"Inartful" Company

Okay…most folks say that a person should not be judged by the company he keeps, and that's perfectly reasonable…but there comes a time when, if a person is contaminated by the company he keeps, folks need to take notice, especially if the highest office in the land is involved. Consider this gem from Fox News of 01 July: "On a follow-up question, Obama said he’d rather be talking about issues like poverty, Iraq and Iran, 'But the fact that somebody on a cable show, or on a news show like General Clark said something that was inartful about Senator McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night.'"

Actually, that statement in an Obama presentation was also heard in this corner, with the wonder then about exactly what "inartful" means. A rush to the dictionary eventuated in the knowledge that there's no such word as "inartful," meaning, of course, that Obama is not totally acquainted with the English language, or that he has decided to "change" the language (like everything else), or that he simply said something in order to say nothing about the former general's idiocy in accusing McCain of lacking presidential stature on CBS's Face the Nation of 29 June. That's the equivalent of Senator Biden's remark last year about anything former Senator John Edwards said, to wit, another non-word – FLUFFERNUTTER.

Keeping company with surrogate Clark is recognition of the time-honored concept of flip-flopping, since Clark supported Senator Clinton before he supported Obama. Clark also ran for the top job for a while in 2004, even though his management skills at NATO apparently earned him the removal from that job three months ahead of time – something about not handling the Kosovo dustup too well back in the 90s when Hillary's husband was calling the shots and having phone- and cigar-sex in the White House. So much for Clark's presidential stature!

Or…take the company of Jim Johnson, announced only recently as Obama's head honcho of the Committee of Three (Carolyn Kennedy and Eric Holder the other two) whose responsibility was playing Russian Roulette with veep possibilities (known as vetting the candidates, a risky business, what with skeletons in just about every closet). It turned out that Johnson had obtained insider loans from the tanked mortgage outfit Countrywide, which Obama had denounced. He threw Johnson under the bus, of course. Kennedy is harmless, but Obama continues to keep company with Holder, who is reputed to have recommended that infamous pardon that Slick Willie granted Marc Rich, causing everyone to wonder about such a thing (horrors!) as quid pro quo's all around.

Senator Dodd came out for Obama (automatically becoming a fellow-traveler) back in February, though keeping his company could be dangerous for Obama, seeing as how Countrywide had laid special benefits on Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, to the tune of up to $75,000 a year. According to the Washington Examiner, the Bank of America PAC and the B of A employees, respectively, gave Dodd's campaigns $20,000 and $50,000. Bank of America has just taken over Countrywide. And Dodd was actually in the prexy hunt until he saw the handwriting on the wall. Enough said?

So…Clark, Johnson, Holder, and Dodd are guys with whom Obama has kept company. He hasn't effectively thrown Clark, Holder, and Dodd under the bus yet, but they may have tire treads on them soon enough. They can join the pantheon of others with whom Obama has kept questionable company – Rizko (on his way to the big house), Ayers (would still like to blow-up the Pentagon), Father Pfleger (Hillary was WHITE and entitled!), dear Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright (God damn America!), and even Michele (The U.S. is a MEAN country!).

There are those who claim that President Bush is mentally challenged because he can't say "nuclear," though one suspects he pronounces that word incorrectly on purpose just to keep the saliva flowing over the fangs of the democrats. What will they have to say about their messianic candidate for president with respect to his use of a non-word? They don't seem to mind the company he keeps too much, but they might think he is being a bit "INARTFUL" when he says anything they don't understand, which is often. Come to think of it…maybe they believe that's the same as being the "artful dodger," not a bad moniker for a politician who does better as he speaks less often.