I think the public has a moral right to know about Senator Obama’s executive experience with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Every time the Challenge restricts access, it raises serious questions over Senator Obama’s commitment to open government. If Senator Obama were serious about promoting open government, he would have championed Mr. Kurtz’s cause many months ago.
In a previous posting, I questioned the relevance of Percy Sutton’s reminiscence. I have a few more comments. His reminiscence is historically important, not for what it says about Senator Obama, but for what it says about Obama’s followers. Historically speaking, recollections from followers of a leader are not necessarily any more accurate than recollections from detractors. Loyalists of a religion often seek to embellish the image of their leader to the point of inventing details that don’t exist. Anybody who is aware of unauthorized Harry Potter novels, the accretion of stories about Santa Claus, and noncanonical infancy gospels of Jesus Christ would understand how embellishment clouds the historical record.
It is a testament to Senator Obama’s popularity that men like Percy Sutton would now take credit for his success. With that popularity comes responsibility, responsibility for each political candidate to respect majority rule and minority rights. Senator Obama has raised expectations of his supporters, which means his supporters may be setting themselves up for frustration, disappointment, and dashed hopes. Are the efforts of his supporters merely about empowering Obama’s faction or are they about more than that? Working tirelessly for a cause can be good. Yet, all that effort we put into politics must also be channeled into civility with those we disagree with. When any political campaign condones death threats, that undermines our social fabric. When a political campaign stays silent while its supporters chant death threats against those who dissent, those who would uphold our Constitution must not be silent. So why does Senator Obama fall silent when P Diddy calls out death threats against his foes? When the chant rings out from Obama supporters, “OBAMA OR DIE!” the time comes when Americans must say NO!
“CHANGE” ought to mean something other than “Barack Obama gets to do whatever he wants”. “HOPE” ought to mean something other than politics as usual in Chicago. “PROGRESS” ought to mean something other than marching in lockstep and doing whatever we are told, and living in fear of ever walking alone. Must words mean whatever Barack Obama chooses them to mean? Isn’t there some definition of “CHANGE” that doesn’t correspond to Barack Obama’s political agenda? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. There is a time in life to say NO!
