From The Daily Standard

The Blathering Storm
Always choosing talk over action.
by Dean Barnett
03/25/2008 12:00:00 AM

IN HIS MANY MONTHS on the campaign trail, Barack Obama has distinguished himself as the finest orator in recent political memory. With such skills in this area, it's little wonder that Obama and his campaign have put talking on a pedestal. When Obama talks, he does great. Even his detractors can't deny it.

But there's a stark disconnect between the talking Obama and Obama the man of action. Or rather Obama the man of inaction. It says something rather profound about Obama that his most noteworthy campaign-related act to date has been to sit passively in a church pew for 20 years worth of Sundays.

As Jonathan V. Last has noted in these pages, there's a hollowness to Obama's rhetoric. When Obama delivered his famous (and effective) "just words" rejoinder to Hillary Clinton's barbs, the speech inadvertently revealed the emptiness of Obama's rhetoric. "All men are created equal" was indeed more than just words. It was more than "just words" because the men who signed the document that made that claim risked their lives to prove it. They backed their words up with war. In short, their accompanying actions are what made the phrase immortal. If the phrase had emanated from some effete intellectuals in a Boston drawing room who went back to being effete intellectuals after delivering their proclamation, guys like Barack Obama wouldn't be quoting them today.

The question with Obama remains exactly what actions he'll take to give real meaning to his fine speeches. Interestingly, it's not just Obama's right wing critics who have complained about the emptiness of his rhetoric. Until the left finally circled its angry wagons around Obama over the last few weeks, you could find prominent left-wing bloggers complaining about Obama's failure to embrace progressive plans on an almost daily basis.

Of course, there's a certain cleverness to the strategy of combining inspiring rhetoric with no accompanying plan for action. I thought Obama's speech after his victory in the Iowa caucuses was the finest and most inspiring political address I had ever heard. Even though I didn't feel a tingling in my leg like Chris Matthews does on such occasions, Obama surely knows that if he's reaching heartless conservatives like me with his speeches, then he's got himself a launching pad to go after all sorts of voters. Why take the chance of turning off such voters by offering plans for action that they may not like?

My problem with Obama and my fear of a potential Obama presidency is that his ostentatious plans for inaction may be more than just a clever political strategy. If you look at his record, Obama seems to lack much fondness for action. His record is littered with evidence that he's a congenital ditherer who doesn't bother to offer actions that support his words. As a Senator, Obama has talked about bipartisanship but never actually done anything of a bipartisan nature. In the Illinois state legislature, Obama had all those "present" votes.

Still more disturbing are some of the prescriptions for purported action that the Obama campaign has issued. In this month's American Prospect, Team Obama spoke with Prospect senior staffer Spencer Ackerman to outline the bones of what will be the Obama Doctrine. I know, it all sounds very butch for a dovish modern Democrat--a genuine Doctrine! But unlike the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman Doctrine or the Reagan Doctrine or even the Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine mentions nothing so quotidian as backing up foreign policy aims with force.

If blustery testosterone-fueled rhetoric causes you unpleasantness, you might want to skip the following summation of what Team Obama has come up with for the Obama Doctrine:

They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root.
Out of an innate sense of kindness and charity, I'll overlook the contradiction between Team Obama's fierce desire to move beyond hollow sloganeering and focus on "dignity promotion." Instead, let's focus on how the Obama Doctrine isn't a plan and promise for action like all the Doctrines that have preceded it, but instead an empty piece of gobbledygook rhetoric.

It's just talk that most people will find agreeable, perhaps even noble. Practically every American supports the idea of "liberty, justice and prosperity" taking root. I bet we can even all agree that "dignity promotion," whatever it may be, is probably a swell thing.

But the real trick isn't agreeing on such basics. The real trick is enacting policies that makes them a reality. If the Obama Doctrine held that President Obama would send a fleet of Navy vessels to the shores of every country where dignity wasn't being adequately promoted, that would at least be a Doctrine worthy of the name. It would be a stupid Doctrine, but at least for once Obama would be matching his rhetoric with a plan for action. As it is, the Obama Doctrine is of a piece with the rest of his campaign. It's an attractively outlined set of worthy goals unsupported by any apparent plan of action to realize those goals.

The Obama Doctrine dovetails nicely with Obama's promise to begin an aggressive round of--what else?--talking with all our enemies. Once again, no clearly expressed goals preceded Obama's promise to talk. Almost needless to say, Obama has offered no elaboration on how the talking will advance specifically defined American interests. The talking is itself the point.
NOT THAT THERE'S anything wrong with talking. Having a president who is willing and able to communicate as well as Obama would be a refreshing change of pace after the last seven years. The problem is Obama's apparent allergy to action. The fear isn't that Obama merely prefers talk to action, but exclusively opts for talking over acting.

Obama's racial reconciliation speech was particularly disturbing in this regard. Although it's a little implausible that Obama long ached to give a major speech on racial matters and yet only did so when his relationship with a fiery pastor began to seriously damage him politically, let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and concede that he would like to play a constructive role in America's race relations. And yet what does he offer as his prescription? You guessed it--a conversation.
Obama has observed American race relations for years. Certainly some policy proposals have bubbled to mind. He has said some provocative stuff about our public schools, sufficiently provocative stuff that he fell into disfavor with the teacher's unions. And surely Obama has reached some conclusions about affirmative action, inner city crime and economic opportunity that would warrant a central role in his plan to move America forward on racial matters.

But focusing on such things would require political action. And it's Barack Obama's way to prefer a good conversation instead.

Dean Barnett is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

You GO Ed! I 100% agree.

Why Obama's Speech Was Unconvincing
By Ed Koch

Barack Obama's speech last week addressing his 20-year relationship with his radical pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was very well done, yet unconvincing.

Obama sought to explain that relationship and why he could not end this close association, despite the minister's hate-filled rhetoric. He said, "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

Yes, those are the questions that people are asking.

Many of Rev. Wright's incendiary statements are on videos sold by his church. Minister Louis Farrakhan, a friend of Rev. Wright with whom he traveled to visit Muammar Khadaffi in Libya, also makes his sermons and those of others associated with the Nation of Islam available for sale. Their attacks on the U.S. and Israel often coincide with those of Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright's sermons charge that the U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease. His sermons claim that the U.S. unjustifiably nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, and that 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans were caused by U.S. foreign policy. He alleges Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians; calling Israel a "dirty word" and "racist country." He blames Israel for 9/11 and supports the divestment campaign against it, denouncing "Zionism." His venomous thoughts are summed up in his most discussed sermon in which he says the U.S. government "wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, not God Bless America. God damn America. God damn America for killing innocent people."

Senator Obama in his speech acknowledged that the rantings of his minister are "inexcusable," but stated, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Before we discuss his grandmother, let's examine the impact of Rev. Wright's statements on the Senator's two daughters. Nothing says it better than a song from the musical "South Pacific," to wit, "You have to be taught to hate and fear...You've got to be carefully taught." Few dispute that Rev. Wright's sermons are filled with hate.

Why didn't Senator Obama stand up in the church and denounce his hateful statements or, at the very least, argue privately with his minister? It was horrifying to see on a video now viewed across America the congregation rise from the pews to applaud their minister's rants.

Now to Obama's grandmother. There was a time spanning the 70's to the mid-90's when many blacks and whites in large American cities expressed the same feelings on street crime held by Obama's grandmother. Indeed, Reverend Jesse Jackson made similar comments in 1993 at a meeting of his organization, Operation Push, devoted to street crime. According to a November 29, 1993, article in the Chicago Sun-Times, he said, "'We must face the No. 1 critical issue of our day. It is youth crime in general and black-on-black crime in particular.' Then Jackson told the audience, 'There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved....After all we have been through,' he said. 'Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.'"

Isn't that exactly what Obama's grandmother was referring to? To equate her fears, similar to Jesse Jackson's, with Wright's anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jew, and anti-Israel rantings is despicable coming from a grandson. In today's vernacular, he threw her under the wheels of the bus to keep his presidential campaign rolling.
For shame.
What is it that I and others expected Obama to do? A great leader with conscience and courage would have stood up and faced down anyone who engages in such conduct. I expect a President of the United States to have the strength of character to denounce and disown enemies of America - foreign and domestic -- and yes, even his friends and confidants when they get seriously out of line.

What if a minister in a church attended primarily by white congregants or a rabbi in a synagogue attended primarily by Jews made comparable statements that were hostile to African-Americans? I have no doubt that the congregants would have immediately stood up and openly denounced the offending cleric. Others would have criticized that cleric in private. Some would surely have ended their relationships with their congregation. Obama didn't do any of these things. His recent condemnations of Wright's hate-filled speech are, in my opinion, a case of too little, too late.

It is also disturbing to me that Obama's wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn't she feel proud to be an American? When she and the Senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn't she feel proud of her country?
Senator Obama was asked if he thought his speech changed any minds. He replied he didn't think so, and certainly not of those who weren't already for him. A more important question is, whether his 20-year relationship with Wright has done lasting damage to his candidacy. We will soon know.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

GO HILLARY !

Hope we can count on your votes !