Saturday, February 16, 2008 - 16:34
 "Barack Obama")
I realize the appeal of Barack Obama. His message resonates with me, as it does with many, if not most politically aware people of my generation. His call to national unity, to change, to hope, to a belief in something bigger than ourselves is one that is sorely needed in today’s political world. He is a breath of fresh air, if not a whirlwind, sweeping away the lingering dust of the 1960s that continues to choke our politics. It is delightful, as an American, to see the bitter legacy of Clinton and Clinton repudiated, to see Bill Clinton’s face grow redder and his words grow uglier as the second eight years in the White House he thought were his by acclamation begin to slip away. Compared with the startling unseemliness of the Clintons, Obama is statesmanlike. He looks like the adult in the race. Last week he finally said what we’d all been thinking “I can’t tell who I’m running against at times.”
But as with any political candidate, there is more to consider than the rhetoric. Barack Obama, contrary to the claims of the Clintons, has a record. It is an unsettling record.
First take the issue of judgment. Barack Obama has a surprising history of unwise judgment, both in the political and personal spheres. An example of this lack of judgment has largely escaped major media notice, although Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post brought some of the story to light in Monday’s Jerusalem Post. At issue is an election in Obama’s father’s homeland, Kenya. The contested election was won by incumbent Mwai Kibaki, in a close race. Kibaki, Kenya’s first democratically elected president, is credited by many observers, including Newsweek, as a major reason for Kenya’s economic boom and political reforms.
Despite these qualities, Barack Obama jumped strongly into the race on the side of opposition candidate Raila Odinga. Odinga’s past is troubling. In August, he wrote a letter to Kenya’s National Muslim Leaders Forum affirming Islam as the “only true religion.” Odinga made promises to the forum that would have lasting and dangerous repercussions for Kenya’s Christian community. In the letter, Odinga promised to “recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned… for Muslim declared regions,” “impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades by worshippers of the cross” and “outlaw gospel programs” on Kenya’s national television station. The letter also promised to end the production of pork products and impose Muslim dress standards on Muslims and non-Muslims alike in some Kenyan regions. Since he lost the election, Odinga’s followers have been on a deadly rampage that has killed more than 500 and displaced 250,000 Kenyans. Odinga has not denounced the violence. Yet Obama still supports him and even took a phone call from him during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. Odinga would be an unmitigated disaster for the freedom of religion in Kenya, and specifically for Kenyan Christians.
Obama is not a Muslim, despite the Clinton smears, but his backing of Railia Odinga is an appalling misjudgment for a man who wishes to be commander in chief.
Obama’s church affiliation is also a target of questions. His pastor, the man who was in the pulpit when Obama walked the aisle to affirm his faith, and whose phrase “the audacity of hope” inspired Obama’s most famous speech and gave his book its title, Jeremiah Wright, has a controversial background as well. He preaches a peculiar brand of liberation theology, calling American the “Great White West,” using the term “white arrogance” and declaiming Israel as a racist, Zionist state. His newsletter, edited by family members, said Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whose record of anti-Jew and anti-Christian rhetoric hardly bears repeating, “epitomizes true greatness.” Obviously Obama disagrees, but his association with such a polarizing figure damages his rationale as the candidate who can transcend race. Were Obama elected president, Wright would be the most influential pastor in the country. Is this a good thing?
Finally, Obama’s positions on many issues are of concern. Chief among them, from a Christian’s perspective, is his full-fledged support of abortion on demand. Because of this, he was recently called “the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever,” by Pulitzer prize-nominated columnist Terence Jeffrey, and received a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Council. While he was a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have protected babies who had survived a late term abortion from being killed on the outside of the womb. The national version of the same bill passed the Senate 98-0. Obama’s rhetoric of hope and opportunity clearly doesn’t apply to those not yet born. For Christian voters, this has to be a concern.
Barack Obama is tempting, and it would be easy for young Christians to look at his newness and freshness and promise of a color-blind America that would be a beacon to the world and cast a less-than-informed vote for him. But his policies are more radical than Hillary Clinton’s, and his political judgment is worse.
