Posted by
Logical Party on Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:00:00 PM
By David DiBello
The old recant of “I’ll tell my mother” is now replaced by the Obama campaign with “wha wha their using fear!” as a subliminal message of “don’t go there” to the electorate every time legitimate concerns are raised over his lack of experience, both foreign and domestic.
President Roosevelt said “there is nothing to fear but fear itself,” in an effort to mobilize the masses against being paralyzed by fear. Of course fear is a way for the body to warn itself against danger; having your car break down in a bad neighborhood, or not turning in your work assignment on time might warrant fear of violence or retribution, respectively.
The acronym for fear is Far Exceeding Actual Reality, and the great danger with fear is to embellish to the point of rendering someone useless, consumed by this belief. However the emotion cannot be discounted as a useful tool to logically question circumstances in one’s environment, especially trust in another person.
This is the key element to Obama’s use of the “fear” defense; he hopes he will make you feel guilty if you question his background and experience, or his current policies. Take his views on troop withdrawal which has been revealed through debate scrutiny not to be in its purest form, but rather a “musical chairs” withdrawal with the possibility of a sequel deployment in his administration. It makes one question, now that we have his complete strategy, why we would withdraw immediately based on public desire and exhaustion of the war, rather than the criteria of finishing the job once and for all.
Barack raises the specter of fear when one requests an exploration of his actual stances, both those on record as a Senator, and the ones made while he was just “musing.” Critics like Karl Rove will point to documented statements that Obama supported Bush in 2002 and 2003, and unless he admits to it, or reshapes his argument that he didn’t want to intervene in Iraq but supported the troops while there, he will be going down that “was against it before I was for it” slippery slope.
Hillary on the other hand, might no longer be the flavor of the day, but has been consistent on supporting intervention when public sentiment was three quarters behind engaging Sadam and removing a threat. She has criticized a poorly performed strategy of the Bush administration, and has been banging the drum for a responsible withdrawal long before Barack declared his candidacy. Her views have evolved as the publics and frustration mounted over the lack of a clear plan in Iraq.
There is more than the war. We have healthcare and education issues where the candidates differ, albeit slightly, yet in the former Hillary requires coverage for all – a sane philosophy since no one know, regardless of age and health, knows when they will suffer a debilitating accident and need coverage.
As far as education, one only need to turn to Wikipedia to have listed all the child and family programs Mrs. Clinton sponsored, chaired or created to know her experience dwarfs Mr. Obama.
An honest appraisal of Obama’s statements and experience is justified, and is something Barack shouldn’t fear.