More on Obama's 4,881 Words of Bull
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I want to add a few more thoughts. First, Jim Gergahty makes an excellent point. If Obama really does want to transcend and move beyond race, why raise his daughters in a church whose pastor cannot move beyond race and preaches liberation theology?
Second, but for Obama's obvious hypocrisy* on the issue, I'd be willing to give him a pass. I cannot, however, because though he says he wants to move beyond race, he has chosen to embrace as his mentor a man who cannot move beyond race and has chosen to raise his family in that presence.
Nonetheless, for purposes of this post, let's ignore the Obama conundrum. Let's all admit that, but for Hillary Clinton, we'd never be at this point in the campaign. But for Hillary Clinton, Obama tried to run a campaign devoid of race. Obama did, in fact, try to transcend race. He did, in fact, move beyond the legacy of racism in this country and preached a message of hope and change — however vacuous and empty that message may be.
But the Clintons are covetous of the White House. They want to be back there. And they will say and do anything to get back there, including, but not limited to, the wholesale destruction of the Democratic Party through incitement of a race war.
Bill now denies his race baiting in South Carolina. It took the campaign long enough to really engage in that spin. But we know from Hillary's plane ride out of Iowa that they were already considering inciting Latino voters against Obama. And now they've decided to incite white voters against Obama. They have played into white fears that Obama really is someone who harbors animosity toward white citizens and is incapable of moving beyond our history -- Obama is, as the Clintons have portrayed him, no better than Reverend Wright.
At the end of this campaign, I want it on record that it was not the Republican Party that castigated Obama as a hypocrite. It was not the Republican Party that inflamed race relations in this country to hurt Obama. It was not the Republican Party that leaked the Reverend Wright videos.
It was the Clintons, a political party unto themselves, who did all of these things. And if the Clintons are allowed to succeed, we really will never move beyond the politics of personal destruction. But, of course, the Clintons will succeed simply because they will stop at nothing to get back to the White House.
*Yes, yes, I realize Obama is not a hypocrite because you actually have to stand for something beyond platitudes to be a hypocrite when you fail to live up to standards. Nonetheless, his soaring rhetoric does not match up to who he has actually chosen to surround himself with.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Why I want to believe Obama — Comments (73) »
More on Obama's 4,881 Words of Bull 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We all remember Obama chastizing Hillary for her LBJ-MLK remarks. Now NHale Media is turning the tables on Sen. Obama. I posted about it here. Here's what I found disappointing about the speech:
It’s difficult to respect someone who won’t stand up to that type of hatefulness until it’s a political necessity.
Is that they actually think this makes sense.
It's not a problem of race; it's a problem of the Left.
of "More on Obama ..."
You may now return to adulthood, after that brief trip into the shallows of my childish mind.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
here.
I think Robert Tracinski sums it up perfectly.
"In a contest between a man who sat in the pews Sunday after Sunday while his pastor bad-mouthed America, versus a war hero who endured torture for his country, no one on the right will even regard this as a choice."
My guess is that a fair number of those in the middle won't either.
This point of BHO's speech probably bothers me most of all-
"And if his white audience is still uncomfortable with this, he subtly intimidates them with an insidious appeal to liberal white guilt, implying that "the fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons" shows that whites are disconnected from the legitimate grievances of blacks, and thus "to condemn [that anger] without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
Because I fully agree with this point-
"This is a bit of an understatement to describe a society that has transformed itself in 50 years--the span of an adult lifetime--from a country in which racial segregation was practiced openly and defiantly, to one in which even the suspicion of racial prejudice can ruin a man's career and reputation. Just as America once tore itself apart to end slavery, so in the past five decades it has turned itself upside down to exterminate racism. Obama's recognition is the smallest down payment he could possibly offer on the credit America is owed for its record on racism. But it is, I suppose, the best we've heard from a prominent black politician on the left."
Thanks for linking this.
When I got the chance to watch the whole thing from the beginning I suddenly realized what he was implying and my jaw dropped, "WAIT! How is this MY fault that you're associated with a hate filled racist?"
I'd been in discussions with Obama supporters earlier and that's all they seemed to want to talk about is how I don't get this, I don't appreciate that, I just can't understand blah blah blah. The problem is that I was raised in a pro-civil rights household with MLK on the license plate to boot... grew up in a poor urban area and knew exactly where this mentality comes from... it also means I understand why it is still completely and absolutely wrong and backwards... just as Obama pointed out...
...right before he bailed on that notion and tried to make it sound like it's the rest of America's problem that he's good buddy's with a hate monger. [insert head scratching here]
If brevity is indeed the soul of wit, it's difficult to do better than John Derbyshire did:
What kind of person would traduce his grandmother (who is still alive) to score a political point? Yesterday's speech, read through in the clear light of dawn, is worse than I thought: an ugly mish-mash of ancient socialist clichés and Gen-X spoiled-brat self-congratulation, all enveloped in clouds of flatulent Oprahnian rhetoric. Ugh!
*Snark.* If the donks had any sense, they'd arrange to have that deadlocked convention happen - and then nominate Bill Cosby....
soli Deo gloria
Does anyone here think that a white politician (D or R) who'd spent the last 20 years attending an Aryan Brotherhood "church" would be able to paper it over with the speech that OHB gave yesterday?
__________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
is not a hypocrite. He is a fraud. I think that is the word you are searching for. IMO.
It seems to me that if Obama wants to bridge the racial divide he spoke about, the first place to start would be his own church and his own friends and associates. If he cannot even do this among his own friends and mentors, then how in the world can he do it for the whole country? I believe he will in fact make things worse when it comes to race, because of HIS choices and judgments in the company that he keeps. But hey, I'm sure the media will point all that out....
...but he can't influence an associate of 20 years? His own church? His own community? But the whole nation? No sweat!
especially its stars O'Reilly and Hannity, has visibly tilted towards Clinton in the Democratic primary race, and pushed the Wright story.