[*Note to those MYDD posters who don't like candor (and there seems to be quite a few of you): Stop reading, because you won't like what I have to say.]

When Barack Obama first faced the criticism that he has no experience and that words are cheap, he answered words give hope.  Many agreed and ran to Obama's defense. His supporters maintained that Obama's rhetorical skills were noteworthy and trumped his lack of experience. More to the point, they argued that Obama's rhetorical skills trumped the life and political experience that any other candidate brought to the race. They maintained that he, like Martin Luther King, spoke from moral authority.

We knew Obama borrowed his "audacity of hope" phrase from his preacher Reverend Wright. We also understood that Obama used the words of JFK, FDR, and Martin Luther King freely. Yet,in their hearts, most Americans believed that the rest of Obama's words were authentically his; rhetoric was his strong suit after all.

It is why so many came to hear Obama speak. He awakened the yearnings of a citizenry hungry to hear a leader who understood the greatness of America and who would help us transcend the  duplicity of Bush/ Cheney. We were led to believe that his rhetoric came from the inner crux of his soul, not the contriving machinations of a political machine. He would lead us to the Promised Land after eight long years under a less than honest man.

Now we have learned that much of Obama's rhetoric was first used by Deval Patrick to win his campaign in Massachusetts. It seems both men hired the services of David Axelrod,so Obama's supporters argue that the campaigns inadvertently melded. Patrick's words are now Obama's.

Obama's supporters tell us to turn the page. Purists of course aren't buying it. Since Obama never gave so much as a nod to Patrick, they are calling him a plagiarist.

Both Aristotle and Quintilian argued the value of ethos in public speaking. A speaker's ethics they argued was paramount. Quintillian stressed the point that rhetorical excellence was "the good man speaking well," because a speaker's ethics affect his/her credibility and often speak more loudly than words. Emerson echoed this sentiment when he wrote: "What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say."

I cannot turn the page. I cannot forgive Obama's campaign for playing political games with an electorate yearning for change after the moral lowlands of the Bush presidency. Our young follow Obama like the Pied Piper, because we crave hope. Compatriots chant Obama, because we want our reputation in the world restored, our soldiers home, our homeland safe, the dollar restored,and most of all the lying and lack of ethics of elected leaders to end.

All the while, Axelrod and Team Obama have been playing us like fools. We now must face the consequences. We are at a crossroad; it seems Obama lacks both substance and the ethos necessary for moral authority. Where do we go from here?

There is a worrisome thread that ties our election primaries with the election debacle in Kenya. The mainstream media seems content to avoid the connection. It is willing to allow the right-wing to sink its teeth into the story after Ted Kennedy crowns the winning Democrat with his laurel wreath. Why is that? Have we Americans become so provincial that we cannot make the effort that is necessary to fully investigate our candidates? Are we content to rely on revisionist autobiographies to make our decisions on their character and judgment?

We have heard part of the story of the Kenya election. The West has been shocked by the syndicated photos of the burnt church where 40-50 people, mostly women and children, fled to escape machete-armed mobs. The victims had gone to the church thinking it would be a safe haven only to have their former neighbors lock them inside and set the building ablaze. Unfortunately, the atrocities haven't stopped with that fire.  

To its credit, the media has highlighted the marauders that have killed hundreds and the many displaced Kenyans who have left their homes to escape the violence. Recent accounts have also told the tragic stories of Kenyan women and Kenyan children as young as two, raped by gangs of thugs that hope their savage acts against defenseless human beings will disgrace their victims' families.

There is much more to the story of Kenya's election, however, a part of the story that has an American connection.  That part remains untold since the media seems content to allow the Republicans to connect the dots. This is the largely untold story, and I relate it here.

Raila Odinga, the opposition leader, who claims that President Mwai Kibaki rigged his election victory, is Barack Obama's cousin. In a story reported by the BBC, Obinga celebrated his connection to the presidential hopeful by sharing his familial tie. According to Odinga, Obama's father was indeed his uncle.

If the family connection was all, it is easily dismissed because many of us have relatives we would rather forget. Sadly, there is more to the story. Mr Odinga's Orange Movement and its dominant Luo tribe have caused much of the violence in Kenya. The victims of the violence have been for the most part the Kikuyu, the Kenyan President's tribe.

That is not all.  Odinga has a pact with the National Muslim Leaders' Forum, a hardcore Islamic organization that represents Kenya's Muslim minority. Odinga has promised Muslim leaders that he will establish Sharia courts throughout the country once elected. He has also promised to impose Muslim dress codes for women, prohibit the sale of pork and alcohol, and ban Christian preaching.

There is still more, and it takes us to the very crux of the matter.  In the late summer of 2006, Barack Obama visited Kenya and vocally supported Odinga and his presidential ambitions. There are pictures on the web showing the two together.  During that visit, the Kibaki government likened Obama to an Obinga "stooge," an unfortunate moniker for a presidential hopeful.

Why would Obama become involved in the internal politics of another country? What should Americans make of Obama's political endorsements and stumping for Odinga in Kenya? Surely, these incidents raise serious questions about Barack Obama's judgment and his understanding of international decision-making. Surely, Americans of whatever political persuasion should be concerned that Kenya, one of Africa's most prosperous, pro-Western states, is being threatened with the same fate as Somalia. Is this how Obama plans to work with other countries if he should win the presidency? This is a question that demands Barack Obama's answer.

In January of this year, our government asked Obama to urge Obinga to engage in bi-lateral talks to resolve Kenya's political crisis. At first, Obinga agreed to the talks. He has since dissed cousin Obama and rescinded his offer. So, why did Barack Obama risk his political capital on Odinga in August, 2006?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/358174 6.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/397773 9.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/08/ 26/kenya.obama/index.html
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon21 2.htm
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/8/1 52220/5392
http://www.wideawakes.net/arena/viewtopi c.php?t=4976&sid=c4dd90953cce567c2e4 82f4dd97a8583