The Trouble With Barry

Way back when the Democratic primaries were still being contested, Maureen Dowd of the NY Times referred to Senator Barack Obama in several of her columns as "Barry." At least I think she did. Most of her writing was devoted to pillorying Hillary, and was so over the top she could have signed off as Mo the Excoriator. Of course, whether she indulged in the use of a nickname or any other familiarities when referencing Sen. Obama is of no significance now and probably never was. But it works for the title of this essay.

The trouble with Barry, Sen. Obama, is that we don't know much about him. That's because he has no record of political accomplishment to speak of, and had nothing substantive to say during the primary campaign. He ran on the promise of change. That's the hoariest chestnut in the lexicon of politics. Seventy per cent of poll respondents attest, directly or indirectly, to the desire for change in the direction of this country's afairs, foreign and domestic. That's obviously due to the disasters of the Bush/Cheney Administration. Given the present course of both categories, that percentage is certain to increase, Senator Obama notwithstanding.

What changes has Sen. Obama proposed and what changes, during the primaries and since, has
he implemented? Well, there's Reverend Richard Wright, Jr., Mr Obama's friend and former pastor. Reverend Wright called attention to the miasma of racism in this country, and Mr. Obama promptly disappeared into the fog. That was a change.

During a litmus test conducted byAmerican supporters of Israel, Mr. Obama pledged this country's unilateral, unequivocal, and unshakable resolve to stand with Israel, as U.S. presidents have for sixty years. No change there.

He responded to a question about Osama bin Laden, a character you may remember, by suggesting a surge in the hunt by U.S. forces in Afghanistan to capture the ephemeral Al-Qaeda leader, a mere seven years after the 9/11 attacks. Nothing changed here.

In a clear change, make that two clear changes, he announced, then recanted his intent to limit himself to public financing of his presidential campaign. And why not? He struck gold on the internet, a bonanza overlooked or ignored by his Democratic rivals, which tells us a lot about their savvy. If Howard Dean could raise $27 million on the internet in 2004, how could Hillary Clinton and John Edwards not use it in 2008? Obama could and did, to the tune of perhaps as much as $270 million, as detailed in the June issue of the Atlantic.

So, in four campaign issues, two domestic and two foreign, the candidate of change, has gone with the flow, just as politicians often must and almost always do.

We must wait a bit longer, it seems, for Sen. Obama to unveil the changes he will actually propose to redirect the country. Great issues abound. War or peace. Poverty. Health care. Class distinctions. Racism. Energy. Unilateralism.

Will he be bold and assertive, exercising his intelligence, personal charm and powers of communication? Given his unprecedented opportunity, will he inspire people of color worldwide? Or will he, when expediency dictates, resort to the art of the possible?

There are inevitable comparisons between the forthcoming election and that of 1960. Then as now, the Democrats chose as their candidate a relatively unknown senator who was young, handsome, clever and charming. He had a lovely wife, adorable children, star quality on TV, and had written two books.

But he was much more celebrity than solon, and in U.S., then as now, celebrity was everything. He was elected, and the country paid the price. As president, he failed. He was overmatched.

Wither goest Obama? The trouble with Barry is that we just don't know.


Rev Cox