fast eddie obama?

I posted the link to David Brook's editorial yesterday not because I agreed with it, but because I was puzzled by it -and also, because I was intrigued by much in the article that seemed somewhat new to me. I wondered to what degree some of those issues mentioned might hurt Obama's chances of attaining to the presidency.

On the one hand, it would be foolish for the first serious black candidate to turn his back on the piles of money that he seems capable of raising, independent of the official system of campaign finance. And in some ways, his fund-raising efforts have been a grass-roots variation of the "public" system, considering much of his money has come in the form of small donations from regular people like you and me (and as a supporter, I have to admit that there is some truth in Brook's comment that the democratic activists "were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money" -because it is exciting to see him raking in the dough). But for the democratic candidate to trump the republicans in terms of funding, and then spurn the finance system that John McCain has spent his lifetime in politics defending seems a recipe for some serious spin on the part of the republican attack machine. And David Brook's article is likely only the first in a long line.

In many ways, Obama's Machiavellian calculations have served to preserve a somewhat tenuous candidacy. Obama is smart- very smart, and he knows that a black candidate for president in America cannot afford to let his guard down, even for a minute. The Reverend Wright controversy proved that like nothing else. But I think there is a hazard in appearing too calculating, too slick, too studied.

My mother sent me a video the other day, one that has been making the rounds of the uninformed and gullible. She included a link and a brief comment: "Thought it would be wise to be aware....it will open your eyes." It opened my eyes alright -to how open to deception the majority of America is. The video was a summation of the usual libel that Fox News has been replaying: that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim, that he refuses to hold his hand on his heart during the national anthem, that he is soft on terror and may even be a terrorist sympathizer, that he eschew the mandatory wearing of flag lapel pins (seriously!). "In the age of Islamic terrorism, is America really willing to elect a man with not one, not two, but three Islamic names?" (incredulous voice-over while images of Osama bin Laden flit across the screen).

America is already ripe to distrust Obama, to imagine that he is some sort of wolf in sheep's clothing, largely because of the color of his skin (although my mother denies this factors for her, of course). Does it help or hurt his chances when he appears to be scheming and shrewd? Wouldn't any white candidate be allowed to be as scheming and shrewd as is needed to win - and in fact be lauded for his/her great political skill? Is the same characteristics in a black candidate somehow more threatening to Americans already uncomfortable with his difference?

I think David Brook's article raises these questions -for right or for wrong.