Peeking Behind the Curtain: A Look at the Real Barack Obama Part One of Two

Editor's note. Please also check out Part Two and drop me a line with your thoughts at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

I'd like to end the week by reflecting upon what was, clearly, the best debate to date between Democratic presidential aspirants. I'm referring to the two-hour April 16 marathon, hosted by ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, which may represent the last time pro-abortion Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are on the same stage fielding reporters' questions.

Why should it concern us, as pro-lifers? Let me offer a couple of ideas.

Everybody has their own opinion which Democratic junior senator would be more formidable opponent for Sen. John McCain in the fall, and why. But I think we all agree on two things.

First, that Sen. Clinton's recycled position on abortion, clothed in obfuscation and decked out (to be charitable) in misrepresentations, needs to be exposed for the more-of-the-same-only-more-so position that it is. That is important and not to be overlooked.

Second, Sen. Obama is stridently pro-abortion, every bit as much as Clinton, if not more so. Yet, to date, he has been even more successful than Sen. Clinton in camouflaging his kinship with the NARALs and the NOWS and the Planned Parenthoods.

Why? Well, partly because the "mainstream" media types have no interest in ripping away the veil that hides the abortion advocacy of any candidate, and certainly not one for whom they have swooned.

But also because, up until very recently, Obama's slogan--Let's Get Hopeful Because Hope is Good/"Yes We Can"--has pulled double-duty. It has substituted a feeling for a policy program, thus helping to hide that Obama is a conventional Democratic politician. If you probe even a little, you quickly see that Obama reflects the ethos of Chicago's ultra-left wing pro-abortion Hyde Park area which is part of the state Senate district he once represented.

But beyond its intrinsic allure (after all, who would campaign on a slogan of  "The Power of Pessimism"?), Obama has used the cheery, content-free spirit of optimism "to deflect questions about himself or his record," wrote the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel. "He'd actually created the perception that to challenge him was to challenge 'hope' itself."

This is a crucially important insight. If we all "hope" to get beyond the "bitterness" of the abortion debate, it follows (at least for many in the media) that it is illegitimate to point out that Obama follows the pro-abortion playbook as closely as any actor does the lines in a play.

In other words, if you must talk about it at all, package Obama's down-the-line pro-abortion advocacy really as a search for "common ground." Better yet, don't bring it up at all. Such discussions stifle "hope." Nice work, if you can get it.

Obama likes to dryly note that he hails from Chicago where politics is a full-contact sport. Don't worry about him, he wryly tells his audience, he's been through the wars and been toughened in the process.

Yet it is obvious to anyone with eyes to see that he is a crybaby. You don't have to even criticize Obama. Merely to inquire about any of the many, many controversial parts of his resume is proof-positive that you are trafficking in and beholden to the "old politics."

It is, of course, nothing of the sort. It's called being vetted-- being called to account for what you've said and done and to whom you look for advice, counsel, and support. This is the absolute bare minimum test for anyone running for dogcatcher, let alone President of the United States.

Referring to the debate hosted by Gibson and Stephanopoulos, Strassel captured this brilliantly:

Obama's "frustration was visible, and he spent yesterday complaining the debate was the latest in 'gotcha games' that take away from the 'issues,'" she wrote. "Then again, among the important 'issues' for many voters are a candidate's beliefs, character and judgment. Mr. Obama will just have to get used to it."

Part Two