That's a pretty hot topic. A lot of the Obama-crazed supporters I'm sure would jump up and down and scream YES, but as for me, I'm not so sure. The reason why is simple - he's a politician.

I don't trust politicians because no matter what they say or how well they say it, they answer first and foremost to money. There are some notable exceptions (Kucinich, Wellstone come to mind), but the vast majority are just plain corrupt. And those on the national stage don't get there by accident, they are quite adept and willing to play the political game, and that game includes scratching the backs of those that fund and support you.

Evidence that Obama is just another political player abounds. His denoucement of Reverend Wright is one example. It's shocking to me that so many people see Wright as some sort of nut-case, because if you listen to what he says, most of it is pretty undeniable. Yes he speaks with great, uhm, vigor and conviction, but he also largely speaks the truth very plainly about many issues.

For example:

"You
cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on
you," Reverend Wright said in his appearance at the National Press Club.

Pronouncing
himself "offended" by such "ridiculous propositions" as "when [Wright]
equates the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism--there are no
excuses," Obama said the next day.

What is so wrong about what Wright said here? It's a simple statement of human nature, and it is undeniably true. Yet Obama responds as a politician first and foremost, playing the angles on the "United States' wartime efforts" in his response, while during his campaign stating that the Iraq war needs to be over and that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and elsewhre were heinous. But what - he doesn't think that treating people like that at Abu Ghraib (only one such torture camp among many) doesn't have long-term consequences on the psyche of the compatriots of those tortured and killed, let alone the tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by our bombs? Please. Rev. Wright simply spoke the ugly truth, and that is not reason enough to hide from it for any decent person, but then again we are talking about a politician here.

Another more recent example is that at an event in Detroit this week, Obama's staff made sure that two Muslim women were not in a position to be in photos of Obama since they were in traditional dress. Of course the campaign has apologized, saying:

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and
counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply
not the kind of campaign we run." (Obama spokesman Bill Burton).

Uh-huh. And at the next event you'll do exactly the same thing, in order to downplay any perception of Obama as a Muslim. That's the political game.

I've heard the argument that the man is just trying to get elected, and once in office we'll really see what he's made of. But of course then he'll be worried about re-election, so I wouldn't exactly count on that. Besides, what is the point here - the ends justifies the means? That's the same reasoning Bush et al give for torture, and I'm not buying it. Wright is right - you go down that road and you encourage hatred of this country.

So that leaves me ambivalent about Obama. Would he be better than McCain? "Better" is a pretty subjective word, but then again I think a tree stump would do a better job as president than McCain or Bush, so I guess I'd have to say yes. But a candidate for change? Please. He's a politician first and foremost, and they have no motivation to change the game. They know it too well.