The Me-Campaign
I admire Barack’s Obama rhetorical skills and ability to run against Clinton, Inc., but racial polarization will be the legacy of an Obama campaign that promised to transcend race.
It now routinely counts on winning 90% of the African-American community on the basis of racial affinity against a similar liberal Democratic candidate, who herself in short order in turn relies on racial identity politics. Pennsylvania might prove to be the most polarized election yet, and it’s likely that Obama will reap what he’s sown with his failure to disassociate himself from a racist. The speech, for some reason aimed at solidifying the African-American base and capturing praise in the New York Times, succeeded on those counts as much as it turned off middle-class America, set racial relations backward, and destroyed his campaign.
One legacy of his speech is that 85-year-old Mrs. Madelyn Dunham, once praised for saving the Obama failed household, will be remembered by America for her supposed racist, “made me cringe” sneers that provoked her brilliant grandson’s metamorphosis into a trans-racial messiah. That cruel evocation was symptomatic of a generation that does all it can to claim credit for itself for its perceived successes, and to allot blame to its predecessors for all its present unhappiness.
But then the Obama campaign already had focused on the Obama’s neuroses, their angst about their loans, the cost of their kids’ school and camp, and whether or not Michelle felt ‘pride’ this particular week in the rest of us. The Wright mess and the relativist apology for it are not the only reason for the slide in the polls; America also got tired of the self-indulgence and self-referencing that exceeded even that of the Clintons’, heretofore the past masters of the me-generation.
The only suspense will be how the great healer explains to the nation why in the world white voters outside of the elite suburbs suddenly turned on him in record numbers that cannot be balanced by the record majorities he piles up in African-American communities. Pennsylvania will be the barometer of the reaction to his modified hangout speech this week, and I think he could well lose the state by 20%. And that will send a powerful message that the Democrats have nominated someone who will not or cannot “disown” an abject racist—or at least apply the same standards of condemnation that he once applied to Don Imus when he asked him to resign.
Indeed, as two liberal candidates duke it out, we now matter-of-factly talk of the “white voter” and the “black voter” and the “Latino voter.” The overwhelming majority of black commentators on television who hear the replays of the Wright venom find ways of assuring audiences that what they are hearing is not what they think they are hearing—given that listeners are not experienced with that past grievance or this present custom in the black religious community.
Reporters hunt in vain for a black preacher or members of churches similar to Trinity who find Wright’s racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism abominable. But then why should they when Barack Obama himself has put such hatred in the proper context of ‘everyone does it’—your rabbi, his grandmother, the “corporate culture”, the “Reagan Coalition”, Geraldine Ferraro, and all the other racists who are moral equivalents of Rev. Wright spouting out “God Damn America”, “rich white folks,” the “KKK of A”, “Clarence Colon” and all the other sickness? (In this regard I smiled when the Rev. Sharpton the other night swore that the Rev. Wright had not said anything untoward about “whites” (cf.”KKK of A”) or toward any one person (cf. e.g., “Clarence Colon”, “Condamnesia” Rice).
Giddy elite whites chime in solemn tones that the “speech” was historical and the burden is on the less sensitive than they to appreciate it and fall into line. Meanwhile tens of millions in the middle-class of all races remain appalled. They are puzzled that their intelligence is being insulted—that a would-be President can neither explain his past intimacy with a racist nor promise to disassociate himself from the font of such hatred.
So history will record that the disturbing legacies of the Obama racial paradigm are his twins of moral equivalence and contextualization. That is, once a private remark of a grandmother is elevated to the same sin as a public hate-fest, for purposes of rationalization, or a quip of Geraldine Ferraro is similar to “God Damn America” or the “KKK of A”, then all metrics disappear. The next time someone utters something reprehensible, there will be a chorus that points out a similar tit-for-tat pretext.
And since we are to understand that the peculiar frustrations of blacks and the protocols of expression within in the black church must pardon the effects of the Wright hatred, it unfortunately won’t be long until the next racist outburst is likewise explained away. Imus tried that when he advanced the argument that his past good works and the raunchiness of talk-jock radio made his racist remarks merely crude rather than ill-intended.
That argument rightly failed (as the “old” Obama pointed out at the time); after Wright and Obama, similar ones won’t next time—and the future is sadly going to be wide-open, true to the Wright brand of coarseness and crudity. Thanks to Obama there will be fewer to speak out with any credibility that an absolute standard of decency condemns all forms of racism from anyone under all circumstances.
Obama’s eloquence and his postmodern deftness with false analogies and slick relativism may have ensured both that the super delegates don’t yank his nomination, and that public anger over his falsehoods about what he knew and when is chalked up to racism, but the damage he’s done won’t be undone easily. The Democrats flocked to this Pied Piper and now he’s going to lead them over the proverbial cliff.
___________________________________________________________________
“Oppression Studies”
For Obama’s theories on education, see the following I posted on NRO (before the landmark “speech”):
“The forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again.”
Today a news item reported on Sen. Obama’s recent take on the current status of education:
“He said schools should do a better job of teaching all students African-American history “because that’s part of American history,” as well as women’s struggle for equality, the history of unions, the role of Hispanics in U.S. and other matters that he suggested aren’t given enough attention.”
“I want us to have a broad-based history” taught in schools, he said, even including more on “the Holocaust as well as other issues of oppression” around the world.”
But anyone familiar with the historical illiteracy of today’s college student understands that more of the “oppression” history that Sen. Obama is advocating is precisely the problem, not the solution. Our high school students already know who Harriet Tubman is, but not U.S. Grant or Shiloh. They have been introduced to Crispus Attucks, but not Alexander Hamilton. They know World War II largely as the Japanese internment and Hiroshima (cf. Reverend Wright on that), but have not a clue about the Bulge or Okinawa or the Munich travesty.
In other words, it is precisely this pick-and-choose therapeutic curriculum of “oppression” history presented as a melodrama of winners (white male Christian capitalists) and losers (women, people of color, the working classes) that has ensured an entire generation of historical illiterates, who can’t distinguish between the profound and trivial, or identify basic names, dates, and places to ground even their politically-correct views. They are told to remember and repeat that Hiroshima is bad, but not why or how it occurred, what were the alternatives, and what were the consequences in a war of bad and worse choices.
Instead the sins innate to mankind—war, oppression, slavery, bias, etc.—are nearly always presented as sins unique to the West in general, or to America in particular. We hear always of commission, never of the remediation, always of our terrible past, never of the pretty awful present that goes on outside the United States.
What we need from a healer at this late date is not advocacy for more gripe-history that tries to portion out equal victim status to various competing constituencies under the guise of multicultural brotherhood, but rather tries, in holistic and inclusive fashion, to explain both the noble and tragic history of the United States, an experiment that was and is not perfect, but still very good and preferable to all the alternatives.
What continues to be so disturbing about the Obama rhetoric is that in the abstract he always talks of utopian brotherhood and idealism, but whenever he devolves into the concrete, we learn that he promotes victimhood, identity politics, and subsidizes both by his presence and his purse racial intolerance and invective.
More disturbing still is that even to mention this disturbing contradiction is to incur the charge of being racist, or—in Obama’s own self-serving formulation—to confess that “the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again.”
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
Mexifornia : A State of a Becoming
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Paperback)
Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Smithsonian History of Warfare) (Paperback)
Who Killed Homer: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom
Fields Without Dreams : Defending the Agrarian Ideal (Paperback)
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Paperback)
27 Comments
Scott:An excellent synopsis of events as always VDH.
It will be interesting to see the media reaction to what is sure to be an Obama drubbing in PA. Will they continue “in the tank” for Obama (see Chris Mathews’ embarrassing proclamation of Obama’s speech as “Lincolnesqe”)? Or will the new narrative be that the super-delegates must do the “responsible thing” here and give the party back to the establishment Clinton machine?
Just as six months ago no one could have predicted the Hillary implosion or - 6 weeks ago no one could have foreseen the effect of the Wright sermon’s, one just cannot predict the future of this race.
Interesting times ahead for sure.
Mar 20, 2008 - 10:34 am Jonathan:John Taylor from the Nixon Foundation has taken issue with your last post on Nixon
http://www.nixonblog.com/?p=320
From you, Dr. Hanson? You who knows better than most the ideological attacks Mr. Nixon invited by nailing Alger Hiss and staying in Vietnam, by going to China and improving relations with the Soviets? You who knows that as the quintessential moderate he absorbed ferocious fire from both ends of the political spectrum? You who knows that much about him, his record, and his angry times still awaits discerning mediation by fair-minded scholars? Which untruth upon untruth do you mean? One by one, please, with dates and quotes. If it’s all about Watergate, better bring your best game.
Mar 20, 2008 - 11:04 am LSD:I have felt that the first Black President will be Republican simply because he or she will grow into office representing a wide demographic. Obama has challenged that contention and is the Democratic Party’s best candidate so far. I agree, he has now demonstrated a narrow view that will deny him the wide appeal that he needs to gain office. The cathartic quality of this view may defend it by reminding us all of America’s sins, but it does not portend race-blind leadership.
Obama has explained that he is the product of two worlds, and so I was disappointed in his attempt to explain the point-of-view of the poor white. His suggestion that this sector of the population sees their struggle as a zero-sum game was off-target and demeaning. As a Democrat, Obama ought to have focused on poverty-based representation rather than making a conspicuous demonstration of his fielty to the black community. Instead of teaching us all, he could have shown that he could represent us all.
Mar 20, 2008 - 12:11 pm James- The Historian:Dr Hanson:
Ironically the next example of racial bigotry uttered, from the pulpit by another “Rev Wright” no less, has come from a Harlem preacher who has called Obama, among other things, a “log legged mac-daddy” while claiming Obama has betrayed his race.
You are right: there are no more rules regarding public utterance. The gloves are off and our culture is the loser.
Mar 20, 2008 - 12:17 pm TLM:Great speech(ifying) by Sen Obama on Tuesday, but signifying what? That “the past is not dead and buried”? That we still live in some version of Faulkners Mississippi. It would not surprise me if the twentysomething year old, college educated crowd actually believe this. Most Americans of my generation are fully aware of the legitimate grievances of Black America and the historical context in which they occurred. Most also believe that many of those grievances have been greatly alleviated, as evidenced for example by the successful career of Sen Obama himself. Does Generation Obama, as his campaign terms them, not get that? As to the purely manufactured grievances of Black America (the racist lies and superstitions in Rev Wrights sermons about AIDS, drugs, etc ), they are baseless and can only be dispelled by the black communities in which they arose. Which begs the question: while listening to the sound and the fury of Reverend Wright for 20 years, what exactly did Obama do to address racist beliefs in his own community?
Mar 20, 2008 - 12:18 pm Cobb:As a recent reader of most everything VDH in this medium, I am a bit surprised to hear you judge Obama as many would want him to be judged. I usually look to you to give me a deeper insight into the historical precedents for things we observe on the contemporary scene. Alas in your latest pronouncement on the failure of Obama, you have failed to even investigate the history of the man’s church. It thus seems to me that you are thus suggesting Obama is a phenomenon existing outside of history, a freak of nature with no deep connections to anything but the present and his own ambition. You default.
I have heard many arguments denigrating him as an empty suit. He’s more than that but we can all see he is prone to semiotic slickness. At bottom, it’s clear from his record that he is firmly in the MoveOn Left, or as I’ve written, Barbara Boxer in a black man suit. If indeed Obama is something of a fraud, we should keep in mind that nobody can cheat an honest man. The flimflammer succeeds because he promises something that sounds too good to be true, and his pigeons buy into that confidence because they want that thing to be true. But no honest and thoughtful voter should assess the qualities of that new black man suit and judge that Obama’s campaign is a referendum on American race relations. Similarly, no honest and thoughtful critic should upbraid him on the basis of race relations. The office of the President of the United States has no such Constitutional responsibility - that is on us as individuals to overcome the eternal threat that tribalism poses to liberty.
I’ve never heard the phrase ‘post-racial’ so much in my life until Obama proved himself to be something other than that. But post-racial is the fantasy of people who look towards messianic figures to do their moral thinking for them, to give them a yellow brick road to paradise, to be their Oz and demiurge of utopian post-racial dreams. Nobody has ever been that and nobody ever will be. We each have to recognize our own brains, heart and courage to do so, then we will find our way home.
Instead we have let guilt by association lead us to a character assassination that demonstrates the shallowness of those false expectations. People who decried multiculturalism two weeks ago are now straining to tell us how this gaffe has permanently alienated white male working class voters. There’s racial realism for you. The absolute rejection of any comparison between a white grandmother and a black minister shows how phony certain age, gender and colorblind protestations have been.
For Americans who truly understand and support the premises and promises of equality, no such demographic prompting is necessary. We should see a policy and a candidacy for what it is, not for what identity suit it wears. And while the common wisdom now says that Obama harbors racists much in the way that Saddam harbored terrorists the “who knew what and when” boilerplate goes on - well one degree to Wright. But the investigation goes nowhere to the substance of the Christian faith of Obama and dares not ask why someone who was destined to be Muslim became Christian instead or exactly what kind of Christian he is. The Christian commonality evidently was not enough, and so the politics and identity politics of difference prevailed. Those investigators reveal that they actually believed that a good racial reconciliation was indeed too good to be true, for certainly this black man should not be judged according to the strength of his character to resist and reject racism. Not that anyone besides the McCain campaign has been chartiable on this particular debacle, but I would consider it appropriate to assume that the millions of Obama supporters had already accepted the premise that he was a decent enough man who raised no probable cause to suggest he was a racist or race hustler. Indeed how many of us did not really have some racial burden of proof for the man? How many of us truly accept and support the premises and promises of equality? Where has the benefit of that doubt gone? Now what becomes the burden of proof? I think it has now descended to the Don Imus standard. Offensive rhetoric is as far as investigations go, not to religious or philosophical principles. Rapper Kanye West famously said ‘George Bush doesn’t care about black people.’ Now we know by that same standard ‘Barack Obama doesn’t care about white people’, and to hell with deeper analysis.
Obama in his chastened state has made what some are calling the most honest assessment of race relations of any major candidate. That’s not a very high standard either. But he did get one thing right, his campaign is not going to make the difference of how we Americans perceive each other. Indeed we are the people that we need to be, and we should stop waiting for someone else to tell us so. Isn’t it interesting what we have shown ourselves to be with Obama as, finally and tragically perhaps, the American Rorschach test on race? I think we have been less than honest and have cheated ourselves.
Mar 20, 2008 - 1:30 pm Mike:Having read many sources on the issues raised by Obama-mania, I find myself, more and more, appreciating Bill Cosby, whose message to black folks is the same message that successful Americans have always taken to heart: Quit feeling sorry for yourself, take advantage of your opportunities, embrace education and work hard.
Obama, in refusing to repudiate the grievance/victim culture, does nothing for blacks but encourage them to fail. No, Obama won’t be president, but one day, a black man or woman surely will be president–there is, after all, nothing preventing that–and they will have attained it by following Cosby’s example, not the example of those who wallow in past discrimination and victimization every Sunday morning.
The perpetually victimized and outraged have little time for anything else. One can be an American who happens to be black and become president, but the same is not true for a black American.
Mar 20, 2008 - 2:13 pm Catalonia:Those Republicans who had problems with John McCain are now FAR more likely to vote for him come November. It is one thing to sit out a race for various and sundry issues, quite another to let a man enter office who attends and is active in what is essentially a “hate whitey” church, particularly after this man tells whites that they are being unreasonable even to complemplate being uncomfortable with hate speech from the pulpit. Secular liberals forget that many conservative Republicans actually attend church regularly, and they know how monumentally inappropriate and offensive Jeremiah Wright’s sermons are. Conservative Christians who voted for Huckabee actually have something to compare Wright to, unlike most liberals, and they don’t like him one bit.
One weakness of John McCain has now been mitigated. CNN, CBS, the New York Times, or NPR cannot gloss over this issue, because conservatives do not watch, listen, or read these sources. Conservative sources of information will not let this issue fade away because it is delicious anathema to Obama’s campaign. All conservatives will eventually run across video of Jeremiah Wright, and that will be all it takes to them to vote in November.
All that remains is to get a majority of that 20% in the middle to become aware of Barack’s lock-step, 100% liberal policy positions, and the presidential election is over. If only 55% of the middle vote for McCain, whom they already perceive as somewhat moderate — compared to Obama’s extreme liberalism — a few extra black votes in the inner city will simply not matter in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, or any other battleground state.
Obama isn’t done for yet, but a clear pathway just opened up.
Mar 20, 2008 - 3:22 pm BRussell:If the Democrats fail to put a black on the ticket, McCain should consider putting a fantastic black-conservative Michael Steele.
Imagine how ticked-off the Dems would be.
Mar 20, 2008 - 4:56 pm Trudy B. Taylor:attention cobb:
i dont think obama was “destined to become muslim”. he was abandoned by islam in the shape and force of an absent father.he was destined to become an atheist because of a mother who ‘married her homework”. no one is questioning the fact that he became a christian or what kind of christian he became-for good reason-we dont really care; after all, we have freedom of religion around here. the problem is at once more blatant and more nuanced than that. it pertains to ” the content of his character”.
Mar 20, 2008 - 4:59 pm Joshua:I think we should cut Wright some slack. Is it a surprise that some blacks do not think it outrageous that America would inject them with Aids, after they were injected with syphilis in the infamous and horrid Tuskegee experiments 40 yeas ago? Is it not also possible that some American policies have contributed to the conditions that gave spawn to 9/11?
Mar 20, 2008 - 6:27 pm R. Richard Schweitzer:What is so surprising or even unexpected in these developments within a faction that is comprised of a coalition of so many factions?
The difficulties of organizing a sub-faction (often called a ” base”) from the variety of factions that are seeking a prominent and effective role in representation have always been obvious.
Unions are an example. They are factional political units with their own internal politics through which a few strive to have the representative powers as “The Leaders.” In fact however, the rank and file are seldom fully harnessed to such agendae. Consider the union member who is also “Latino” or “Black” or “Female.”
We see this displayed over and over again when the voice of an organization office holder is cited in legislative “hearings” as “representing” the X thousand national members of some effectively labeled body - without regard to whether that is a majority view or even a dominant view within the organization, or whether the organization is a true representative interest despite its label.
It will ultimately be that party which contains the fewest factions in its coalition that will be the most effective in selecting candidates and recognized as affording the best opportunity for the general public to attain representation.
That does not mean that will be one or the other of the parties standing now.
Mar 20, 2008 - 7:54 pm JW:Couldn’t agree more VDH. In simpler terms, it is now OK to spew hate. Why? Because it is supposedly understandable. Does this not encourage more of the same? How does that bridge the racial divide? We will see more of this now than ever before. My feeling is the gap widens as the elite in this country, especially the media, will deem it acceptable. It will not be confronted and your average Joe american will grow wearier and wearier of it.
Mar 20, 2008 - 8:13 pm Ron Kean:I remember all the others; Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern all appearing small after their failed campaigns. Carter came back like a bad tooth. Gore seems to be riding some wave but it seems goofy.
Martin Luther King spoke positive and he was persecuted. But he remained uplifting and positive and this country gave him a national holiday. Everybody liked MLK.
Wright was negative and destroyed the image of bright light. Even we on the right had to avert our eyes so as not to be sucked into loving such a promising figure. Will the girls faint now?
Will we perceive the flop sweat on his brow everytime he gets up in front of a crowd. And the Clintons are so yesterday.
McCain could be a little more exciting but I’m going to work for him here in Missouri anyway. His competition is too tragic to contemplate.
I love reading Works and Days.
RK
Mar 20, 2008 - 8:20 pm Athena:Barack Hussein Obama did not learn the Gettysburg Address, as I did, by heart, when I was a child.
Mar 20, 2008 - 10:12 pm Romat Rast:What a dark day for 50+ liberal white ladies and Chris Mattews who thought the Black Messiah had at last arrived to initiate their dreamed-of utopia of love and sharing. They are unable to understand what was wrong with Obama’s “Lincolnesque” speech because they secretly share Wright’s view of “God Damn America.” And they’re not even of the Hard Left.
I think I’ll try to have a look at MoveOn just to see what in the world is vomiting forth over there on the subject. Well, maybe tomorrow.
Mar 20, 2008 - 11:04 pm JFC:VDH, you are THE man!
Mar 21, 2008 - 12:27 am JA Lineberry:I think Obama was trying to explain that race is a complicated issue — that genuinely good people can make an appalling comment, or have an out-of-date worldview. My own grandfather made racist comments from time to time, but I believe he was a product of his time.
On another note, I’ve heard many pastors, of all races, purport this sort of view, that America is an evil place, full of sin. Remember, after Katrina, several pastors came out and said God destroyed New Orleans because it was an evil city. After 9/11, several pastors claimed God allowed us to be attacked because of our purported sins. It’s essentially the same idea, and it was quite common in churches I’ve attended.
Obama’s class-warfare message doesn’t appeal to me, but I think this was an attempt to say, listen, let’s finally rise above this. I won’t dismiss this speech simply because I don’t support his ideological positions.
It’s unfortunate Obama was so harsh against Imus, but this was ultimately a political decision, as it was popular at the time to call for his dismissal. What he did here, in my view, was something categorically different, as it would’ve been more politically popular to condemn and disown Wright. It would’ve certainly been in his own interest, but he decided on something different.
Mar 21, 2008 - 11:59 am olivia:I would just like to point out that not all black people were buying his bull. Like every race-hustler before him he cares about no one but himself. Farrakhan even said it “obama has been groomed to be seen as a uniter.” If Hillary somehow gets the nomination watch the race riots ensue.
Mar 21, 2008 - 1:05 pm ET:As if Obama’s vapid policy platforms - visible for the whole world to see on his website - weren’t bad enough, we now have a comedy of errors in the person of Pastor Wright.
One of the most amusing aspects of Obama’s speech - where he attempted to reclaim the moral high ground, and satisfied only those who had already made up their minds in his favor - was that the content could just as easily have been delivered by the Clintons, to wit: “We’ve all heard these tired allegations over and over, and nothing has ever come of them. The American people don’t want to hear a right-wing spin machine, they want to know what we’re going to do about healthcare” - and so on, and so forth.
Bill Clinton himself couldn’t have spun this one better.
Mar 21, 2008 - 2:37 pm Dave Begley -Omaha:1. What nerve. Sen. Obama refuses to appear on Fox News or Fox News Sunday and then the campaign issues the following on 3-21-08:
“We appreciate Chris Wallace for doing his job as a tough but fair journalist on a network that has been deeply irresponsible over the last week in its unrelenting and sensationalistic coverage of Senator Obama.
Senator Obama gave the speech he did on Tuesday because he believes that Americans are ready for a thoughtful, mature discussion about race, and are hungry to move past media-generated controversies that distract from the struggles they face in their everyday lives.
If Fox News wants to play clips of the same offensive sound bites every day from now until November, that’s their right, but that type of coverage does a disservice to their viewers and to a nation that is facing serious challenges that merit thoughtful and honest reporting.”
If the Senator is so appreciative, then why doesn’t he appear on Fox?
2. Am I the only person who noticed all the Lincoln phrases in the big race speech e.g. “Bind up our wounds….”?
I thought that was completely over the top. Obama doesn’t have a Ted Sorenson (from Nebraska, but NOT Creighton University) on his staff.
Mar 21, 2008 - 3:19 pm narciso:It is bad enough, that Tuskegee involved non-treatment of African Americans don’t make it worse.
Mar 21, 2008 - 8:01 pm Joe Garcia:Joshua. One could even argue that certain policies, inadvertently
made AQ possible. But not the ones you think. In the 1970s, after Vietnam and to a lesser extent,
Angola the CIA was loath to directly intervene anywhere. They
used regional proxies like the Shah
do what needed to be done. They relied on wholy owned mouthpieces for the Saudi regime like fmr. Riyadh station chief Ray Close &
to a lesser extent Jiddah vice consul Vincent Cannistraro; in determining where the money should
go. In particular Saudi General Intelligence & Pakistani ISI; they
of course, picked the most virulent
sectarian factions (Raisul Sayyaf,
Hekmatyar, Khalis) It from those groups that AQ and the Taliban rose.
Surprisingly, Bin Laden was one of the least likely choices to take over the jihadist network; he wasn’t tied to any one one member of the Peshawar council;he wasn’t
Afghani like Hekamatyar, Sayyaf,
Khalis (Mullah Omar’s mentor)He did however have pre-existing contacts
with some one on Prince Turki’s staff; Ahmed Badeeb.It was that faction, that counseled the aban-donment of pro Western forces like Massoud, Rabbani’s moderates, et al.
This is much like the behavior of the Indian branch of the British Foreign Office; (Philby,Cox)who counseled the abandonment of the
Hashemites over the Ilkwan Wahhabi affiliated Saud clan. But that wasn’t what you meant at all.
I am a blue collar Joe. A two time Veteran of the Iraq wars; a son of California fruit picker; a father of three; my ethnicity reads like a novel; and a conservative just to the right of Atilla.
I have purposely avoided all campaign news until recently, and I wonder if I might have peeked too early. Brilliant writing as usual, the race is McCains to lose.
Mar 22, 2008 - 3:58 am Trudy B. Taylor:mr. obama has a new demeanor, the “aw shucks, dont go on so about me” look and stance he assumed for gov. Richardson’s (n.m.-d) endorsement on thursday. also, he’s taken to not looking directly into the camera much, if at all. it may seem like a smallish thing, but perhaps not.
Mar 22, 2008 - 3:17 pm jdg:White racism in America is not the key reason for the problems in the black community.
The reasons are obvious.
Too many black women have children out of wedlock. Too many black men do not respect black women. Too many black children grow up without married parents who love each other. Too many blacks do not value learning.
Obviously, there are many exceptions to these generalizations but those exceptions do not make the generalizations untrue.
The result of this behaivor is summarized in crime data. For example, and there are many, blacks are about seven times more likely than whites to commit homocide.
Blacks, like so many Muslims, need to stop blaming others for their own failings.
America is not perfect but it is far, far less racist than most of the rest of the world.
Mar 23, 2008 - 3:26 am cfbleachers:What continues to baffle me, to redline my BS meter…is the swiftness in which a racially tinged comment is highlighted, spotlighted, circled, red-flagged and tsk-tsked with such fury and righteous indignation by Sen. Obama’s campaign….recognition coming within nanoseconds of its utterance…and yet…
…the same instantaneous cognition skills fail to kick in for twenty or more years regarding the Rev. Wright and his Farrakhan’ish brand of “blame and defame” theo-politics.
“I didn’t hear any evil, I didn’t see any evil, I didn’t speak any evil”…but, if I did, I don’t now agree with it….but if I do…it’s because I am nuanced enough to know it’s “root causes”
The groupies in the MetastasisMedia swoon over the high gloss speeches that apparently offer absolution for a sin they are willing to assign to all people of “non-color”.
Apparently, one only needs to have a Western European pedigree to be meted out penance from pedagogues.
Yet, a person of a certain age and certain color has “experiential entitlement” to spew venom, hatred, racism, sedition, Anti-Semitism, and the it is run through the Socialist Filtration system, where it is filtered, prism-cleansed, reverse osmosis dried and comes out as harmless and “..you know…kinda justified”.
“Blackwashing” this hatred….using the brackish waters of angry socialism to justify despicable and hateful “blame and defame” rhetoric from the pulpit and saying “oh, you don’t understand the Black Experience” is not going to do much healing.
Until Sen. Obama is willing to see racism, hatred and venom for what it is in each direction, until he no longer embraces class and race warfare in his sub rosa comments, in his campaign rhetoric and in those of his closest comrades and confidantes, until his views are demonstrated in action that match those pretty words…he a huckster with a silver tongue.
Bill Clinton and Sen. Obama have down pat the glib fib. But don’t we deserve better? If Sen. Obama wishes to discuss race, class…Socialism…great. That’s not what I’m seeing.
Obama wants to skitch a ride on the bumper in which he puts one granny on the back of the bus and in which he throws the other one under the front of the bus. Neat trick.
Mar 23, 2008 - 12:17 pm