Larger Issues Raised by Obama's MySpace Fiasco

As a rule, I tend toward the big picture view and try to divine the larger implications of things. There are a bunch of smaller issues raised, of course, but this incident also raises two very large (and very relevant) issues for a man running for President.

Let me be upfront with my view on this. If you paint a painting, even if that painting is of Barack Obama, YOU OWN THAT PAINTING because it is your work and your creation. In a very basic sense, you have a rightful claim over that work, regardless of whether you did it "for free" during  your own volunteer time. In this situation, Mr. Anthony began creating a "painting" that at least 160,000 people have since said they like. And now Obama's campaign, in part in response to those 160,000 people) has used MySpace authorities to "seize" and appropriate that work without compensating the "artist" who made it (simply on the basis that it portrays an image of Obama). This is, at a very basic level, WRONG!

However, this situation also raises some big-picture issues for me. We already have a president who doesn't believe in the Constitution. Do we really need to have yet another president who shows disrespect for some of the principles it espouses? In this case, I refer specifically to the 4th and 5th Amendments (relevant portions in bold):

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now, obviously, these are rules for the federal government, but the principles they espouse are still quite relevant in many "smaller" situations, and in particular for a person who is running for President of the United States.  If Barack Obama's campaign won't uphold those ideals in his campaign's day-to-day functioning, then How can I or anyone have faith that they will uphold and defend those principles in the White House?

These issues are all the more important given the current pResident's domestic spying (4th amendment breaches) and given the Supreme Courts semi-recent decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which weakened eminent domain rules for property seizures. Do we need to elect another President who has already shown disrespect for constitutional principles?  Will Obama's appointees to the court uphold Kelo, or perhaps they would loosen property seizure rules even further? Obama may very well uphold these principles in office, but this situation with Mr. Anthony does raise the question, whereas before Obama's honor and good faith was assumed.  No more. Not for me. For those apologists who say it is "the campaign, not Obama himself" who made this mistake: Well, then how can I trust that the Obama administration will uphold these principles? His pre-administration campaign obviously doesn't.

Regardless of whether $39,000 was too high a price to be paid for a MySpace page, the Obama campaign apparently refused to negotiate to reach an acceptable offer and a win-win for both sides. And that raises the second big issue:  IF the Obama campaign would rather resort to strong-arm tactics first (by going to MySpace and forcibly seizing the page from Mr. Anthony) rather than negotiation/diplomacy, then how can we trust him when he says that the use of military force (the BIGGEST strongarm tactic) would be a "last resort"?  Bush said the same thing once, as I recall. But he still seized the sovereign territory of Iraq before exhausting all diplomatic and peaceful options.

I, for one, am determined to only support candidates who I have confidence will fulfill their oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States". That includes the sections of the Constitution bolded above, which if Obama were president he would have clearly violated, IMHO. Although prohibitions on the use of force aren't spelled out in the constitution, our side of the aisle at least generally agrees on the "last resort" rule, so why should our party nominate someone who demonstrably isn't willing to exhaust diplomacy/negotiations first? This is but a small instance, sure, but I think it's also somewhat telling/symbolic of and has bearing on the larger issue.

After this incident, as someone who has (full disclosure...) waffled between Obama/Edwards (and to a lesser degree Dodd/Richardson) for months, I'm a lot less certain after consideration of the issues raised by this incident that Obama is the right guy for the job.