Just about the time you think you’ve got a pretty clear picture of the latest political campaign, something crops up to muddy the waters.

Over the week-end there were two separate items that came to my attention: One was an email containing a column purportedly written by perpetual liberal Maureen Dowd. This piece raised interesting questions about the huge number of small donations received by the Obama campaign, claiming that many were actually from foreign sources such as China, Saudi Arabia, etc. The other item is the “satirical” cover of the New Yorker magazine.

The first item – the column – has been conclusively debunked. At least, insofar as far as it was a column by Ms. Dowd. Funny thing though – no one has actually gone so far as to refute the real issue of all those internet contributions to the Obama campaign. When you stop to think about it for a second, the idea that a few people could make literally thousands of small contributions to a candidate by contributing via the internet using fake names and thus thwarting the campaign finance laws is more than a little disturbing.

Just where is Obama’s money coming from? We were pretty much swallowing the story of millions of small contributors. We’ve heard it before and it rang true. Here in Montana in 2006, that’s what put Tester over the top, right? But c’mon and think a minute folks! How many millions of contributors are there really???? Those of us who have played in this sandbox before know how apathetic the vast majority of the electorate is until just before the election – and how hard it is to get money out of impoverished college students and struggling young families. Yet somehow we’re believing that he has been able to raise almost 300 million dollars during the primary campaign mostly from these type donors. When you stop for a second and really think about it – can you believe it? Or is it possible – probable – that millions of those “donors” may not actually exist? Remember the Clinton supporter, Hsu, who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars under the names of fictitious donors? If there is one thing that we should know about Obama it’s that he can out-Clinton the Clintons. Methinks there’s something rotten in the Obama campaign and the stink may just be beginning.

The other item – the New Yorker cover. It hasn’t even hit the streets yet but it’s all over the electronic media. The Obama campaign is, naturally, going bonkers calling it “offensive, blah, blah, blah” The magazine counters that the cartoon is “satire”. The problem with key to satire is that it has, at its core, the truth. We may not know much about the “real” BHO, but what we do know is that he is a person who is not comfortable with his own self. He is only half-black, yet he has completely abandoned the “white” half of his heritage – going so far as to term his grandmother a prejudiced “ordinary white person”. He spent twenty years following the teachings of Black Liberation Theology as espoused by his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, but, like St. Peter, when challenged about his religious leader, Obama hastened to deny his association for his own earthly well-being. Then, of course, we have to factor in his long-time association with other less-than-stellar types such as slumlord Tony Rezko and Weatherman/terrorist Bill Ayers. So is it so far-fetched to portray his Muslim heritage, his self-proclaimed disdain for the American flag together with Michelle’s radical dissertation as an accurate picture of the “real” Obama? I think not.

There is a valid question on the table: Just who the hell is Barack Hussein Obama? The more we know about him, the less I can see him as our President. When it comes right down to marking the ballot, the American voter seems to get the right perspective.