears?

And if he thinks that the Republican ad in Tennessee was "low class", then he ought to open his eyes to his fellow "low class liberals" who have been trashing President Bush for the last 7-1/2 years. They have called him everything from an idiot to an evil madman. They have repeatedly belittled him and mocked his frequent linguistic mishaps. Personally, I think President Bush has responded to such attacks with remarkable grace and dignity. His use of self-deprecating humor and blatant acknowledgement that he can "mangle a few syl-LAB-bulls" is genuinely charming. Instead of focusing on "Audacity", Obama ought to take some lessons in "Humility".