In reading and listening to Charles Krauthammer over the last couple of months I've formed the distinct impression that he not only regards Obama well, but that he would have liked to believe his rhetoric.
The following article though seems to have shut the door firmly on any possible support, by Krauthammer, for Obama.
National Review Article
Quote:Is he really who he says he is? I'm not talking about scurrilous innuendo about his origins, religion, or upbringing. I'm talking about the full-fledged man who presents himself to the country in remarkably grandiose terms as a healer, a conciliator, a uniter.
Quote:When Americans are asked who can unite us, 67 percent say Obama versus 34 percent for Clinton, with McCain at 51. How did Obama pull that off? By riding one of the great non sequiturs of modern American politics.
And herein lies the source of my greatest difficulty with Obama's candidacy.
As Krauthammer goes on to detail, there is absolutely no reason to believe Obama will live up to his rhetoric if elected.
His own advisor was, quite pathetically, unable to provide a pundit with a single example of Obama reaching across the aisle to obtain bi-partisan agreement.
Damage control by the Campaign led to a list of rather anemic efforts on rather trivial matters.
When truly significant issues have been debated in the Senate, Obama has consistently sided with partisan Democrats not willing to strive for compromise.
Quote:On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one's own political constituency, Obama flinched: the "gang of 14" compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments, and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama's.
Of course one might argue that he "had to" remain lined up with the left of his party if he was to obtain the nomination, but that he can be relied upon to do all the necessary uniting aisle crossing when he is president.
It's hard to imagine how one might argue such a thing with a straight face, but it might be argued.
"New Politics?"
The current hard core supporters of Obama are only too happy to learn that he has never compromised with the Republican scoundrels, for they are the ones he had to woo, but it makes one wonder exactly what the "unity" they all profess to desire actually looks like.
Compromise as long as it leads to their position? Unity as long as it is complies with their unified beliefs?
Would I like to see an end to partisan warfare? Yes, I would, but why should I believe Obama will provide it? When has he ever risked his political career in an attempt to get something important done irrespective of what the ideologues in his party might insist upon?
Do you really want someone in the White House who has the character to fight for what he believes is best for the nation despite what impact it may have on his career?
Do you really want someone in the White House who is capable of compromise with the Opposition for the sake of the nation?
Do you really want someone in the White House that is capable of breaking free of Old Political rules and charting a course for this country that benefits all?
You can have such a president, but he will not be young and attractive. He will not be able to electrify large audiences within 5 minutes of speaking. He will not look like Tomorrow Man. And he will not be able to put a jacket on without someone's help because the enemies of this country found it appropriate to break his shoulders on a regular basis.
He will just be the real deal.
If Obama wins the nomination, and I suspect he eventually will, the race to November will be between a character and a man.
