Obama - is he genuine?

One of my favorite authors is Malcolm Gladwell. He wrote Blink and The Tipping Point, and interestingly enough, there is much to learn about Obama’s presidential campaign under the light of these two books.

In fact, I would be very much interested in finding out Gladwell’s opinion of Obama.

Given that I browsed the internet trying to find anything on that regard and was not successful, I will share with you my “Blink” on Obama.

Is Barak Obama genuine, or is he telling us what we want to hear? Is he a person of principles, or is he someone that will accommodate his principles according to the direction of the wind?

A few weeks ago, I was watching TV, and prior to the primaries in Texas, a reporter interviewed a citizen who said something quite striking: “Obama is now more that a candidate. Obama is a movement.” In other words, Obama’s campaign may have reached the “tipping point,” to use Gladwell’s idea as explained in his book. For the candidate himself, this is certainly excellent, as movements have a lot of people that adhere to it driven by its “dragging forces” which are the catching phrases and opinion makers that have joined it. For the public, however, it could be either good or bad, depending on how close his electoral discourse will match his deeds, if elected.

And here is where I am concerned.

I am concerned because after watching several debates, and following everything that is going on around him, my inner feeling is not good. My “Blink” on Obama, tells me that I cannot trust him.

This week we had a very telling situation: a couple of videos by his pastor were released. I must confess that I have hardly seen a preaching more hateful, divisive and racist. For those who haven’t seen these videos, I am posting them at the bottom of this piece.

As it has been widely mentioned, this is the pastor that Obama has been following for 20 years. This is the pastor who married him and mentored him. Pressed to give his opinion on these videos, Obama said he’s like “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”

But saying the above about Rev. Wright was not enough, and so, Obama was pressed to reject Wright’s hateful discourses, which Obama did, a few days after this polemics started. And the headlines went like this:

Moreover, Wright, who left his church pulpit to become Obama’s advisor, ended up leaving this advisory position this Friday:


But these are my questions: why in the first place was Wright accepted as Obama’s campaign advisor if his divisive views were nothing new? Why would Obama stay member of a church that has as its leader such a preacher of hate? Why did it take a few days for Obama to be more vehement on his criticism to Wright, and still did not reject Wright himself, but just the things that he “[doesn’t] always agree with”?

Is Obama a principled man or is he saying what we want to hear, and at times saying what he’s been pressed to say?

Let’s look at this transcript from his debate with Hillary Clinton, regarding Farrakhan’s endorsement of Obama:

TIM RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?


OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy….You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

HILLARY CLINTON: There is a difference between denouncing and rejecting.


OBAMA: I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There is no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. If the word reject Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word denounce, I'm happy to concede the point. I would reject and denounce.


In the above transcript it becomes clear Obama's "three-step conversion" from accepting Farrakhan's support, to rejecting it: 
- first "I can't say that he can't say that I am a good guy"
- then "I denounce his past statements"
- finally OK, "if Hillary feels that the word reject is stronger, then I denounce and reject"

So, is this rejection really convincing? You judge.

By the way, the same New York Times section that mentions “Obama denounces statements of his pastor as inflammatory”, carries another disturbing piece of information about Obama’s character: “Obama describes developer deal as a mistake.”Here’s another “let’s say what they want to hear” statement.

If Obama truly rejects Farrakhan, if Obama truly rejects the fundamental positions of Rev. Wright, I would expect for him to come out and publicly say loudly: “Farrakhan, Wright, you are bigots, you are hate preachers, and I want everybody to know it, and to know that I am totally disassociating myself from you!”

Until this happens, my “Blink” factor tells me that Obama is someone not to be trusted.

What do you think?