Interesting: Obama campaign defends efforts to 'shield' their candidate from press and photogs by playing victim card ie they have no choice but to closely guard his image since he has been so unfairly characterized in the past - it has nothing to do with trying to hide something, heavens no [undoubtedly only a racist would think something like that]. So when they moved two Muslim women wearing head scarves from out of the camera frame at recent speech, or when Obama met with national black leaders and photographers were not allowed access nor were the attendees allowed to talk to the press afterwards, well, you see, that was because Obama has been a victim of bias. Got to hand it to these people: they've mastered a Democrat version of bull shit to rival the Republicans' version. Now, I guess in one sense there's nothing wrong with that - after all, when in Rome etc etc - but that his supporters, who have railed against similar GOP tactics, do not seem troubled or even aware of this, that gets at the root of my apprehensions concerning Obama - people who not only inspire but actively seek out such blind devotion should give one pause.
Of course, a marginal counter argument could be that in any ostensibly free system the will of the people will always be somewhat blind by nature. I mean, one could argue that the only virtue of democracy is that it allows for the fact that its citizens do stupid things and exhibit poor judgment on a regular basis and therefore regular change is welcomed as a necessity and that openness in turn feeds the dynamism of the system - whereas closed systems on the other hand fail because they fear change. One could argue that - the key variable being that change does not inoculate the system against abuse, in fact, change can be a catalyst for abuse - and Obama is the change you can believe in candidate. You've been warned.
Related: David Brooks in the Times today points out, in reference to Obama opting out of public financing, in direct contradiction to everything he's said over the last few years, and rationalizing this move with some pretty specious arguments, Brooks points out that republicans fail to see what a ruthless political animal Obama is. Certainly, that's one of my theories concerning the guy: that he's essentially a charlatan lusting for power for whatever reasons and, if that's so, what becomes troubling is the question of why? Power for power's sake, possibly to appease some inner demon or as a reflection of an abiding arrogance? To implement a radical liberal agenda? His record is so thin it's impossible to know. Probably the later, given his political roots, but who the fuck knows. The point is, once you start connecting the dots on this guy red flags should be going off all over the place - assuming of course you're an objective observer. And there's the rub - to wit: reading one of the top left wing blogs to see what they have to say about Obama opting out and they essentially fall over themselves trying to avoid drawing obvious conclusion that Obama is not what they so desperately want to believe him to be [of course if what they're after is implementation of a radical left wing agenda no matter the cost then I guess, in a sense at least, that he's exactly what they want him to be].
