Truth Squads

Remember when Bill Clinton was running for president? At the beginning of the primary cycle, the Jennifer Flowers affair was big news, and word came from Arkansas that Clinton's slimy behavior earned him the nickname "Slick Willy." We had evidence enough to know that Clinton would self-destruct in the White House.

This demonstrates that the question of experience speaks to an issue larger than simply does the candidate have the skills to perform the job. We need to know who the candidate is and whether he can be trusted with power. The fact that Barack has very little experience as a leader is less important than the fact than when he's held power, he's never used it. Since he's never demonstrated leadership, how can we know what kind of leader he'd be.

The Missouri Truth Squads offer some insight for those who might question what the danger is.

The campaign wants to use the court system to scare broadcasters out of airing perfectly reasonable, and accurate, ads like this one, created by the groug American Issues Project.

What does a Truth Squad of government officials do?

The Missouri Truth Squad will “respond quickly, forcefully, and aggressively when John McCain or his allies launch inaccurate claims or character attacks about Barack Obama, or when they distort Barack Obama’s record or plans.”

In a conference call Saturday with reporters from battleground states, Obama national campaign manager David Plouffe said those who spread lies and mistruths about the Illinois senator have to be “held accountable,” but did not elaborate how.

Isn't it odd how Democrats believe in their hearts that the Bush administration has trounced on our constitutional rights because he did things like check phone records to find Americans who might be chatting with terrorists overseas, but there's not outrage over using the authority of the state to scare people away from speaking out against their candidate during an election?

Barack's had his chances to show that he's a leader. Had he been a leader in the U.S. Senate, for example, against the war in Iraq - a vehement and vociferous opponent who had expanded his importance by becoming a focal point for the frustration and anger many Americans felt over it - then you might have an argument.

While Barack has always shown himself to have the potential to do outstanding things, he's never done them - prefering to use access to those who have power to gain power for himself, and prefering to use his own power not to lead, but to gain more power.

What we know about Barack Obama's judgment is that he build a political base in Chicago by building close relationships with outrageous radicals who virtually all Americans will reject out of hand when they're fully exposed to them. Voters will not vote for Barack if they learn of his relationships with these awful people.

Without evidence of a desire and ability to affect change, we are left to look at the scrappings of Barack's short career for evidence of what he would do with power. His truth squads, and his partnerships with Ayers, Wright, Pfleger and Rezko, are really all we have to go on.