Beyond Teflon: Obama's words deflect criticism, controversy, but not free thought

FRANK MIELE

"Why do we have elections anyway?"

That's the question this week for fans of Barack Obama who didn't like my column last week in which I wondered aloud whether words should have meanings, and in particular what Barack Obama's radiant, glowing words mean.

It seems many people think eloquence in itself is a kind of meaning, and that moreover it should be inviolate - that no one should poke at it or prod it to see if it has any life in it.

What I had done last week was take part of a speech by Obama and then use my own translation to try to puncture his pretty floating words and bring them down to earth. In essence, I explained what I heard when Obama talks, and it wasn't pretty.

This apparently is not an acceptable practice in a democratic republic. We either all agree with Obama, and get in line behind his high-flying parade, or else we should shut up. That's the message from the Obama crowd. Some people told me I was disrespectful, which I assume means we are only supposed to "speak truth to power" when power is held by a Republican. A few said I was mean, which I assume means I hit my target. And one even said I was racist (which apparently means that if a candidate is black enough, it is improper to criticize their public pronouncements!).

But if elections have any meaning at all, it had better be appropriate (indeed a fundamental duty) for citizens to parse the sentences spoken by politicians (especially the eloquent ones) to see if we are being taken for a ride. Otherwise, we may as well all buy a ticket to Lewis Carroll's Wonderland and sit at the feet of Humpty Dumpty, who said, "When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

The reason this is so important, of course, is that Obama has reached such a zenith of popularity that his words have largely become irrelevant. He is being carried along from one victory to another not because of something he said, or some position he took, but because people like him. Thus he can win support from moderate and even conservative Republicans even though he is considered the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. People who were mortified at the thought of a John Kerry presidency are delighted with the prospect of President Obama, even though Kerry is far more pragmatic and battle-tested.

Moreover, there seems to be nothing which can slow the Obama momentum. Things which would have been quicksand for a normal candidate are mere mud puddles for Obama, who if he can't walk on hot water certainly knows how to stay out of it.

Thus, in just the last week, Obama saw hardly a dip in his ascendancy as at least three stories surfaced that would have been significant red flags for other campaigns.

Perhaps the least important of them was when Obama's wife, Michelle, told a crowd, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction."

The story got a fair amount of airtime, but generally from people saying it was blown out of proportion, "obviously" not what she meant to say, or just plain irrelevant.

But what makes it relevant is that it is typical of the kind of statement made by liberals everyday. What makes it important is that "words matter," as we should know from seeing how Obama's words have "inspired a nation." What makes it not so obvious is that she very clearly meant to say - and did say - that since about 1982, she has not been particularly proud of her country.

These are not words that most of us could say by accident. Indeed, they are not words most us could ever say, period. If you were not proud of the country for electing President Reagan, you could at least be proud of it for electing President Clinton. If you were not proud of the country for impeaching President Clinton, you could at least be proud of it for acquitting him in the Senate. If you were not proud of the country for invading Iraq, you could at least be proud of it for standing strong and united in the immediate aftermath of September 11. But to find nothing to be "really proud of" in our great country for the past 26 years? Incredible.

But as I said, that was the least of Obama's worries last week. Much more significant was the revelation that the candidate had stolen several lines from speeches by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Obama, however, brushed aside any suggestion of plagiarism as an overreaction to what he said was not "too big of a deal."

But of course it was a "big deal" to Joe Biden back in 1987 when he was mounting his first campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. Back then (when Biden was still young enough to be losing his own hair instead of the stuff transplanted into his scalp) plagiarism was a very serious offense. So serious that it proved to be the end of Biden's presidential aspirations for 20 years when it was reported that, on at least one occasion, Biden had borrowed several lines from a speech by Neil Kinnock, the leader of the British Labor Party, without attributing them. Biden had actually quoted Kinnock's lines in other speeches with proper credit, but that didn't matter. Plagiarism is plagiarism, after all, at least unless it is committed by Obama, a man recently anointed by one TV commentator as a biblical "deliverer" - someone who like Moses will set his people free.

We can each pick our own favorite moment when we realized that Obama could do no wrong. Mine came early in the week when it was revealed that several workers in a Houston campaign office of Obama had Che Guevara posters and Cuban flags plastered behind their desks. This of course demonstrates the worrisome principle that when people can be persuaded simply by the charisma of a personality, they will follow blindly no matter what the message. Che Guevara was no saint, but was instead a smiling and hypocritical killer who helped put Fidel Castro into power and worked to bring revolution worldwide before he was himself executed in Bolivia in 1967.

It should be noted that Obama's campaign did issue a press release saying that it was "inappropriate" to have Che posters in the campaign office, but that was the end of the matter. No one seems to have challenged Obama to condemn Che Guevara, who was in a sense the father of modern terrorism. Yet if the position had been reversed and a Republican such as John McCain had a staff volunteer who had a poster of Rudolf Hess superimposed on a Nazi flag stuck on the wall behind his desk, somehow I think it would have been a "big deal."

Ultimately this discussion is all about how much faith do we put in Barack Obama without knowing anything about him. It reminds me of another story by Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass," in which Tweedledum and Tweedledee (who might almost be compared to Barack and Hillary, but that is another story…) tell the story of "The Walrus and the Carpenter."

"The Walrus and the Carpenter," though in the form of poetry, might best be classified as a "cautionary tale." In it, the two title characters think about how grand life can be, and share their vision of a bright future with a number of young Oysters, who are enchanted by the notion of "A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk, along the briny beach."

The Walrus is quite a talker indeed, and though he and the Carpenter only ask for four oysters to join them on their jaunt, his speech works its magic. Four oysters turn to eight, eight turn to 12, and then finally "thick and fast they came at last, and more, and more, and more -- all hopping through the frothy waves, and scrambling to the shore."

It really does remind you of an Obama rally in so many ways, especially when at the end of the walk, the Walrus announces, "The time has come to talk of many things: Of shoes - and ships - and sealing-wax - of cabbages - and kings - and why the sea is boiling hot - and whether pigs have wings."

A bit more talk, and the discussion turns to dinner, but this alas is where the story turns sad. Despite the protests of the Oysters that it would be "a dismal thing" if the Walrus and Carpenter were to dine on them after they had gotten to know each other so well, that's exactly what happens until "they'd eaten every one."

There's certainly no reason to think Obama is a man of such hearty appetite, but if you are an Oyster, and believe in the value of cautionary tales, it is always prudent to stop and ponder: "Guess Who's Going to Be Dinner."

. Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com.