“But somewhere along the way Barack, always an ambitious lad, came to realize that there was more to be gained by being white — by going from “Barack” to “Barry” …”

Always a conspiracy, isn’t there?!

First, I find your post to be intellectually insincere because you begin with the premise that everything Barack Obama has done from practically childhood to the present was formulated in a cynical, manipulative, egocentric fashion. This post’s glaring flaw (although I believe that many on here don’t see it that way because they desperately want to see it through the same cynical prism that you do, Mr. Sayet) is that you presuppose Obama to be utterly disingenuous in his rhetoric. You simply have no proof of this. For what it’s worth (and I’m sure it’s not worth much on such a frightening, close-minded website) I do believe that Obama wants to heal a racial divide in this country. I do believe that he wants to effect a change in Washington D.C.’s current slimy culture. And from my vantage point, while I’m not fully convinced he’ll be able to pull all of this off, he’s our best shot at the moment.

With that out of the way, let me begin on several factual inaccuracies in this post. First, you assert that Ayers and his misguided ilk murdered Americans. This is simply not true. While their bombing of American symbols of empire and status quo were horrendous, not once did those bombings kill anyone. The only deaths that resulted were from a bomb that accidentally went off in NYC–by some careless Weathermen making said bombs. In other words, while the Weathermen were indeed terrorists, they never intentionally set out to kill Americans. And as an equally important aside, you completely twist his words post-Sept. 11th: he did not say that the terrorists didn’t kill enough Americans. He said that the Weathermen had not bombed enough targets. While I certainly don’t agree with that statement either, it is obviously a HUGE difference, and you should be ashamed for that libelous comment.

Secondly, I would like to see the evidence that Constitutional scholar Barack Obama benefited from affirmative action. Your prejudice slips through when you assert that because he’s African American that he automatically benefited from affirmative action. That colors you in latently-racist overtones Evan and I don’t think you want that on your resume. Or maybe you do, as it might get you more invites to the Heritage Foundation and photo ops with Ann Coulter. I don’t know.

And the last of the inaccuracies, but certainly not the least, was that the Wright controversy was costing him primaries. That is simply not true. In fact, polls indicate that a majority of Americans simply didn’t feel that this was a major issue. And why? Perhaps because a majority of Americans hear things from their religious leaders they don’t always agree with–far fewer Americans would get up and storm out, never to return, and that’s because there are things that their religious leaders say that they DO agree with, which is probably the case with Obama. Now of course, in places like West Virginia and Western PA this probably was an issue, but then again so was his middle name–Hussein, as you continually slip into your posts–so then the senseless meme that he’s both an American hating Christian as well as a covert Muslim terrorist comes into play, which just shows how immature and pointless that argument really is. I’d also like to add that BECAUSE five minutes of that hateful sermon was leaked, which then became representative of a decades-long career at the pulpit, Obama I feel had a RESPONSIBILITY to address race, if for no other reason to address the outcry that the controversy created in the first place. In that Philadelphia speech, he spoke about the disenfranchisement of working class white males, a very real issue. But again, that is seen only as cynical political posturing by you Evan; if he had not addressed the issue, you would have accused him of avoiding the issue for political expediency.

So it’s fairly clear to me that you just enjoy using Barack Obama, the next President of the United States, as a metaphorical pinata on which you project your small-minded, fearful world-view onto. And I think that’s sad because, while some I know would smack me for saying this, you do have articulate moments, and how beautiful it would be if you used those moments for not fostering more cynicism in the world and instead spoke of hope and the potential for change, two things that Obama stands for, and that millions of Americans await as I write this. Or at the very least, use that brain of yours to figure out how you’re going to get your horribly disfigured, sidetracked Republican party back on the rails, as three stunning Congressional losses shows that your once proud party of fiscal responsibility and personal privacy has become a party of obscene spending on massive beauracracy and invasive violation of personal liberties.

A quality, quite obviously, in short supply in man.

But pray God opens your eyes. For then you will know that if there be any good thing in you, it is Christ.

I sincerely thank you for your florid exegisis.

I can’t but read into it a protectiveness of all things Christian over all things not Christian.

Eventually humanity will transcend sectarian (or even racial) differences. You will not be an accomplice in such progress.

But, still, please wake me up when we get there.

Carmen

CarmenCozy/RE Misanthropicus: “[…] unfortunately Said was a carrier of the Lummumba/ Gandhi/Dalai syndrome and the Manhattan liberals & NYT fell for it. Supporting terrorism, yeah, that is a bit too much yet his post-colonial, righteous posturing sure was ancouraging [sic!] for those needing just a push for blowing themselves (& others) to smithereens in cafes. And this comes from someone who for very long had harsh words for the Isreli policies in the West Bank & Gaza. […]”

Dear CarmenCozy, I suspect that your query has been caused by above statement in RE Said a few slots above in this thread, statement which I will support in the following.
1) I do not pillory the Dalai Lama or Mohatma Gandhi. Actually I regard both with much indifference, I couldn’t care less about the current Tibet brouhaha, neither am I transfixed by Hindu bumper-sticker wisdom. (Note: I am Christian, belong to one of the oldest and widest existing Christian denomination ― not a Catholic, though ― but I am not a practicing person).
2) All religions, sub-religions, sects, etc. are attempts at addressing humans’ existential anxieties vis-à-vis eternity and gnawing anguishes vis-à-vis the purpose-of-/ meaning-of-life, anxieties which seem to be hardwired in human’s psyche. (Note: here I do not address one of other religion’s answer’s validity).
3) My scoring system for one or other religion comes from rather pragmatic analysis, in which I rate the respective religion’s value as to (a very, very summary list):
3-a) its (respective religion’s) essential objective (answering in a meaningful manner to mentioned, major existential questions) and,
3-b) since major religions have always overlapped polities/geographical areas for significantly long historical/civilizational periods I rate their worthiness by the their contribution to the betterment of those societies, this ranging… gosh, from authentically enlightening education, laws, arts and, yes! inquiry! (a fleeting thought: Gibbon has good words about Romans).

I see not much of 3-a and 3-b in the societies historically covered by the religions whose figureheads you appear to revere, Gandhi (a post-colonial hero) and the Dalai Lama (a figure whose main traction in the Western world is provided strictly by affectation, appetite for exoticism and infantile anti-Christianity) ― and since here, I see Islam as a remarkably anachronistic/(self)destructive piece of software.
So, from this (admittedly pragmatic) position I find any comparison of these (and all other) religious belief system with Christianity a… Monty Python act. (Pre-emptive strike: Judaism: I know that some will be irked by this, but Judaism was/is in such a stubborn historical entwinnage with the Western World that for the purposes of this statement I willingly confound it with Christianity).
CarmenCozy, may Beethoven’s Misa Solemnis and Tolstoy’s Resurrection inspiringly hover your anxieties ― best regards, Misanthropicus.