Obama is still on his crusade to surrender in Iraq. It's quite unbelievable, really, that despite a year of success and significant political progress, the Democrats are still falling all over themselves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as fast as possible.
Clinton has released thousands of pages of her First Lady records, but they reveal essentially nothing. She'll undoubtedly use this release as a campaign nugget to show her transparency, but the reality is quite the opposite - much of the information that would actually tell us about what she was doing, when, and with whom, has been redacted.
The re-votes in Florida and Michigan now look dead in the water, much to Clinton's chagrin. Somewhat strange, given her complete flip-flop on the subject from several months ago when she was the 'inevitable' candidate. She's all in now, though, so much so that a number of rich donors who are trying to put together private funding for a Michigan re-vote have now been linked to Clinton.
Thomas Sowell and Mark Steyn both write about how this race thing is only underscoring Obama's lack of readiness to be President. Check 'em out, they know what they're talking about.
Now, on to the big controversy: Obama's race thing. There's no shortage of analysis (I promised to pass it along to you, so here it is). Michelle Malkin says that Obama's holy glow has faded:
For all of his supposedly unique and transcendent understanding of race in America, Obama's talk amounted to the same old, same old. The Glowbama mystique has gone the way of the Emperor's clothes. Instead of accountability, we got excuses. Instead of disavowal of demagoguery, we got whacked with the moral equivalence card. Instead of rejecting the Blame America mantra of left-wing black nationalism, we got more Blame Whitey. Same old, same old.
Brian Fitzpatrick questions what Obama knew, and when he knew it:
Questions about Obama's patriotism began to form after he refused to wear an American flag on his lapel or hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. In early February, those questions developed into concerns when Fox News showed videotape of a Cuban flag imprinted with the likeness of hard left idol and mass murderer Che Guevara hanging on the wall in an Obama campaign office in Houston.
Concerns hardened into doubts when Obama's wife, Michelle, said "for the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud of my country," and then called America "just downright mean." Now, for some people, doubts have crystallized into full-blown suspicions with last week's revelation that Obama's recently retired pastor, a man Obama chose to follow and support for nearly 20 years, routinely spouts racism and hatred in the pulpit -- specifically, hatred of America.
Obama's presidential candidacy could hang on a single question: What did Obama know, and when did he know it? Was Obama really unaware of Wright's hatred of America? If so, is he perceptive enough to be President of the United States? If he knew about it but disagreed, why did he put up with it for so many years? Wouldn't a genuine patriot have found another church? Is it conceivable he agrees with Wright? Is Barack Obama an America-hating internationalist?
Lee Cary points out that "[t]he candidacy of the man some have said transcends race turns out, after all, to be all about race." He explains:
As a man of both races, his self-image is of someone uniquely qualified to redress the transgressions committed against African-Americans by whites.
The sad irony of Barack Obama is this: When the Senator who chose to "run for the presidency at this moment in history because [he believes] deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together" says,
"Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country,"
he inadvertently reveals his prejudicial expectation of white bias against his candidacy, born of his own temptation to see whites as oppressive. Ironically, it's not whites who see his candidacy through a "purely racial lens" - Barack Obama does too.
"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds."
Cary finishes with the most dicey question: "Is this the tone of a unifier, or an avenger?"
Jeffrey Schmidt reports on the black liberation theology espoused by Rev. Wright (and, by way of his 20-year attendance, presumably Obama, too):
Now, suddenly, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is misunderstood. Suddenly, so-called black liberation theology is misunderstood.
Wright's successor at Trinity United Church of Christ, the Reverend Otis Moss III, won't bow to the wishes of "they" to shut up. It begs the question: "Who are they?" The larger white cultural? Or liberals and Democrats who see all this unfavorable publicity hurting the election chances of Barack Obama?
The sad truth is that neither the Reverend Wright nor black liberation theology is being misunderstood. Both, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama, are being exposed. God, in fact, works in mysterious ways.
What does it all come down to then?
Black victimhood is the doing of white society, not the doing of angry black leaders and leftists, who see advantage and profit in keeping too many people in black communities captive.
Peter Wehner explains what Obama should have done (if he truly did disagree with Wright's racist America hatred): confront Wright years ago, and then leave the church if necessary. He concludes:
One always wants to be careful about making sweeping conclusions about any individual, particularly one as interesting and compelling as Senator Obama. All of us, in replaying our lives, would change certain things. Nevertheless, in a presidential campaign we have to judge based on the available evidence. And given his deep and long-standing association with Reverend Wright, it is fair to ask whether Senator Obama has the appropriate judgment and character to lead this nation. Spending 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ under the leadership of Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. doesn't tell us everything we need to know about Barack Obama — but it may well tell us enough.
Some think that Obama's speech answered his critics, some don't. Only time will tell for sure, but there are indications of serious trouble. Rasmussen Reports reveals some poll numbers that have to make Obama sweat:
Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters say that Wright's comments are racially divisive. That opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters.
Most voters, 56%, said Wright's comments made them less likely to vote for Obama. That figure includes 44% of Democrats. Just 11% of voters say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of Wright's comments.
While the effects are somewhat minimized inside the Democrat party, he'll face a much bigger task in the general election because of this. The indications are already there:
Democrat Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary Clinton has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
The poll showed Obama had only a statistically insignificant lead of 47 percent to 44 percent over Clinton, down sharply from a 14 point edge he held over her in February when he was riding the tide of 10 straight victories.
The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.
McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.
There is still a lot of time before the general election, but if the fighting keeps escalating between the Democrats, McCain only stands to benefit. If these trends continue, he could benefit all the way into the Oval Office.
Amazingly, we are now seeing video of yet another racist black pastor with connections to Barack Obama. For the full story, check out Marie's Two Cents. How many more are there?? You know, similar to the Clintons' campaign fund-raising scandals, at some point this sort of thing becomes an obvious pattern that simply can't be denied.
Finally, James Lewis says it's time to call out the Democrats on their consistent racial demagoguery. He unloads in one of the best anti-racism articles I've seen. Excerpts:
Donna Brazil, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager, has been quoted deploring the Hillary-Obama race:
"There's so much blood. Women want the White House. Blacks want the White House ... They don't know how it will end. It's so toxic."
Gee, thanks, Donna. So setting racial fires against whites and Republicans is not toxic? It's bad if it happens inside the Democratic Party, but it's good if The Majority Leader of the Senate is driven from the leadership because of kind words spoken about an old man at a party?
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a very popular preacher of racial anger in Chicago. So is Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Cynthia McKinney, Professor Nikki Giovanni at Virginia Tech and far too many others. They always get favorable media coverage, because they are speaking for the Left.
If you look at conservative blacks, you see exactly the opposite: there are no more positive and constructive people in America than Justice Clarence Thomas, SecState Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell, Lt. Col. Allan West, Larry Elder, and millions more who are never puffed up by the media.
So the Left, and its mouthpiece the Democrats, have chosen the destructive demagogues and not the peace makers. So be it. But it's high time to call them on it. Voters must finally send that clear and unmistakable message: If you peddle hate, you don't get my vote.
Democrats have protected, excused, and enabled race demagogues. In the days of slavery and Jim Crow they enabled white race baiting. Today they enable the black version. The motivation is the same: divide and conquer. Race baiting is the sleaziest road to political power.
Some time around and following the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1960s a spontaneous agreement arose and spread among everyday Americans to banish any expression of racist feelings toward blacks. Republicans and liberal Democrats happened to agree on that. (There were not many Republican politicians in the South at that time; they were nearly all Dixiecrats.) That doesn't mean white racism disappeared; but it had to go underground; it was made out of bounds in respectable company. Overt race hatred was treated with the contempt it deserved. That quiet national determination made possible the Civil Rights Acts, and opened the way for enormous improvements in the social and economic conditions of American blacks.
A key part of the civil rights revolution was to call the Southern Democrats on the issue of anti-black racism. It was no longer tolerated, and after many long years, the tide finally shifted.
That kind of banishment of race hatred has still not happened among some American blacks. Anti-white racism is still accepted in polite company -- and in some cases, as with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it is publicly taught, enabled, encouraged and exploited. It is popular: The Rev. Wright's congregation stands and cheers his demagogy.
Wright's church is a power in the Chicago black community not in spite of its few racist flaws, but because racism appeals to an aching need for self-esteem among some blacks. Blaming bad conditions on others is a cheap way to feel better about oneself.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not doing black people any favors. By whipping up racial anger today, he is setting up ethnic conflict far into the future. Children growing up today in his church are absorbing his rhetoric, because Rev. Wright is a teacher. He prides himself on it.
Race hatred is a destructive human failing. It is not limited to white antagonism toward blacks. It is found among Africans and Chinese; every culture on earth has its own version. When the Nazis exterminated Jews, they were "whites" killing "whites" for elaborate "racial" reasons. When Hutus massacred Tutsis in Rwanda, they were "blacks" killing "blacks" for supposed racial reasons. It's high time for us to go beyond the one-sided fight against white racism alone.
If race hatred is bad, it is bad no matter who cultivates and teaches it. That includes the Rev. Jeremy Wright. It also includes his cheering congregation, including the Obamas.
Boo-yah!
Then again, liberalism is perfectly happy with double standards and half-truths, which is what we're getting from Obama. I guess that's why he's the number 1 liberal in the Senate, huh?
Now, what does all this mean? Again, there's still a lot of time for things to change. Obama's speech gave his followers -- who WANT to support him no matter what he says -- enough to continue supporting him. In my opinion, he just dropped from the moral high ground into the same race-baiting mold as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and that won't fly with a wide audience. Regardless, it's undeniable that Clinton has picked up some major momentum, and Obama appears to have had his bubble burst. We'll see what happens, of course, but the ultimate winner if the Democrats keep fighting is John McCain and the Republican party.
Let the chaos continue!
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment