Posted by
Kenneth G. Davenport on Monday, August 18, 2008 11:11:56 AM
The Wall Street Journal has an absolutely brilliant editorial today here entitled "Obama on Clarence Thomas". It offers a view into what I and other bloggers have long been saying -- that beneath that well-scripted "post racial" veneer, Obama is a typical left-wing ideologue. When left alone, without a script, these real beliefs seep to the surface, painting a pretty divisive picture.
In answering a question on judicial appointees in a Town Hall style debate where he and John McCain appeared together (but not at the same time), Obama took a huge and demeaning swipe at the lone black jurist on the court, Clarence Thomas.
"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.
Once again, Obama raises the specious issue of Thomas' background, experience and intelligence. Now, if the former law school professor would have bothered to check his facts, it is clear that though he may disagree with Thomas' judicial philosophy, he is nothing if not smart. That's a typical attack by the left to demean the Thomas tenure on the court. Because though Thomas is technically black, because he doesn't follow the liberal orthodoxy, he must not be smart -- otherwise why wouldn't he be the reincarnation of Jesse Jackson?
Even more telling, however, is Obama's perception of Thomas' lack of experience. As the Journal puts it:
So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.
I've noted before the arrogance that Obama carries with him -- anyone who believes that "he is the hope we've been waiting for" must have a very, very high opinion of himself. But here again, the facts don't fit the rhetoric. Obama may be a great speaker, but he's a neophyte. That's just a fact. He's the least experienced potential president in modern times. He may fancy himself as a Messiah figure, but his resume is weak. And much, much weaker than the U.S. Supreme Court Justice he demeans.
And, here again, the issue of Obama's true beliefs present a troubling picture of someone who has packaged himself to be president. He and his wife are on record in many places as having views that are both radical and out-of-the-mainstream.
The media, of course, has largely left these statements, writings and activities out of the news, preferring to report on his present scripted speeches as evidence of his hope-filled narrative. But the true evidence is there, and it often comes out in the kind of off-the-cuff remarks that were elicited in this debate format. It is why John McCain has pushed for Town Hall-style debated, and why Obama has resisted in favor of only three traditional debates before network news anchors. Its the kind of antisceptic format where Obama can control the angels of his not-so-better nature.