A Los Angeles Times piece on September 13 criticizes Obama’s recent attack ad mocking Mr. McCain’s inability to send an email by invoking Mr. McCain’s injuries sustained while a POW.
This article is dishonest, and the L.A.Times author must know it. The issue raised in Mr. Obama's ad is that Mr. McCain has not learned how to send an email. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FRACTURED FINGERS.
Attempting to warp the truth is insulting and unethical. However, I HATE THIS NEW AD from Mr. Obama. I do not hate it because it is dishonest, it seems to be accurate, and I do not hate it because it disrespects McCain's suffering and sacrifice as a POW, it does not. I do HATE IT for one simple reason. IT. IS. PETTY.
I just watched the Will.I.Am. "Yes We Can" video again. It invokes the most perfect aspects of Mr. Obama's candidacy, the reason he chose to run. Mr. Obama actually believes he can appeal to "the better angels" of our national psyche and begin the job of bringing this nation towards "a more perfect union." This new attack ad abandon's that ideal. Yes, I know politics gets ugly, and I know Mr. Obama needs to hit back in the face of DISHONEST McCain ads mischaracterizing Mr. Obama's comments about lipstick and his attempts to protect children from predators.
As for the lipstick, the campaign should air an ad playing Mr. Obama's recent comments and Mr. McCain's similar comments earlier this year as well as reveal the history of the term maybe by shooting a page explaining it in a history of politics text or something similar. It is a non-issue twisted to appear to relate to gender. This expression has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with pointing out Orwellian political dishonesty in a blunt manner.
As for the sexual education charge. This IS an issue, a critical one, and an opportunity. I myself once worked at a rape crisis center, and I led sexual predator awareness sessions with preschoolers. Considering the fact that TWO THIRDS OF OUR ABUSED CLIENTS WERE UNDER THE AGE OF ELEVEN, the YOUNGEST during my time there being TWO MONTHS OLD, these classes were absolutely necessary. We taught them about "safe and unsafe touches" and "telling someone you can trust" if someone touches you in your "private zones where you bathing suit goes." This simple, direct language allowed us to both protect these children's innocence and make them aware of the obscene dangers of our world. The point here is that protecting our youngest citizens from sexual predators is, tragically, absolutely necessary.
But I digress. Obama needs to hit back, and this is how. Bring in a professional, someone who has worked to protect children and worked to help young children reassemble their shattered psyches after abuse, a lifelong and inconstant task, and allow this professional to speak about the need to teach protection and reporting as early as children are able to speak. Then say, "I am Barack Obama, and I approve this message because this is a REAL problem demanding REAL action because we MUST protect our children." That's the adult campaign focused on critical, real issues that I expect from Mr. Obama. That is the approach Mr. Obama took in his extraordinary speech on race. That is the standard to which he must return.