Obama's Not Black, He's Transparent

For those of you lured to this story hoping to read a referendum on race, sorry to disappoint. This is about something that transcends race or gender, something that should be the first litmus test put to every question that wrestles in the hearts and minds of those Americans taking seriously the implications of their vote for the next President of the United States and leader of the free world...the truth.

Today, the reputation of America is fractured at home, as well as abroad, by tales of deceit and corruption that snake their way through the entire spectrum of government, from flunkies and subordinates, to the hallowed halls of the White House itself. I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone that does not believe the American people, and the world, were being told less than "the truth, and nothing but the truth" by the Bush administration in the mad dash to go to the war in Iraq. I think you would be equally hard-pressed to find anyone on the planet, with even a casual eye on America, that has the word "truth" ringing in their ears as they watch the video of Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The cover-ups and spin-doctoring that accompanied these monumental examples of being much less than forthright, only exasperate the image pounding America is taking. It is time to turn the page on a sullied past of scandals, to the possibilities of a noble future that rebuilds trust and respect. It is time to turn the page from yesterday to tomorrow. For that to happen though, we must very carefully study the page we are on right now, today.

Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for President is rooted in one basic concept, telling the truth. When pressure was on for America to satisfy its thirst for 9/11 vengeance that President Bush mutated into a call for war against Saddam Hussein and his WMD's, all but one top-tier candidate, now vying for his seat, lined up rank and file right behind him because it was popular at the time and the "political winds" made it a savvy move to do so. Obama stood alone in his opposition to the war at a time that could have jeopardized his impending election. He decided to tell the truth as he believed it. He chose to say what he felt. He said he opposed, "A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." He went farther in prophetically illuminating the truth by saying, " I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda." With history as witness, does anyone today doubt that his words were the truth?

Second guessing, or guessing at all for that matter, should not be the de facto stance on any words uttered by a US President. When things are said by our leader, they should be forthright and unmistakably clear to anyone that hears them. There should be no grey area of interpretation. There should be no secret pacts or ulterior self-serving motives that dictate policy. America deserves and must demand to be leveled with. The only way to accomplish that is to bring transparency to government. Ask Chicago what Barack Obama's stance is on ethics and disclosure. Ask them about the sweeping ethics reform he brought about at the state level and fights today to bring to the national level and will bring as President. Ask to see his tax returns so you know exactly who may be expecting a future favor. Ask to see his earmarks. Ask him about bad decisions he made as a young man. Ask him where he stands on anything, he will tell you. You may not want to hear it or agree with it, but you'll get the truth anyway.

Hillary Clinton is the polar opposite. Every word she mutters is pre-dissected by her staff after running the different scenarios by focus groups to achieve the maximum political benefit. Every nuance is carefully crafted and calculated for a desired effect. When she laughs, is it from her soul, or is it a move recommended by her handlers to break the ice lady persona that was deemed to polarizing? When she had a cat in the White House, was it out of love for a feline companion or was it another tactical move to soften her image to appeal to a wider base? Socks the cat, by the way, was given to an aide as soon as her First Lady days were behind her. I'm sure though, it was just because she wasn't allowed to have pets in her new domicile.

There is a, however, a serious problem in running the gauntlet to the Presidency like this. What happens when a question requires a black and white answer and the comfort zone of grey is not an option. Just look at Hillary's debate answer on whether or not she supported New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue Driver's licenses to illegal aliens. It was like watching a live fish thrown into a hot pan. She managed to go back and forth and back again in the space of just a few minutes. The unstoppable force met the immovable object, the truth. If you don't have the truth in your own heart, and your conviction is a manufactured tool, the shroud of inevitability will eventually be lifted.

I think the biggest reverberations from that debate performance are ahead of us. One telling moment was the waffling response regarding the White House papers being archived in Bill Clinton's library in Arkansas. Obama suggested that the American people have a right to know what kind of advice and suggestions Hillary gave to the President as First Lady. After all, she is touting that time as her Washington experience. Are we supposed to trust her implicitly because of her long, scandal-free track record of honesty and integrity? Obama called her on it, Tim Russert the moderator also called her on it and after another thirty second non-answer, it came down to "It's not my decision". Here is exactly what I mean about transparency. I don't have to tell you how you felt listening to her answer, but what I would like to know is how differently you would have felt if she would have said something like "I have nothing to hide, as far as I'm concerned you can have those records tomorrow." That would have been an Obama answer. That's what transparency and truth in government means and like I said, Barack Obama isn't black, he's transparent.

America is facing some truly hard times due in large part to privileged secrets and manipulation games that have become the default position in Washington. The only way we, as a country, can move forward is to be on the same page with those in charge. We need a President that states the facts without embellishment or exaggeration. We need a President that will invite the American people to once again participate in the agenda of their own future and not be left in the cold like a mangy dog fighting for scraps of the information that our leaders use to set the course for America's involvement in the world. We need a President that commands respect by displaying unyielding character and moral fortitude. We need a President that can analyze a situation, scrutinize the facts, theorize our options, visualize the solution, and materialize the corrective course. Our problems are not Republican problems or Democratic problems, they are American problems. Trust crosses the aisles needed to achieve our goals. Truth breeds trust. The most important election in the lives of every American looms straight ahead and the power to dictate the course our country will take lies in the hands of the American voter, as it should. Don't return the power you now wield to anyone that doesn't make yours the loudest voice in government, or anyone that doesn't let you see all the facts.