"I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community."
Well, now that Wright has been disowned, you better watch yourself "black community" -- you're probably next on the chopping block of political expedience.
It's too bad I can't comment on the Barometer website, because I think Rachel Spitler would be very interested in learning what happens when Wright's comments are "available in their full context."
Behold, Oba-rack Kenobami, master of Jedi mind tricks:
Click to watch
In the interest of entertainment and shameless self-promotion, I am cross-posting my recent Barometer article ("Obama-dise Lost") that talks about what those of us unfazed by his mind tricks see in Obama.
Ever since Barack Obama’s grand speech in Philadelphia, where concerns over comments made by his pastor of two decades were supposedly addressed and put to bed, the media has dutifully pared down its coverage of the incident. But why?
Obama’s campaign has been carried by constant references to ‘hope,’ ‘change,’ and a number of other nebulous-yet-inspiring adjectives. In an apparently still-‘racial’ America, he is the post-racial candidate. He is post-partisan and post-‘politics-as-usual.’ No doubt he starts his day with a healthy bowl of Post Raisin Bran, inspiring even the common breakfast cereal to transcend its wheat-based nature. Essentially, Obama has built his campaign on the idea that he is above the other candidates on a near-metaphysical level. He dispenses rhetoric like grace from on high in order to heal the wounds of the nation.
But Obama has two problems that give lie to his messiah-like facade – his wife, Michelle Obama, and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Recent campaign events involving his wife suggest that all may not be right in Obama land. In February she said she was finally proud of her country for the first time in her adult life (this came, of course, after her husband took the lead in the Democratic primary). The New Yorker reported last month that she considers the United States to be “just downright mean.” And last week during a speech at CarnegieMellonUniversity, as CMU’s newspaper The Tartan reports, Mrs. Obama’s event coordinators were handpicking who sat in the bleachers behind her – according to race, that is. The Tartan quoted her staff as saying, “‘Get me more white people, we need more white people.’ To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, ‘We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.’” Apparently, Michelle Obama’s plan to fix the racial picture in America involves simply switching out who is in the frame.
Obama’s (now former) pastor/mentor Wright is on a whole other level of appalling. YouTube has plenty of video showing Wright giving spittle-flecked sermons that the 9/11 attacks were proof that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” that the United States government created the AIDS virus to wipe-out colored people, and that we live in the “U. S. of KKK A.” He even conveniently summarized his views by repeatedly screaming “God DAMN America!”
Barack tried lamely to separate himself from Wright’s sermons by condemning them, but then he claimed he could “no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community.” I have a difficult time believing Wright is representative of the black community, and I doubt the black community is taking kindly to being lumped in with an America-hating, conspiracy-spouting racist.
But even if Obama had completely dismissed Wright, the whole episode shows how feeble Obama’s message of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ actually is. First, it took Obama 20 years of listening to his pastor’s garbage to even say anything about, and even then only after it became public. I don’t think Obama actually believes the things his pastor said, but that he never expressed disagreement with it before seems to say that he doesn’t take his religious life very seriously and thus his recent statements condemning Wright are merely a political play.
Secondly, why is it that two of the people closest to the Incarnation of Hope and Change are so angry? If Obama’s wife and mentor are both bitter about America, how can anyone think him capable of healing a nation? If this is how far Obama has gotten after 20 years with Wright and 15 years with Michelle, what do we expect him to do in only four (or even eight) years as President?
By March 17, Hillary had taken a slight lead over Obama in Gallup’s daily poll, mostly as a result of Wright’s comments hitting the news cycle. This decline is evidence that once Obama’s stainless exterior was cracked by ‘pastor-gate,’ many voters didn’t see him as ‘hopey’ or ‘changey’ as before. It seems the real Obama is just a regular politician – one who speaks loftily but without real substance, views his faith through the lens of his politics, and tries to be all things to all people.
It’s not that the Emperor Obama isn’t wearing any clothes; indeed, he’s fully clad. He just shops at the same store where Hillary gets her pantsuits. He is just like every other politician the Democrats have put forward, spouting the exact same liberal platform (wrapped up in that patented Obama rhetoric). He’s a normal, run-of-the-mill Democrat.
And, perhaps, being normal is what threatens Obama's campaign the most.
The question: Can you name one accomplishment in the political career of Barack Obama?
The answers:
"Umm, well he can speak really well! That's not a political accomplishment? Oh...well, he's black! Did I mention he's black? That's an accomplishment isn't it?...That's true, I guess he didn't really have any control over that..."
Or my personal favorite, from the first video--
Yellow-Shirted Man (with smug tone):"He's a great oratater like Jesse Jackson!"
Questioner (exasperated): "What isthat?!?"
All this goes to show that Obama's run a fantastic (although vague) campaign. All his supporters seem to know or care about him is that he is...well, a well-spoken black Senator. Nobody opposes Barack Obama because he is a great speaker, because he's black, or because he's a Senator.
No, I think it's something a little more substantial--like say, oh I don't know, maybe being the most liberal Senator in Congress? Wisely, Obama has spoken very little about his policy views. So until the candidates for each party are chosen, it looks like the Obama campaign is going to continue to be all about that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you hear, "Yes, we can!" and "Fired up, ready to go!"
Barack Obama: Pro-hope (as well as the requisite 'audacity' that accompanies it), Pro-dreams, Pro-future, and also very much in support of generic "good feelings."
You know what day it is! It's Mitt's last chance to turn things around, and a major test for the Democrats to see if Sen. Obama's message of change is more "changey" than Sen. Clinton's message of change.
I've got class for a few hours today, but I'll keep updating the results as they come in and I get a chance.
My hopes: Mitt stops the bleeding and an enraged McCain says something stupid, while Hillary stomps Obama
My predictions: McCain "straight-talks" his way to the nomination, and Hillary stomps Obama.
California-McCain 40%, Romney 36%, Huck 10% This state is critical for Romney. Whether he wins or not, he at least needs a significant chunk of delegates to even think about continuing after today. Jim Geraghty reminds that these are preliminary results, without a district-by-district breakdown, and likely without 3 million absentee ballots. This might get a lot closer.
Missouri-Romney 36%, McCain 32%, Huck 25% This was also a big state for Romney. It will be a major surprise if he holds on for the win here.
Georgia-Huck 34%, Romney 31%, McCain 30% While I don't know the strategic importance of Georgia, I think it will be exciting to see how it turns out with all three candidates so close.
New England- McCain wins pretty handily. No surprise there. Liberal is as liberal does. **Massachusetts, Romney's home state, is an obvious exception, but Delaware apparently is also going Mitt's way.
The South- Not counting the ones mentioned above, Huck is leading in most Southern states, followed by McCain and Romney, respectively. McCain has a slight lead over Huck in Oklahoma, though Romney is close enough that he might be able to stage a comeback...
McCain's winning his home state of Arizona, but only by five points...
WARNING: EXIT NUMBERS EARLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL VOTES:
OBAMA: Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37... Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45... Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45... Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42... Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30... Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48... Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46... New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47...
CLINTON: Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26... California: Clinton 50, Obama 47... New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43... Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31... Tennessee: Clinton 52, Obama 41...
There are a couple close states there, but it looks like most Democrats have decided one way or the other. I also notice that Obama seems to have a lot more states behind his name. What else could explain it but....the audacity of hope. Well, my hopes were apparently too audacious because neither Mitt nor Hillary are winning out and out, but where there's a clever marketing strategy, there's a way:
UPDATE (11:15 pm): Well, my predictions were kind of right. McCain "straight-talked" his way through the day, and Hillary leads Obama, but she certainly didn't stomp him. She may be stomping her feet right now, as Obama did fairly well today. Things are much closer for the Democrats because (as far as I can tell) each state gave out delegates proportionately rather than 'winner-take-all' like many of the Republican primaries did.
The winner-take-all states explain the much bigger difference in the GOP numbers. To borrow a nearly worn-out phrase, I Hate Huckabee. Clearly, he fancies himself a vice president. It would be tempting to vote against a McCain-Huck ticket simply out of spite. Must...resist...cultural suicide...
Alas, it seems this spells the end for our hero Mitt Romney. We hardly knew ye. There are only three words that can express my disappointment and shame:
In case you were wondering why his message is 10 parts gassy “change” to every one part specific policy proposals, here's why...How doctrinaire is he? He’s to the left of Russ Feingold. And moving leftward every year relative to his colleagues: He was the 16th-most liberal senator in 2005, 10th-most in 2006, and number one with a bullet now. Election year pandering to outflank Hillary among the base or is he really “evolving” in office, as the left likes to say of politicians who drift this way? Whatever the answer, it ain’t good. In fairness, he’s only very marginally worse than Hillary, the difference coming in her commendable willingness to take a hard-ish line on the Revolutionary Guard.
I've heard some people say they might just vote for Obama out of spite for both Hillary and the GOP, usually citing an argument along the lines of, "Well, if we're going to have a liberal president no matter what, I'd rather it be a Democrat. At least they're predictably liberal and if things go badly, we can blame their party instead of ours. Then we'll blow them out of the water in 2012!"
I heard similar arguments during the 2006 midterm elections, and frankly I think they're absurd. People seem to forget that election years aren't the only times important things have to be dealt with. September 11th wasn't during an election year. The Bush tax cuts weren't. The amnesty bill this past summer wasn't either. The idea is to vote for somebody who you think will do what is best over the course of four years as President, not just who seems interesting right now. If another terrorist attack happens, if the country falls into a recession, if a tax cut (or tax increase, for that matter) passes Congress...who do you want sitting in the Oval Office?
