Maybe his friend Oprah can hook him up with Dr. Phil?

After watching Sen. Barack Obama's major speech on race in America yesterday (read: Rev. Jeremiah Wright), I am convinced he is dissociative.

Webster's dictionary defines the psychological condition of dissociation as "the separation of whole segments of the personality or of discrete mental processes from the mainstream of consciousness or of behavior."

Obama's speech was thoughtful, history-rich, deftly composed, and, in parts, refreshingly candid about racial divides in America and the sources of those divides.

However, he spoke as if he was an innocent bystander to the history he recounted.

Obama discussed our nation's failings as though he was powerless to act previously or presently.

Obama lamented, "Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students."

That is true.

Although I would offer another notion that may help explain those achievement gaps. What about the cowardly politicians in the pockets of the teachers unions who pay lip service to education while they let generations of low income kids be forced into schools that they know will fail them?

That is what Obama did as a state senator representing Chicago's south side. And that helps explain why, when he left his state senate seat, there were more than 12,000 kids in failing schools in his district (according to the No Child Left Behind standards).

Obama had seven years in the Illinois General Assembly to do something about perhaps the worst urban public school system in America. He did nothing except propagate the status quo. It is Sen. Obama who has countenanced the pernicious philosophy of "separate but equal" for the children of low income families during his time in public life.

Obama called for white and black middle class Americans to focus on the "real culprits of the middle class squeeze" decrying a Washington that is "dominated by lobbyists and special interests."

Yet, as Illinois annually contends for the title of most politically corrupt state in America, what was Obama's record here?

Well, last week Obama appeared before the editorial boards of both Chicago daily newspapers to answer questions about his association with Tony Rezko, an influence-peddling, fundraising impresario who is under federal indictment for a variety of alleged pay-to-play schemes that involved shaking down companies that did business with the state of Illinois. In other words, illegal special interest politics.

Late last year Obama pegged the total amount of campaign contributions he had received from Rezko in the $50K range. Upon further review, Obama disclosed last week that the number is more like $250K.

Moreover, while Rezko was widely reported to be the subject of an ongoing federal probe in 2005, Obama transacted a hinky land deal with him that ultimately resulted in Obama purchasing a parcel of land from Rezko for about $300,000 less than the original asking price.

Obama now calls the land deal with Rezko a mistake.

Obama has also refused to take money from lobbyists and PACs--in his presidential campaign. That is a luxury he can now afford.

When it was not such a luxury regarding the financing of his campaigns in Illinois, Obama was not so doctrinaire, choosing instead the path of least resistance relative to "special interest" campaign cash. This is typical of how Obama cleverly dissociates himself from such previous unpleasantries, as if it was a failure of the system he wants to fix and not his personal choice.

Following the Obama editorial sit-down with the Chicago Tribune, columnist John Kass quoted Obama as saying, "I know that there are those, like John Kass, who would like me to decry Chicago politics more frequently. I'll leave that to his commentary..."

The implication of Obama's glib remark is that it is not his job to rail against rampant political corruption in Chicago and Illinois. That is a job for op-ed writers. When, in fact, that is precisely part the job, particularly in Illinois, of someone who seeks to be a leader in public life.

The operative word being "leader".

When Obama fails to venture into the fray, we are told that he is transcending politics as we know it. What it may instead be is a willingness to do the right thing amidst controversy or political danger only as a last resort.

And that brings us to good ole Uncle Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor and spiritual advisor.

Obama's answers to even the most basic, staple questions from the media about his relationship with Wright and his knowledge of Wright's views have clearly "evolved" over the last several days as the controversy went from percolating to boiling over.

I will leave the parsing of words to Obama and rather note the more general observation that, here again, for two decades Obama had the opportunity to go on the record, publicly or even privately (of which he has made no mention to date), and rebuke Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled spewage.

For two decades, Obama had the opportunity to open up the frank and rational discussion on race that he was forced to endeavor to facilitate yesterday in order to create space in the public's consciousness between Wright and him.

For two decades, Obama chose to instead go along to get along--with a radical, anti-American, bile-discharging "man of God", just as he did with the Chicago political machine bosses and their financiers.

Do I think Obama subscribes to the kooky conspiracy theories and overheated rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright? No, I do not. That is only my sense from those who know him well, however, because Obama certainly has not earned the benefit of the doubt on this score.

Going along to get along, not standing up when he knew better, has finally caught up with Barack Obama.

The consequence is that Obama will not be able to dissociate from this political reality: his 35-minute treatise on race relations in America will quickly evaporate into the ether whereas the videos of Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright's fire-breathing denunciations of the "U.S. of KKK A" are hermetically sealed to his candidacy.

Forget Eliot Spitzer, the entire Democrat Party is melting down before the nation's very eyes.

Last week, America was both introduced to the electoral cure for white guilt in the form of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and reminded by Geraldine Ferraro why Walter Mondale lost 49 states.

The Democrat Party and its two competing Presidential candidates have been hoist by their own petard of race- and gender-identity politics.

Feminist icon Ferraro, a Hillary Clinton-backer, was branded a racist by the Obama campaign for curious statements about the "concept" of Barack Obama. Ferraro essentially argued that if Barack Obama were different, he wouldn't be the same.

In defending herself against the Obama-mainstream media complex's backlash, Ferraro conceded on Good Morning America that had her name been Gerard Ferraro (presumably implying that had she been a man) in 1984, she would not have been selected as her party's ill-fated Vice Presidential nominee that year. So while Ferraro identified race as that which only distinguishes Obama, she at least volunteered that it was solely gender that distinguished her.

Meanwhile, back at the mothership, while Clinton was offering pro-forma denunciation of her comrade-in-arms, team Hillary finally got around to pushing out their special edition "Best of Rev. Jeremiah Wright" DVD collection of selected anti-American ravings and black helicopter conspiracy theories from the good reverend, Obama's long-time spiritual advisor.

If you think George W. Bush controls the media--yes, that President, the one with the 70% disapproval rating; if you think Israel is a state-sponsor of terrorism; if you think black Republicans are sell-outs; and if you think that America is a racist country that should be damned by God, then you are just going to get the biggest kick out of Rev. Wright's gyration-filled, pulpit pontifications.

It turns out that Michelle Obama is not the only one who saw no reason to be proud of America prior to her husband's political ascension.

The other Obama attempted to square Wright's affinity for hateful demagoguery with the post-racial "One America" vision of his campaign offering to ABC News the rationalization that Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with."

You know what the difference is between Louis Farrakhan, who Obama was quick to categorically repudiate, and good ole Uncle Jeremiah Wright? Louis Farrakhan plays the violin.

Both Democrat campaigns have now been reduced from pandering on the basis of race and gender to polarizing on those bases in order to make their best case to Democrat superdelegates that their opponent is unelectable in the fall against McCain.

Before this is over, they will be both be right.

Democrat Bill Foster’s victory over Republican Jim Oberweis in Saturday’s special election in Illinois is evidence of the clamor for change in the countryside?  Perhaps.

Are exurban Chicagoans disgusted with Washington?  Yes, they are.

But there were some uniquely local factors that were more decisive.  

This was Oberweis’ fourth run for high office since 2002.  Over the past six years, he has turned in more stale, lackluster, straight-to-video performances than Matthew McConaughey.

The dairy magnate’s gaffe-filled campaigns have demonstrated one thing clearly: he has exponentially more personal wealth than good sense. 

He burst onto the scene in 2002 running for the U.S. Senate by comparing pro-lifers to the Taliban.  Oberweis was endorsed by then House Speaker Dennis Hastert in that campaign, as he was in the congressional race just concluded.  He lost the primary.

In 2004, he ran for U.S. Senate again and egregiously overplayed the anti-illegal immigration sentiment, even among GOP primary voters, with a now infamous ad that would have made 18^th century Know Nothings blush.  He was also fined by the FEC coming out of that cycle for a thinly veiled attempt to run television ads paid for by his dairy to benefit his campaign.  He lost the primary. 

In 2006, he ran for Governor and was in the ethical soup once again for using fake newspaper headlines attributed to real newspapers in his television ads.  He also got whacked during that cycle for allegedly and hypocritically hiring illegal aliens to clean some of his dairy stores, a charge that re-appeared in the election concluded on Saturday.  He lost the primary.

Subsequently, he ran ill-fated, intraparty campaigns for both state party chairman and county chairman in his home county.  He withdrew from both contests when it was clear he could not win. 

In the 2008 race to succeed Hastert, Oberweis ran a bitter primary against 14-year incumbent State Senator Chris Lauzen.  He won the primary but engendered lingering vitriol from Lauzen and his supporters.  Lauzen refused to endorse Oberweis—admittedly this reflects poorly on Lauzen as well.  As such, some conservatives inclined to be less than enthusiastic about Oberweis to begin with became outright hostile.  This translated, at least in part, to the underwhelming GOP turnout on Saturday.

Additionally, Oberweis mucked it up again in the waning days of this latest campaign by taking a quote from Foster grossly out of context in a television ad he ran.  Oberweis was properly excoriated by the Chicago Tribune among others who have seen his act before. 

So consider this candidate Oberweis in a state in which every constitutional officer is a Democrat, the two legislative leaders are Democrats, and the two U.S. Senators are Democrats. 

And consider this candidate Oberweis in a district, admittedly GOP leaning, that the third most powerful man in the world, Speaker Hastert, a 20-year incumbent, won only 60-40 two years ago against a no-name Democrat with 1/17^th of the funds Hastert had at his disposal (and thus could not afford retail media buys). 

In spite of the Obama ads and the dominant dogma of change, this congressional race between the blunder-prone Oberweis and the excruciatingly humorless (wait until he gets to Washington, you’ll see what I mean) Bill Foster was a decidedly local matter.

Senator Dick Durbin did his best to nationalize the race and cleverly divert voters’ attention away from this inconvenient reality saying of the Foster victory, "It tells me that voters are ready for a change.  They want new leadership in Washington.”

And, of course, who knows more about change than the number two man in the U.S. Senate, a 25-year congressional incumbent?  Since Durbin is up for re-election in November perhaps change should include his departure.

While Beltway insiders may spin Foster’s victory as one for the change insurgents, it is in fact most clearly a win for the Democrat establishment that has had increasing command control of Illinois over the past decade. 

Regardless of what ultimately happens in November, the Oberweis loss then is much less a harbinger of the future for the nation than it is an indicator of the present in Illinois.

Break out the "We're No. 1" sponge-fingers, Chicagoans.

The implacable Todd Stroger has brought us to the mountain top.

Unburdened by his campaign promises, Stroger cobbled together the necessary 10 "harrumphs!" from Democrat Cook County board members on Friday night to pass his budget, protect all the important phony baloney jobs, and solidify Chicago as the city with the highest sales tax in the nation at 10.25%.

The other nice thing about Stroger's 133% increase in the county portion of the city's sales tax is that it ensures Chicagoans will continue to enjoy the highest gasoline prices in perpetuity.

Lesser men would have perhaps concerned themselves with the nuisance of reform or gotten bogged down with the laws of economics. Not Todd Stroger. He heroically kept his eye on the prize, even while being terrorized by the Chicago press corps with, of all things, questions!

"My fault is actually running for office and being Todd Stroger," he decried during an apparent out-of-body experience requiring him to refer to himself in the third person.

While it is unclear to whom else the responsibility for Todd Stroger's condition of "being Todd Stroger" should be assigned, there are others who richly deserve to share in the credit for his most recent policy achievement.

A tip of the cap goes to the good government guys, U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Dick Durbin, who endorsed Stroger and rallied for him in the waning days of his 2006 campaign for Cook County Board President.

Acknowledgment is owed to those 10 Democrats on the county board whose vision was best expressed by Commissioner Deborah Sims when she told the Chicago Tribune, "This country was built on taxes." It is that kind of laser-like focus on wealth transfer rather than the tedium of wealth creation that will help transform Chicago into downtown Detroit.

Last but certainly not least, recognition of the people without whom none of this would have been possible--the 2 in 3 self-flagellating Chicagoans who voted for Todd Stroger.

In the supermarket checkout line, at the gas pump, picking up a prescription at the pharmacy, if you were a Stroger voter, please make a point to introduce yourself to your fellow Chicagoans so that you may be afforded a proper salutation.

© All Rights Reserved