Required Reading

Alexander Hamilton was neither the first nor the last great man whose greatness was partly forged by absorbing at a bone deep level the basic principle that life is unfair. The longtime beau ideal of youthful and inspiring leadership, John F. Kennedy himself, famously joked about life’s unfairness during a presidential press conference. Kennedy knew of whence he spoke. A bone-deep knowledge of life’s unfairness tends to hasten the acknowledgement of life’s unpleasant realities. Being unfair, life often presents us with no-win situations where no course of action is entirely satisfactory. Choosing the lesser of multiple evils is a regular necessity for all but the most fortunate of us. A way out of tough situations is usually impossible. Most often, a way through is the best that we can manage. All of this requires a sort of hardheadedness. If one clings to fantasies about life’s inherent fairness or in fact has led a life that has allowed the reasonable inference that life is in fact fair, then there’s a good chance that hardheadedness will be lacking. Which brings us to our presidential candidates. Barack Obama has gone to great efforts to stress his humble origins. As is often the case with Obama, methinks the Messiah doth protest too much. If you read Obama’s autobiography “Dreams From My Father” (and please note it’s “From,” not “Of” – all these lefties who claim to have read the book but can’t even manage to get the title right cast their credibility into doubt), you’ll see that Obama’s claims to hardship seem a little trumped up. Yes, his father was absent and his mother a bit eccentric, but he grew up surrounded by people who loved him. It’s true Obama grew up middle class, but he was comfortably middle class. While he relentlessly harps on the purported financial hardships he bore as a youth, they didn’t prevent him from attending Hawaii’s finest and most exclusive prep school. Obama’s adult life has also been devoid of misfortune. He has enjoyed financial comfort his entire adult life in spite of not having a real job or making any real money until he was 13 years out of law school. He can thank his wife for his material comfort. Apparently there have been no health challenges. Professionally, Obama steadily declined to test himself and experience potential adversity. While most of his Harvard Law classmates entered the maw of big law firm life knowing they would either thrive or fail, Obama shrunk back in relative safety, organizing communities, teaching a con-law class, writing a book and generally living the life of a dilettante intellectual. In the past 48 hours, Obama and his campaign have been stung by the suggestion that he doesn’t oppose genocide. Actually, that’s how Obama surrogate Keith Olbermann framed the issue last night on his MSNBC (whatever that may be) broadcast last night. Of course, no one is saying that Barack Obama opposes genocide as a philosophical matter. I’m sure if the topic came up at a Hyde Park cocktail party, Obama, William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn and Jeremiah Wright all would agree that genocide is a very, very bad thing. Then they would probably crack open a bottle of Grgich Hills Chardonnay and dine on Ayers’ famous Lemon Tarragon Bell & Evans chicken which they would enjoy almost as much as their sense of moral superiority. I’m sure the Sunnis in Iraq who would perhaps be confronting a potential genocide right now if Barack Obama’s plan for a 16 month withdrawal had taken effect in 2007 would find the spiritual kinship of the Hyde Park gang a tremendous comfort. But as a leader rather than a Hyde Park intellectual, Obama’s opposition to genocide, in order to have any real meaning, will have to be attached to action. And this is where the hardheadedness comes in. To prevent a potential genocide in 2007 required American resolve. It also required leaders who were willing to commit American blood and treasure to doing so. Barack Obama, then a prominent senator and candidate for president, was willing to make no such commitments. He explicitly said at that time that genocide would not be reason enough to maintain an American military presence in Iraq. For special fans of Keith Olberman related ironies, MSNBC’s website reported these Obama comments. Yesterday, Obama engaged in perhaps the cheesiest moment in modern campaigning memory by using Israel’s Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem, as a backdrop for a photo-op that would visually illustrate his seriousness and gravitas. During this visit to Yad Vashem, Obama predictably said “Never again” – not quite an original sentiment, but still a welcome one. And on his website two weeks ago, he semi-reversed his position on genocide, saying that as POTUS he would reserve the right to arrest his sudden withdrawal from Iraq to stop a genocide. Of course, the statement included the linguistic gymnastics we’ve come to expect from Barack Obama – he didn’t say he would do whatever was necessary to halt the genocide. He didn’t even say he would do anything necessary to halt the genocide. He just said he reserved the right to do so. He also added the annoying caveat that he would do so while working with our international partners. There are two Barack Obamas – the one who offers beautiful words and the one who prescribes scant actions. And the words without action or at least the credible promise of action mean nothing. “Never again” is a nice thing to say, but attaching real meaning to the words requires a certain resolve. Saving the situation in Iraq and preventing a potential genocide required an embrace of a Hobson’s Choice. We’ve certainly learned one thing about Barack Obama during this campaign – he’s wrestled the art of saying nice words down to a science. But when the same guy who said he wouldn’t intervene to stop a genocide in Iraq a year later pops into Yad Vashem and says “Never again,” you have to take pause. And you have to wonder whether those words are anything more than hollow platitudes meant to more reflect his own sense of moral superiority rather than any actions he might take as president. 3) From the Wall Street Journal, “The Fannie Mae Gang” by Paul Gigot Gigot and his editorial page have been harping about the dangers of Fannie Mae and her ne’er do well sibling Freddie Mac for the better part of a decade. Events have sadly proven Gigot prescient. In spite of the predictability of Fannie’s woes, the thuggish ways of Fannie as well as her congressional and media allies still surprise:

Today brings the news that you the taxpayer will be footing the bill for Fannie and Freddie’s pratfalls. Know frustration. 4) From HotAir.com, “Christ Appears in Berlin, Uses Lots of ‘Wall’ Metaphors” by the Allahpundit As a public service, Allah has gathered some of Obama’s banalities into one omnibus blog-posting. Know clichés!

5) From Daily Kos, “Ich Bin Ein Liveblog” by BarbinMD Forget Dr. Barbin’s brief comments. Skip down to the comments and sample the madness! Says Kos Kid “Observer,” “Our future president presenting himself to the world. A man of courage, intelligence and vision. Wow!” Believe it or not, “Observer” was in the minority. Most of the Kos community recognized the stupidity of this particular gambit. Said Jack Dublin, “This speech will not win him the election. He has to be very careful. If he appears to be attacking the U.S. at all, he is in for trouble at home. I’m not saying it is right, but that is the state of U.S. ‘gotcha’ politics… He is boarding (sic?) on that now.” “The Bagof Health and Politics” (if that’s his real name) amplified Mr. Dublin’s concerns: “This was a bad idea. I’d be all happy about it–if it were happening the second week of November and Barack was the President-elect, but there is something wrong with this in the middle of the election. It’s over-anxious and getting out way too far ahead of ourselves.” Yes folks, it’s true. The kids at the Daily Kos are shrewder than the people running the Obama campaign.