Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, March 15, 2008 3:03:47 PM
I know Obama has now "distanced" himself from Rev. Wright and denounced him. I know he has denounced Farrakhan. And he will probably issue a host of additional denunciations before the primaries and general election is over. But the question remains, do we want a president who has to denounce so many of his associates?
Before the election, Obama had no problem associating with Rev. Wright or with Billy Ayers, his "mentor". He did not mind being associated with the New Black Panthers. And, until the press made it an issue, he did not have any problem with being endorsed by Louis Farrakhan.
So, yes, he has now denounced some, and will probably denounce the rest in the near future, but so what? If a Republican had been associating with klansmen, but denounced them, would he get such a pass? Of course not. However, we are supposed to think that by "denouncing" his former associates, Obama has wiped the slate clean.
My impression is different. His denunciation makes things worse, in my mind. Now, not only did he have poor enough judgment to associate with such people, but he also showed his political opportunism by casting aside his friends when things got tough.
In short, for me, his denunciation did not wipe out his past poor judgment, that remains. Instead, it just makes him appear disloyal and opportunistic as well.