The Public Opinion Soapbox

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

If he acts as if the Wright controversy is behind him, it's over for Obama.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes.

For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else.

Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.

Snip:
Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense. But to most others the effect was Clintonian. Somehow Obama could not just say,

Quote:
There is nothing to be offered for Rev. Wright except my deepest apologies for not speaking out against his venom far earlier. We in the African-American community know better than anyone the deleterious effects of racist speech, and so it is time for Rev. Wright and myself to part company, since we have profoundly different views of both present- and future-day America.

SNIP:
The more the pundits gushed about the speech, the more the average Americans thought, “Wait a minute — did he just say what I thought he said?” It’s not lost on Joe Q. Public that Obama justified Wright’s racism by offering us a “landmark” speech on race that:
(1) Compared Wright’s felony to the misdemeanors of his grandmother, Geraldine Ferraro, the Reagan Coalition, corporate culture, and the kitchen sink.

(2) Established the precedent that context excuses everything, in the sense that what good a Wright did (or an Imus did) in the past outweighs any racist outburst of the present.

(3) Claimed that the voice of the oppressed is not to be judged by the same rules of censure as the dominant majority that has no similar claim on victim status.

SNIP:
What is the remedy?

I would go buy about 10,000 American flags to blanket every Obama appearance, have a 4x4 lapel-button flag custom-made for the senator, have Michelle finish every appearance by leading a chorus of “God Bless America,” draft every middle-of-the-road crusty drawling Democratic veteran (the knightly Harris Wofford doesn’t cut it) to criss-cross the country — and try to Trotskyize Rev. Wright from the campaign.

Oh, and no need for any more Obama half-conversations about race and “typical white person” clarifications. All that does far more damage to the country than even to Obama himself.

read the whole article..

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NjBjODFmNmMxZWU2ZGE5YjBhMjZlYmQ2MmM2MzNiZTc=

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

The National Review always gets it right Cool

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

No, it doesn't make sense at all. The article accuses Obama of insulting the intelligent of everyone who doesn't listen to NPR, read the New York Times or had graduated from ivy league college. They're wrong; apparently, National Review readers like to be talked down to, like they're not smart enough to discuss something as controversial as race in a mature, and yes, intelligent manner.

Obama spoke to the American people like we're adults. And, quite frankly, I do take issue with the National Review once again spouting off sophistication as some sort of liberal elitism. Is this how you make up for President Bush's constant buffoonery, his inability to string together a coherent sentence or use words that actually appear in English dictionaries? I don't know, I don't care. All I know is that maybe I am part of that so-called elitist crowd that listens to NPR and appreciates more than just celebrity gossip and partisan bashing.

I have news for the National Review; America is becoming a more and more sophisticated place and soon many Republicans are going to start taking issue with this idea that they all need to be spoken to like children. That their intelligence is somehow insulted when a politician uses big words and makes mature compromises.

The "average American" isn't as dumb as you think they are.... but maybe the average Republican is. Like you'd ever vote for a Democrat anyway.

So who is the National Review trying to convince?

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

After 20 long years of listening raptly to his spiritual leader, mentor, and close friend spout his divisive/tin foil claptrap, I doubt there is any hope that Obama will see the light. Wake up, America, and really look at the lack of judgment of this man you may be voting for.

I find it very revealing that the one time he even acknowledges the white grandparents that raised him after his African father left he and his mother when he was 2, it is to say what he did, to use her to score political points and justify his relationship with his crazy, rip off, black pastor.

He is not some great Messiah, he is just another lousy attorney turned politician. I find his speeches about as genuine as a used car sleaze pitch.

Next time you see him speaking, check out the ever present "smirk," as if to say, "I know I can say anything to you morons, and you'll believe it... man I'm cool."

1/2 the people think he is great and 1/2 don't......he will bring us all together i tell ya....hope and change baby.....hope and change

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

I think it's over; it's something that will be brought up over and over during the general election but I'm not sure it's really making much of an impact on those of us still choosing between Obama and Clinton. I guess it just doesn't matter that much. He's certainly not some great Messiah, a perfect candidate or pure as the driven snow. There's really no such thing; I think maybe your perception of how the media portrays him is different than how us voters perceive him.

I don't, you really shouldn't be talking about smirks and facial expressions after 8 years of watching Bush give speeches.

But at this point I'm just wondering who you're trying to convince; you don't like him, but you'd never vote for a democrat anyway. So isn't it a moot point?

I don't know, the only half that don't like him so much are just the "half" (I say that because I'm convinced that the mucnhkins of the world make up far less than half of the American people) that don't like any democrat and have been waiting for an opportunity like this to jump on Obama. Now you have it, and I fully expect this dead horse to be beaten right into November if he gets the nomination.

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

I am ues to this from libs Coppy. They run around saying how they hate racism and how it needs to stamped out

Libs stand guard watching and listening to conservatives for the slightest hint of racism (real or not) and are ready to pounce

However, when one of their own makes a racist comment (or rants like Wright) they turn a blind eye and go into defense mode

Obama has been caught in several lies. He gave tens of thousands of dollars to the Church. He claims he never heard about the rants, but he wrote about them in his books. He give different accounts about the "racism" of his typical white grandmother

But this means nothing to his supporters. Like with Bill Clinton and his abuse of women, party trumps truth. and party trumps the so called Democrat standards

Coppy · Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 2267 Location: Chambersburg

No, I'm tired of you generalizing what I say as "libs this" and "libs that." I think for myself and I don't get my talking points from James Carville or whoever you think we listen to. I've looked into this myself, independently. I don't have a liberal talk show host to tell me what to think, or an entire channel dedicated to stamping out liberals from the country.

Bill Clinton's "abuse of women?"

Come on, you're really pushing it now

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

cookieclaygirl · Joined: 03 Dec 2007 Posts: 1805 Location: shippensburg

/yawn

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

Torgo · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:39 am Post subject:

Hi Dodo!

Still trying to evolve, I see. Good luck with that.
_________________
"The Master would not approve..."

munchkin · Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 235

cookieclaygirl · Joined: 03 Dec 2007 Posts: 1805 Location: shippensburg

Torgo · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: