Recently the Democratic candidates have further muddied the waters as far as my knowing whom to support. Trustworthiness is hardly Clinton's strongest suit but her use of a decade-old video clip with a young girl who now, years later, actively supports Obama means that she isn't even paying close attention. Perhaps it's just that her staff isn't doing their work very well. But here's the thing: if they aren't doing their work well during the campaign, how would they do if she got elected? Also, in February, she stated unequivocally that Michigan's votes should be discounted because of the DNC's sanctions; now she says they must be counted. This is one more example of how impossible it is to get or keep a fix on what she actually thinks or believes. But maybe that's good for a president who has to deal with a wild and crazy world full of different constituents, allies and enemies? I really don't know my answer.

As for Obama, his speech last Monday was inarguably rousing and well-worded (having Ted Sorenson among his writers can only benefit his sound bites). He accomplished what I assume he set out to do: diffuse fury about his minister's hostile rantings and further elucidate his stated agenda of bringing the country together. It was smart to talk head-on about racist behavior and verbiage in his determination to change the world. He pulls anger and racism out of the emotional shadows and I admire his tactics as well as his goal. I think he has a real chance to succeed in this because of his calm personality and his evident good will. He may indeed be a major force for change for the better in this society. But does that mean he'd be a good president? I really don't know my answer.

One reason I don't know my answer is that my trust in him has been damaged. On Friday before the famous speech, a few days after the rancid speeches were released, he said in an interview with Anderson Cooper that he'd never personally heard the remarks. Cooper looked disbelieving and pursued it for a while but Obama insisted he hadn't known about the remarks and rantings until the tapes were released. Then on Monday he acknowledged he *had* heard the remarks previously. In other words, Friday's denials were prevarications. As in, false. As in, he not only knew but had already been concerned about them. As in, how can we trust what he says now? I mean, it's hardly news that trust is delicate or that politicians are untrustworthy. Or that politicians will say and do pretty much whatever they feel they need to say to get elected. But, at least as far as I know, Obama has so far been uniquely trustworthy and different from "regular" candidates. But when he said he wasn't in the pew he was either outright lying or he was being very very precise because he was actually in the back of the church. Is he just another politician as usual, appealing though he may be? I really don't know my answer.

Labels: 2008 election, politics, reflections