I don’t usually link favorably to the New York Times, but all COMMENTARY readers should hie to Michiko Kakutani’s review of our chief culture critic Terry Teachout’s newly published biography of Louis Armstrong. Pops has been received ecstatically, and nowhere more than in Kakutani’s review today:
With “Pops,” his eloquent and important new biography of Armstrong, the critic and cultural historian Terry Teachout restores this jazzman to his deserved place in the pantheon of American artists…[he] writes with a deep appreciation of Armstrong’s artistic achievements, while situating his work and his life in a larger historical context. He draws on Armstrong’s wonderfully vivid writings and hours of tapes in which the musician recorded his thoughts and conversations with friends, and in doing so, creates an emotionally detailed portrait of Satchmo as a quick, funny, generous, observant and sometimes surprisingly acerbic man.
She’s right.
Also of note is the inclusion of “Beyond the Pale,” a stunning story by COMMENTARY’s longtime contributor Joseph Epstein, in the latest edition of The Best American Short Stories. “Beyond the Pale” was originally published in COMMENTARY’s March 2008 issue.
Barack Obama is taking advantage of white guilt. He is the secular Messiah who can supposedly forgive us for our racist past. The Obama cult is based on anti-intellectual emotionalism. He constantly promises to bring about change. Obama deliberate avoids offering any specifics. Thankfully, this nonsense will only continue a bit longer. Soon the middle of the road voters will be much more demanding.
Yes! This is it. Obama’s nonsensical message of “change” must change pretty soon, or else people will begin to catch on that he offers absolutely nothing other than hard-liberalism.
Modern party-nomination politics is about true believers, especially in the Democratic party where participation and support for a favored candidate long-ago replaced religious practice and belief. A look at the faces of people attending Obama and Clinton rallies showing rapture and fervor confirms that. So if you’re a Democrat party member who can actually think critically, who to trust and vote for? A guy who comes off as a self-appointed Messiah but is liberal down the line on every issue important to liberals and, ultimately, will have to talk in specifics? Or the woman/policy wonkette who, together with her husband, know and are willing to talk ad nauseum about every detail of every policy but couldn’t be trusted to take care your dog for the weekend? I know where my vote is going.
But who precisely will be demanding that Obama get specific, other than Hillary? The news media, especially TV reporters, certainly won’t; apart from a few almost apologetic remarks about his lack of content, they, like Matthews (whose quote above is not skeptical of the man). If you can stomach watching Matthews for more than two minutes, you’ll see that he and the rest of the clowns at MSNBC have become unabashed fans of the man who says nothing but does it so well. The rest of the MSM is pretty much there too, and will be in the tank for him whole hog if he’s the nominee, throwing their favorite little maverick from Arizona overboard faster than you can say ‘Keating Five.’
Hopefully this is the start of a trend indicating that pundits and other media will finally start to look hard at Obama and analyse his actual voting record, rather than continue to give him glowing, personality-cult driven, softball coverage.
As must as I detest the Clintons, at least Hillary is a fairly typical grasping, power-hungry pol, easily classifiable and predictable in her actions and methods. Obama’s vapid messianic emotionalism, his obession with race (despite simultaneously claiming to be the candidate who will take us beyond race. See also his membership in a pan-African black power, racialist church), his obesession, to the point of ignoring the white side of his family, with the father who abandoned him (see ‘Dreams of My Father’), while at the same time lying about his religious heritage through his father and having been born Muslim, makes for a rather scary psychological profile. I can’t help but think, pace his constant emphasis in his book on what a big man his father was amongst the old clan in Kenya, that Obama’s run is really about him and his father: “Look Daddy. You were a Big Man in kenya, but I’m gonna be the biggest Big man of them all!”
It’s amazing what short attention spans voters have regarding these campaign themes too. Are people really so gullible that they’re taken in by empty slogans like “Change We Can Believe In”? I remember Clinton in 1992 constantly talking about “Change”. In 2000 Bush constantly talked about “Changing the tone in Washington”. Every politician loves to promise “Change”, but Obama and his disciples act as if they’re the first ones to discover “Change” – and that we can really believe it this time! Ho, hum….4-8 years from now, no matter who wins in 2008, the next crop of Presidential hopefuls will all be promoting “Change” again; And contra Obama, we won’t be able to believe in it then either.
I read all the backlash stories today. MSM is coming around. Nothing compares to what Craig Crawford said last night. He actually had the guts to say what everyone is thinking. I had to listen to the show twice before I could believe what I was hearing:Live with Dan Abrams 2/06
It boils down to: after experiencing a modern American education and being exposed to modern American media, how many voters are now too stupefied to look critically at candidates, ideas and programs?
A backlash, eh? I sure hope so. Too much is at stake. Obama could conceivably win an election against McCain, but I don’t think Hillary could. The infatuation with empty shirt Obama has to end. He’s a disaster waiting to happen. Let him stay in Illinois where he belongs.
OK – lets be real here. Barack grew up with whites and asians. he was raised by a white family and went to white schools. yes he is tan but he is no brother. he uses his race when it is convenient and then distances himself when that is convenient.He is a baby boomer – He is 46 years old. He mixes the speech of Tony Robbins, Joel Osteen with the syntax of black preachers.It is a combustible concoction of holy mania. when you analyze and read his speeches he is actually not saying anything. It reminds me of people selling MLM schemes to down on their luck people. All hype and inspiration and can do spirit. Ever watch the Music Man? Or read stories about the Pied Piper? I am disappointed in our choices. It never ceases to amaze me that in this vast country this is the best we can come up with. Hillary certainly has her flaws. But she and McCain have talked the talk and walked the walk. If we were attacked tomorrow I would want one of them there to take charge. I am a liberal person but I can be objective about issues. I predicted this crazy Iraq mess before Barack. I believed and still believe a lot of it or all of it was over the oil. Call me a cynic. However, after screwing it up beyond all expectations we do now seem to have made some progress. I think we need to leave in a way that protects our security and the security of the region. I think we need to be realistic about our enemies who will always be ready to exploit out weaknesses. Barack is like JFK? You mean like getting us into a Bay of Pigs? Like the nuclear war he almost got us into? Or the Vietnam War he got us into? None of us are saints and those Kennedys are certainly not saints. Joe the bootlegger and vote buyer and friend of mobsters. Teddy flawed by killing and running away from Mary Joe.I loved Bobby but he too was flawed – supporting Joe McCarthy etc. So I guess what I am saying is before you take a stand read some history, immerse yourself in the facts. See the qualifications of each candidate, their positions etc. And realize that everyone has flaws and it is dangerous to put someone up on a pedestal – they are there to work for us. They are flawed people like the rest of us.