Obama unassailable on issues that matter

Tom Harper, Henderson

Monday, May 12, 2008 | 2:03 a.m.

In Constance Young’s Friday letter, headlined “Obama has history of poor judgment,” she states that Barack Obama’s associations with individuals, including Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., show his lack of judgment, and if Hillary Clinton doesn’t get the nomination for president, Ms. Young will not vote in the presidential election even though she is a Democrat.

With all due respect to Ms. Young, this appears to be a classic instance of someone making a decision with her heart and not with her head, ignoring the undisputed fact that Obama and Clinton share similar positions on most issues and their positions are diametrically different from those of John McCain.

While I respect the emotional and historical significance of electing the first woman president, it’s time to put gender and race issues aside and look to the best interests of the United States.

Guilt by association is one of the oldest and most vile political ploys, especially when there has been no shred of evidence that Obama’s association with these individuals ever influenced or affected any decision he made on behalf of the state of Illinois or this country.

If you want a true barometer of judgment, look at the campaigns of Obama and Clinton. Obama has run a well-managed campaign in which he contested all of the primaries and caucuses, and Clinton made what appears to be the fatal misjudgment of passing on 11 primaries and/or caucuses. Further, Clinton’s gas tax holiday proposal, which was no more than a gimmick, played into the hands of Obama, who convinced voters in both Indiana and North Carolina that the proposal was no more than “politics as usual.”

Ms. Young’s threat as a Democrat not to vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. Is this in the best interests of the U.S., when McCain’s position on Iraq may lead to a 100-year presence there, that he readily admits he knows little about economic principles and that he is willing to maintain the tax cuts for the wealthiest as implemented by George W. Bush? I hardly think so.