Barack Obama's Weak Platform of Constant Apology for His Supporters

Chadd De Las Casas
Flags of Che Guevara, refusal to wear American flag lapels while his office hoists banners of Cuba, 9/11 supporting figureheads, racist preachers, and idiot anti-Semites. What do all of these things have in common? They're involved in loud mouth, boisterous support for Barack Obama, and he spends as much time backpedaling in an attempt to apologize for them as he does campaigning.

This is starting to reflect a frightening, Ron Paulesque dilemma on a grand scale, where Obama is constantly surrounding himself with people of a truly questionable nature, that seriously brings his leadership abilities into doubt, at least when it comes to picking a cabinet. Indeed he suffers from one of the largest problems Paul did - no, not the single digit polling numbers - in the form of loud-mouthed supporters and allies that seem to constantly run counter to what he claims he believes.

But the question is, why does this just keep coming up? How many "oopsies" are there going to be before the American people realize we can't have presidents who go "Oh well in hindsight I shouldn't have let the communist supporting Guevara shirt wearing person on as my National Security Adviser, but don't we all make mistakes?"

In terms of isolated incidents, one may be able to overlook or excuse these constant "mistakes", however they are not isolated, and are lining up, frighteningly, in a row of things that are constantly making appearances with Obama's name written all over them, all the while he distastefully denies association with them. Take for example the volunteer office in Texas, which sports a Cuban flag with terrorist leader Che Guevara featured proudly on it. Justifiably, the American people were outraged: with enough question brought up about Obama's refusal to do something as token and simple as put his hand over his heart for a pledge, or wear an American flag pin, the idea that his campaign will support regimes brought about by terrorism and privation was simply unacceptable.

Of course, there came Obama's campaign office, reminding us that he doesn't agree with it, and that they acted on their own. Amusingly of course, I'd call this into serious question concerning his soft line approach to the Cuban problem, spitting on generations of Cuban torment and all the families who fled to Miami so that he can end 50 years of embargo with one of our oldest living enemies. But that is neither here nor there, what is worth questioning is his man's ability to judge those he calls trusted.

He claims to trust his preacher, the admittedly racist, "only black folk go to heaven" touting pulpit jockey. But of course, he distances himself from any racism therein. Isn't this getting a little old? Shouldn't a presidential candidate at least wait until he's in office before he is constantly embroiled with scandals over his staff?

I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on electing an individual with a track record of surrounding himself with the "wrong people" on a constant basis. Hope for America? Not if he's allowed to pick his cabinet, I do imagine.

Published by Chadd De Las Casas

I was born in Valencia, California in 1987. It's ironic that I turned out to be a writer, since my first exposure to it was an essay about why I hate writing. I am also the owner of the Content Producers Wiki.  View profile

13 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Tyler Mills3/29/2008

    Obama does have some frightening supporters. Chadd is correct.

  • Richard Davis3/25/2008

    Chester, Chester, why the anger? I can tell you, it's not good for your heart. Buddy, I'll make you the same offer I've made other high strung progressives. Come on out to Chicago. We can take in a ball game (Sox) and hang out in Greek Town. Don't worry, I'll buy. I see you have a J and a law degree, but I'm not going to hit you up for anything. I figure you spent some dough to get here. Well, one thing I will have you pay for. I will drop you off Near West and you can find a pretty young thing to relieve your stress. If, like many West Coast Brothers, you are into the boys, I'll drop you in "Boy's Town", maybe at the "Manhole" and you can get your back up. If you want we can do Jerry Springer. Relax...relax... laugh. It's good for the heart, and aren't all progressives big on having a heart?

  • Richard Davis3/25/2008

    Barrack Obama is a Chicago hack politician. Why are all these things keep coming up? Because Barrack is from the "Land of Graft and Sleaze",Illinois, once known as "The Land of Lincoln". He and David Axlerod and the rest of the Chicago gang think they can do the flim flam on a national level and get away with it. News to you folks who think Obama is following on Jesus Christ's footsteps as he skips across the water: Obama has sticky feet of clay mined right here in the Windy City. Only with a twist. The pols here in Chicago are too stupid to claim an ideology. Obama is not. He is a Marxist, same as Hillary. He is a dangerous man. We know HIllary is a Marxist. Obama is the near "Invisible Man" on being recognized for his thing.

  • Chadd De Las Casas3/21/2008

    Says the guy whose only argument against my article is that we shouldn't play the National Anthem at ball games. I don't need your instructions on debate, thanks.

  • MasterPo3/21/2008

    Chester - Riddle me this: If Obama soooooo often disagreed sooooo strongly with Wright then why in Heaven's name did he stay a member of that church for 20 years?!

  • Chadd De Las Casas3/20/2008

    I am not quite the other participators in this discussion. My entire point and thesis is already spelled out in my article, so when each of your arguments is already refuted in my article, why bother writing much further? Besides, I'm not sure HOW to debate you, because you swing from topic to topic to topic with absolutely no consistency between.

  • Chadd De Las Casas3/20/2008

    This is why I never jump right into these discussions in my articles. When I let two people go at it, eventually the liberal just makes themselves look absurd, completely without my help. Thank you for revealing that you don't actually believe that Obama's platform of constant apology isn't weak, you have, however, such a distaste for the alternative, that it doesn't matter to you. Which is fine - it just proves my point.

  • whatever3/16/2008

    Have to agree with you about Nadar. Doubt that you are open minded enough to consider anything but what you already think is true. But worth a shot to refresh your memory: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6470450895164255089 Perhaps Obama is in fear of his life and doing the best he can for what he is up against. I have witnessed Dame Clinton using the same tactics on the poor trusting soul throughout the campaign. I have seen Clintons use it on a gullible public, time and again.

  • Chadd De Las Casas3/16/2008

    Weren't you previously a Ron Paul supporter Monique? I would be surprised if not, this sounds eerily like the platform the InfoWars crowd tried to build up for him. Ralph Nader isn't a political candidate, he's a ballot black hole, and I love him for it.

  • Monique Finley3/16/2008

    Vote for Ralph Nader. He's not a Republican or a Democrat! Obama, Clinton and McCain are more of the same war mongering lying politicians. Nader's record speaks for it's self, he's made every effort to work with the current presidential candidates and when all refused to address issues of war with Iraq and Iran Nader chose to exercise his right to run against them. Nader makes it plain his goal is to stop this war mongering. The Republican and Democrats have big money behind thier doings, Nader has the people.

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.