Quick Change Artist Obama; Looking Good On Paper

From day one of Barack Obama's campaign, it has been emphasized by him and his supporters that this upcoming election is about "change". He has repeatedly made statements of how he wants to change the tone of politics and way things get done in Washington. He has blasted the lobbyists and the influence they have in our government. He has decried the negative tones used by politicians. Overall, his populist message has resonated with some people very deeply and many believe him to be the man to get these things done.

To be blatantly honest, all of this looks good on paper and sounds good in favorable ten-second sound bites - which the media has afforded him plentifully during the course of this campaign. But, when things that are critical of him are brought to light, it's understandable why he and his supporters gets so touchy.

And he does get touchy.

Early on, Obama and many of his supporters have made numerous comments signaling he will be a very thin-skinned candidate, during the course of the next several months. They wage a proxy negative campaign toward anyone who stands in the way of an Obama juggernaut.

Despite the stated desire of changing Washington, it has become very likely that his campaign may not be as much of a change as Team O would have us believe. In fact, we have already seen the effectiveness of accusing the Clintons (Bill in particular). They have castigated and abandoned them without a second thought, for making what they perceived to be offensive and racist comments.

But this is just the beginning.

As things turn more toward the general election, we can certainly expect more of this kind of approach and have already seen some clear indications, this will not be the "above the belt" campaign that the Obama campaign says it wants. And as times roll nearer to November, the main question that will surface will be of who will decide, what is (and isn't) fair game for discussion and debate?

We have already seen the responses of the Obama campaign on questions of his judgment, prior to announcing his bid for the presidency. Some of them have been sharp, others have been subtle. But whichever, there have been responses that aren't above the usual fray, with some every bit as negative as the ones they complain about. Team O thinks nothing about raising the age issue with McCain, with Hillary it's the long term ties to the Washington he wants to change. But when it comes time to answer his critics, it's a different ball game as he whines about the negativity that inherently comes with this animal also known as politics.

We have already had much coverage of his connections to former Weatherman William Ayers and his well-known pastor, Jeremiah Wright. But early on, Obama was confronted with his ties to Tony Rezko, a Chicago businessman and real estate developer currently on trial for wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and attempted extortion.

On paper, it doesn't look like Obama was actively involved in any of the dirty deeds Rezko is accused of. But knowing he has been an influence peddler in Chicago politics and has ties going back to the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, former Illinois Governor George Ryan (who was convicted of the illegal sale of government licenses, contracts and leases by state employees during his prior service as Secretary of State), and current Governor Rod R. Blagojevich (whose wife is a former business partner of Rezko) - it certainly begs a poignant question or two.

When asked about the connections with Ayers by George Stephanopoulos in a recent debate, he avoided the question entirely and successfully pulled a bait and switch back to how the question was an example of the very negativity he wants to change. As we analyze this reaction we must ask ourselves, how is this so different from the way things are done in Washington now? Historically in Washington, politicians have avoided responsibility for their own deeds, and shady ties. With Obama's display of avoidance, how and why should we expect anything different in an Obama White House press conference?

Look, words matter and associations matter. Not to assign guilt, but to evaluate his judgment. And not only does it reflect judgment, it allows us that have the ability to see past the facades. It allows us to make a fair, calculated determination of who the candidate really is behind the insulating wall of secrecy, his campaign has built to protect him from criticism.

Who he has associated himself with in the recent past (as well as now) and who supports him with their monetary donations and ideological agreements, is an important tool for the electorate to use in deciding who to support. When he is the preferred candidate of Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and even Hamas, it has to be taken into consideration. It has to be looked at very closely. To allow him a clear path to the presidency on brilliant oratory with no hard questions in between would be allowing the same set of circumstances to exist, which allowed Hitler to gain control of Germany.

Don't be fooled. Barack Obama has industries, certain companies, and individual people that he will owe favors to, if he wins in November. It's impossible to raise the kind of money he has, without some kind of support from some special interests. Change, like beauty, is all in the eyes of the beholder. And from where I sit, Sen. Obama and his camp are consummate BS Artists that hope we fall for the illusion created for him, on paper.