BARACK OBAMA and ANDY MARTIN By Andy Martin

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Source: http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=877

January 02, 2008

Chicago is slowly becoming snow-bound today, and I have a little more time to reflect and provide some deeper insight into both my background as a columnist and how my views inform my conduct as a candidate.

Almost four years ago, I began to write about then-State Senator Barack Obama. In a statement and two news conferences on August 10, 2004, I raised two concerns about Obama: first, that he demonstrated a lack of candor about the religious history of his family; and, second, that he might be dissembling to prevent Jewish defections from his campaign for the U. S. Senate.

Little did I know that my investigative and editorial efforts would change both of our lives. I became the target of attacks by left-wing Democrats and Obama supporters who refused to believe the truth about his family history. I was accused of leading “right-wing” conspiracies, which came as something of a surprise to my Republican Party colleagues.

And, on Obama’s side, what should have been a minor and relatively straightforward matter has mushroomed and continues to grow into a major problem for his presidential candidacy.

I continued to research Obama’s family history and his own history after 2004, and to develop models and concepts based on our investigative efforts. Many of these reports and columns can be read at ContrarianCommentary.com.

First, here is a thought based on more than 40 years of experience in public life. None of us is perfect, and none of us can live a perfect life. I know I haven’t. And, in addition to the imperfections which exist in all of our lives, we have a natural human tendency towards modesty and privacy. Living under public scrutiny is not an easy thing.

I have found that being open and honest makes for a much easier time than trying to conceal matters of interest. I was recently asked a question by a Chicago Tribune reporter. My relations with that newspaper have been rocky in the past, but I always give people a second, and third chance, and a new reporter gets a new first chance. After the news conference I e-mailed him a response to his inquiry, and provided a source for further information. I was as open as could be. I had and have nothing to hide.

If Obama had followed the contours of my writing over the past four years, he would be in far better shape than he is now. Today he faces a sirocco of controversy in the Jewish community, and questions about his religion having expanding beyond all reason. Despite all of the campaign contributions Obama receives, in the broader community there is unease about his strength as a leader.

Second, let me be clear on two points. I have no personal ax to grind with Obama. He was an interesting subject for writing and research. That was the only reason I pursued inquiries. I had no idea where the evidence would take me in 2004. I am amazed to still be writing about him in 2008. I have never questioned that Obama is a Christian today. I have explained how Christianity accepts new members. As an Episcopalian, I know we are an open, inviting and welcoming religion. Rather, I was interested in how Obama dealt with questions about his past.

Four years ago, I expressed concern about the reaction of the Jewish community when it learned of Obama’s Muslim family past. Today, Obama is the target of virulent racism within the Jewish community, and attacks from Israel. Look at the following reports as exemplars:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=Obama&itemNo=949364

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=Obama&itemNo=948960

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=Obama&itemNo=948037

What I predicted happened. Instead of dealing openly with his past, Obama sought to avoid and prevaricate about his family history. And as a result he has allowed an explosion of concern in the Jewish community. Efforts by the Mainstream Media (MSM) to bury the story have not extinguished the controversy.

Third, what is becoming increasingly interesting is that much of the current controversy in the Jewish community is being suppressed by the MSM. MSM are not interested in disclosing what is happening behind closed doors. I am let to wonder why. Why is it that a newspaper in Israel has more comprehensive coverage about Obama’s religious difficulties than the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and Washington Post? Will this “silence” feed more paranoia? I believe it will.

Obama recently met with “Jewish” newspapers and reporters to protest the vicious attacks on him in the Jewish community. Why were the MSM not invited? Did he think we do not read Haaretz in the United States? He followed the same exclusionary approach he pursued after I criticized him for remaining silent about the chaos in Kenya. Then, he called the Voice of America, not the MSM, to issue a statement. He is never willing to make a clean public breast of his positions. Fear? Insecurity? You be the judge.

Fourth, perhaps to overcompensate with Jews, Obama has added a prominent member of AIPAC to his organization. AIPAC is a group that is an anathema to Muslims and pro-peace advocates around the world. Early on last year, I received criticism from some of my Muslim readers, who mistakenly thought Obama was one of them. They apparently thought a “Shhhh” could avoid the hydraulic pressure of a presidential campaign. Now that AIPAC is on Obama’s team, I wonder what these readers will say. Am I still writing too much and disclosing too much about Obama? I don’t think so.

So where does that leave us as Obama enters a major debate tonight? [1] Obama’s problems with his family’s religious history have grown in proportion to his efforts to conceal that history, and to deceive the media about who his relatives were and are. [2] The potential for reaction from the Jewish community, which I predicted, has arisen with gale force. The situation has become so strained that some Jewish leaders issued a statement condemning the bigotry against Obama. [3] Earlier this year I wrote that Obama lacked the character to be forthright, and to take command, what we in the military called “command presence.” I still believe that to be the case.

Earlier this month I made a issue of his “spontaneous” remarks after primary victories, all of which were scripted well in advance by speechwriters. A man who cannot speak with spontaneity about the thrill of winning is a man who senses his own inner weakness.

Obama has regularly promised his supporters that he will “get tough” with the Clintons, but they have only gotten tougher with him. Apparently, they agree with me, and have taken their own measure of the man.

Obama is a delightful entertainer. He reads a prepared speech beautifully. And we now know he has speechwriters who write beautifully for him.

But, honestly, to read anything where Obama is speaking informally, without notes, is an exasperating experience, with hesitations, pauses and clauses. In a conversation, he seems incapable of delivering a simple declaratory sentence. And so, Obama can perform a speech marvelously; but he obviously cannot speak directly from his heart, simply, spontaneously and continuously. What does this say about the man? I’m not quite sure. But I am still researching, and still writing, and I will go where the facts take me.

My honest opinion: I do not think Obama is someone I would trust in the Oval Office. I have lived with African-Americans and played with African-Americans and marched with African-Americans. Many of them do have the magic of “command presence” that marks a true leader. Obama does not.