OBAMARAMA

Yesterday, the conservative Washington Times ran an editorial titled “Barack Obama, U.S. Senator.” Printed as it was in a newspaper whose owner believes that, among other things, “we have to abolish the concept of separation between church and state,” it was of course a smear piece.

And a disingenuous one at that. Throughout the rambling article, Sen. Obama is attacked alternately as a rookie with no voting record, an “unabashed liberal” with a deeply Democratic voting record, and a wishy-washy politico unwilling to take a stand on important issues.

One crutch the authors use to support their argument is the ratings of special interest groups, a favorite ploy of character assassins looking for a quick statistic to bolster their case. “The nonpartisan National Journal gives Mr. Obama an 82.5 liberal rating in the Senate,” they write, a number even liberal-er than that given to (prepare to be shocked!) Sen. Hillary Clinton. However, the authors fail to mention that the subjective National Journal rankings — which are skewed leftward, ranking the most liberal Senator at 96.7% liberal, and the most conservative at only 90.8% conservative — place 15 Senators to the left of Sen. Obama, putting him squarely in the middle among Democrats.

The editorial then launches into an assault based on Sen. Obama’s criticism of the war in Iraq, penning this wonderfully duplicitous sentence: “Although a longtime critic of the Iraq war, Mr. Obama hasn’t been as vocal as, say, Rep. Jack Murtha.” The intent here is to conflate being critical of the Iraq war with calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, as Rep. Murtha has done. The Times editors leave no room for people who are vocal in their criticism of the war, but are not in favor of an immediate withdrawal — people like Sen. Obama, as well as such cut-and-runners as Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and, as of this week, Colin Powell.

Finally, after painting him as a committed liberal, the editorial changes course and tars Sen. Obama as an empty suit: “Mr. Obama hasn’t done much at all on any particular issue aside from obediently follow his party. His self-deprecating explanation is that he is a first-term senator just learning the ropes.” No source is provided for this “self-deprecating” (and undoubtedly fatuous) explanation. Nor is the claim that he hasn’t done much at all supported with any evidence — probably because the evidence shows that Sen. Obama introduced 152 bills and resolutions in the last Congress, on issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to safe drinking water to veterans’ benefits, as we noted here.

Make no mistake: the Right’s war on Sen. Obama is underway. Look for the evolving themes as they try out different tacts, testing the water to see what will be effective in a general election. Will people respond to “Obam? the Marxist leftist?” Or “Obama the inexperienced nobody?” Or “Obama the calculating egomaniac?” Discombobulated editorials like this one are the political equivalent of throwing different types of mud on a wall and seeing what sticks best.

Attacks only really work, though, when they have at least the ring of truth. “Kerry the flip-flopper” and “Gore the stiff exaggerator” were successful for precisely this reason. What’s refreshing about Sen. Obama is that his integrity means he cannot be so easily assailed.