Senator Barrack Obama has branded himself a new kind of politician, and the evidence clearly indicates that he is just that.

 

            Looking at prior presidential races, it is remarkable how the paradigm has shifted--for Obama, that is.  What issues were the grist of the media mill in past presidential elections?

 

            In 1992, Bill Clinton’s lack of military service was discussed in relation to the decorated World War II hero, President G. H. W. Bush.  In 2000, G. W. Bush’s National Guard service was played into the discussion of qualifications, against Vice President Al Gore’s service in Vietnam. 

 

            In 2004, both parties acknowledged the United States was at war (although the nature of that war was not agreed upon).  When Senator John F. Kerry saluted and ‘'reported for duty’' at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), flanked by several former Swift Boat crew members, the Democrats let the world know that military service was key to effectively being commander in chief (CIC).  Retired General Wesley Clark, in his speech at the 2004 DNC, reflected how Kerry’s experience as a warrior qualified him:

 

"John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars.  He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice.  In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire.  And he’s proved his moral courage too.  John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that…  John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief."

 

            President Bush was attacked for “only” serving in the Texas Air National Guard, not having seen combat, and never having had a command.

 

            Fast forward to 2008.  We’re still at war--and still as fractured about the nature and extent of the conflict.  Things are going well in Iraq--with no sectarian killings in months, 15 of 18 political benchmarks set by Congress met by the Maliki government, and  all measures of violence trend downward.

 

            But where is the discussion of the importance of military service for the potential CIC?  Where is the comparison of Senator John McCain’s service in Vietnam, and his command of a squadron, with the military experience of his opponent.

 

            Oh.  Yeah.  Senator Obama has no military experience.  But now we know all that military stuff is overrated.  Military experience is not an important qualification for a “wartime President.”  Right?

 

            What has changed?  The media’s candidate has no military experience.  Poof!  Nothing to see here.  Did we tell you he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review?

 

            Remember President Clinton’s cough-inducing confession, “I tried marijuana once. I did not inhale”?  How about Kitty Kelly’s fabulous (in the original sense) pre-election book about the Bush family which recounted Dubya’s use of cocaine and Laura Bush’s use of marijuana?  All 11 Republican candidates in 2000 were asked about drug use, which means the press thought it an important character insight.

 

            In January, 2007, Washington Post writer Lois Romano noted, before the mainstream media became born-again Obamians:

 

"Obama's revelations were not an issue during his Senate campaign two years ago. But now his open narrative of early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity, are sure to receive new scrutiny." (Italics added.)

 

            Of course they are, sweetie.  We are talking about the most important and powerful job in the world.  Drug use, especially when it’s not clear when or if it ended (although David Axelrod of the Obama campaign said he stopped at age 20, and senior campaign officials are always completely candid) would seem an important topic.  And so Steve Kroft asked Obama about drug use on CBS “60 Minutes” and Obama said yes and that was that.  End of subject because the senator admitted it.

 

            First ladies, and prospective first ladies, have always come under scrutiny.  In 1992, Hillary Clinton was probed and prodded by a curious press.  Journalists and pundits tried in vain for years to get her thesis from Wellesley College.  Much was written about Hillary’s legal affairs, her throwing things at Bill, her relationships with White House staff.  Laura Bush was attacked not only for alleged drug use but for a fatal car crash she caused when 17.  And who can forget the field day the press had with Teresa Heinz Kerry in 2004 before the campaign smuggled her out of the country in a steamer trunk?

 

            Michelle Obama has played a more prominent role in her husband’s campaign than Terayza Heinz ever did, and has said things that seriously call into question what she and her husband really believe.  After putting her on the stage as a surrogate and spokesperson, Barrack responded to critics saying, “I also think these folks should lay off my wife.”

 

            And an obliging press, which had never really explored the many strange philosophical and policy statements coming from Michelle, turned to the conservative blogs and pundits with that “See, now you’re in trouble!” look.

 

            Why aren’t people astounded by the indifference to Senator Obama’s lack of experience and credentials?  Where is the network investigative reporter or anchor who says, “But he isn’t wearing any clothes!”

 

            A big part of this is the media’s (and public’s) crush on a charismatic figure who is black but not angry.  But in a larger sense, this is what the country has been working towards for decades. 

 

Barrack Obama is the first affirmative action presidential candidate.

 

            Affirmative action, as put forth by President Richard Nixon, was a program where businesses spent extra money and effort to recruit minorities who were just as qualified as more easily-reached white workers.  But this pure concept didn’t bring the workplace (or the judiciary, or the police departments, etc.) to the “proper” racial percentages.  With the help of decision makers who sympathized, and lawsuits against those who did not, the formula shifted to the lowering of standards to achieve proper diversity. 

 

For decades we have become accustomed to the notion that qualifications are not that important in selecting people--race and color and ethnicity and sexual orientation are.  With experience in all areas of life – from the DMV to the hospital to the college campus – we have come to accept that skill, knowledge and hard work are not required to get the good job.  We understand that simply holding a position tells us nothing about the employee.  Daily we encounter incompetence and sloth, due to all the “level the playing field” exceptions embedded within our society. 

 

            If you don’t need good test scores to get into an Ivy League university and you don’t need to speak so good English to work as a customer service rep, why should you need any special experience or skill to be President of the United States?  Just as the SAT is overrated for college admission, so, too, is actual knowledge and experience in foreign affairs or executive decision-making for President.

 

            For thirty years America has accepted that talent, knowledge, experience, and attitude are not as important as race, sex, and other demographic considerations.  Even when it means someone will be incapable of doing the job (as with the fire departments that accept women who cannot carry a body out of a burning building), we cling to the higher standard of diversity.

 

            Barrack Obama is following this new road to success in America.  “Experience?  I ain’t got no experience.  I don’t need no experience.  I don’t have to show you any stinking experience.  I am entitled!”

 

What is more frightening--a public that accepts a presidential candidate with no experience, or a candidate whose ego is so large and whose understanding is so limited that he looks at the presidency and thinks, “Come on.  How hard can it be?”