It’s no secret that Obama is not enamored of democracy promotion or human rights advocacy. He has done as little as possible to aid the Green Movement in Iran, and in fact has cut funding to groups promoting democracy and documenting human rights abuses. His Sudan envoy is reviled by human rights advocates. He has engaged despotic governments in Burma and Syria, been largely mute on the atrocities against women in the “Muslim World,” and shoved human rights aside in hopes China would agree to sanctions against Iran. He has shown no interest in promoting religious freedom. Now he’s giving the back of the hand to Egyptian and Jordanian democracy advocates:
President Barack Obama has dramatically cut funds to promote democracy in Egypt, a shift that could affect everything from anti-corruption programs to the monitoring of elections.
Washington’s cuts over the past year — amounting to around 50 percent — have drawn accusations that the Obama administration is easing off reform pressure on the autocratic government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to ensure its support on Mideast policy, including the peace process with Israel.
“Obama wants change that won’t make the Egyptian government angry,” said Ahmed Samih, head of a Cairo-based organization that in 2005 used U.S. funds to monitor parliament elections. And in the Egyptian context, that means there will be no change. …
The administration has made similar cuts in democracy aid to Jordan, another U.S. ally.
It is not merely that “Obama has moved away from his predecessor George W. Bush’s aggressive push to democratize the regimes of the Middle East”; it is that Obama sees democracy and human rights as afterthoughts or, worse, impediments to his smooth dealings with the world’s despots. The erosion of America’s moral standing won’t easily be reversed, nor will despotic regimes be restrained in abusing their own people (at least not until there is a less-indifferent Oval Office occupant). Obama has not used his vaunted eloquence or his supposed international popularity to advocate for the repressed around the world. To the contrary, he has enabled and encouraged oppressors, who for now need not fear that they will suffer any adverse consequences from the American president.
I don’t believe that America is inherently and irredeemably racist, by any measure, it’s just you guys at Commentary Magazine.
“I don’t believe that America is inherently and irredeemably racist, by any measure, it’s just you guys at Commentary Magazine.
Ha ha ha. Very witty. I mean really. You should work for the DNC or something. Wow. I feel like I should have to pay for that sort of razor-sharp, incisive commentary.
The more The O-e crowd talks about “racism,” the more repulsed people are. Manufacturing guilt may work on college campuses and where Human Resources people rule, but not in the real world.
I agree, the more the race issue is in the news the more it helps McCain.
I agree that the more the race issue is in the news the more it helps McCain with the Commentary Magazine crowd. There are 2 Americas. One America is good at heart, compassionate, galant, tolerant, a beacon for righteousness for everyone, and the other America is the Commentary Magazine crowd. I would say that it is a 98%-2% split, with 98% being good Americans, and the 2% being Commentary Magazine.
I respectfully decline any suggestion that I am compassionate, galant, tolerant, or a beacon for righteousness for everyone.
I would love to sit on a commentary staff meeting. That sh@t would be priceless.
Some evidence of this odious racism at Commentary would be nice.
Sorry, but when an old Southern sap like David Gergen flags the repeated mocking references to Obama as “The One” as code for saying the candidate is “uppity” and “doesn’t know his place,” racism is at work, including in the posts of folks like Jennifer Rubin (who repeatedly does “The One/Messiah” dance) and Jamie Kirchick (who once sarcastically referred to Obama as “The Hope Pope”), who, as a twentysomething who has gotten more wrong in his brief existence than most octagenarians-ought to be doing the crime beat for the Staten Island Advance, not filling the pages of serious publications like Commentary or TNR.
Obama critics hate, simply hate the fact that this is not a Republican year, and so they mistake-willfully or not-the hardball politics of Democratic operatives, activists, and general supporters trying to protect their candidate as an effort to deify their candidate. Barack Obama is not God, anymore than Ronald Reagan deserved all the drooling eulogies for “ending” the Cold War when he, in fact, had help from Havel, the Pope, Thatcher and so forth.
None of Obama’s supporters, except doe-eyed girls who think he’s dreamy but are nonetheless-thankfully-too young to vote, think he’s God, just as no one at Commentary wants to admit that-for all of America’s remarkable progress-racism still exists.
Graham – it is evidence enough for the Messiah at any cost crowd that you reject the word of god, er Obama. Anyone who does not witness its benevolence and superiority does so only because of racism. There is really no other explanation to the kool aid drinkers.
Jay,
Is that really the best you’ve got? Making fun of Obama as “The One,” is not racist. There is just no evidence of this. You call it “code” for “uppity,” but by what stretch of the imagination are you qualified to tell us what the many commentators you mentioned are thinking when the mock Obama? What makes you qualified to “decode” statements by anyone?
The fact is that Barack Obama, consciously or unconsciously has created a cultish following among some people. This has absolutely nothing to do with his race. Mocking him as a false Messiah is just a sarcastic way to point this out. Nothing racist about it.
Amny body will a lick of common sense would be scared — nay, pertified — over the prospects of a radical leftist like Barack Hussein Obama from the Rev. Wright church of hate in the White House.
And Dead_Ender identifies himself as a….
Why isn’t Obama winning by more….
These open ended questions that lead you to think the left is insinuating the right is racist to some extent infuriates them. That is why team McCain wants the news to be on this as long as possible.
That said, and I’ve said this before. “The One” “Messiah” and “Celebrity” is really condescending toward people who are genuinely excited about Obama. And they have every right to be to be excited about him.
Team McCain doesn’t care about them though… they want my middle vote… my vote.. i fancy myself an independent who doesn’t like to be grouped and spoken for. They know if i see team Obama as cult like I wont want in.
That is the strategy.
Dead_Ender does indeed identify himself, as someone who thinks Obama is a radical leftist and Rev.Wright’s church emphasizes hatred.
It is really condescending to people like Dead_Ender to imply that they are racists — rather than responding to them with (a) an argument for why Obama isn’t a radical leftist and Wright isn’t a hatemonger, or (b) an argument for why people should not care, or should even rejoice, that Obama IS a radical leftist, and his pastor for 20 years is a hatemonger.
Team Obama doesn’t care about people like Dead_Ender though, or about the millions of other people who find Obama’s political ties and Delphic issue statements questionable. They know that the “racist” brand works in politics, where logical argument may not be to their advantage. It is cheap and easy to accuse others of being racists, and avoid addressing their real concerns that way.
That is the strategy.
I was merely making a point and not calling him a racist. Though accusations of “playing the race card” are flying like crazy these days. I think most people see that in my post… at least i hope so.
Obama is half white, half black.
America is mostly white.
McCain wins the more the race issue is in the media.
And to clarify.. i’m not calling you a racist.
If you criticize Obama is, it is called racism. That is what the media has been trumpeting all along. They hope somebody will bite the bait, so they can crucify him for the sake of pure entertainment.
I think the media truly believe that the USA is inherently racists.
“There are 2 Americas. One America is good at heart, compassionate, galant, tolerant, a beacon for righteousness for everyone, and the other America is the Commentary Magazine crowd. I would say that it is a 98%-2% split, with 98% being good Americans, and the 2% being Commentary Magazine.”
If you really believe that, Alejcaro, why the hell are you hanging out here and posting here? I surely wouldn’t waste my time on the irredeemable 2% here at Commentary if I were in your shoes (which I guess calls into question your whole “2 Americas” statement).
Jay has clearly lined out the speech codes for criticizing the One.
Here’s how it works. Obama jets around the world, greeting fellow world citizens and proclaiming that the oceans are healing back here at home. His followers chant his name, chant “Yes we Can”, and He proclaims, “we are the ones we have been waiting for” The messianic fever of world redemption is high.
Comes along your main street America, John McCain to poke fun at this new messianic redemption, and the red light goes off. Racism. Not humor, not pointing out lack of experience, or cult of personality. It could only be racism.
Does Obama have accomplishments? Answer – McCain is racist
Does Obama flip on every issue? Answer – McCain is racist
Does Obama’s inflated tires have any merit? Anwer – McCain is a racist
Did Obama pull out the race card? Answer – McCain is a racist
Its a losing strategy, even if Jay does quote his token Southern man, Gergen, who can sniff out the “racism” It is total nonsense, and the American people are tired of vetting a candidate being deemed racism. I want a post-racial race.
avwh makes a good point
“The One” “Messiah” and “Celebrity” is really condescending toward people who are genuinely excited about Obama. And they have every right to be to be excited about him
Of course they have! They have every right to their delusion;
and others have every right to mock their idol.
The First Amendment applies in both cases.
It is hard on the idolaters – harder on the
idol – still, this is the law. Dura lex sed lex
Little Tin Gods make their little mistakes
In missing the hour when great Jove wakes.
I am willing to accuse people like ALEJCARO of being racists. I think they support Obama because of his race and they honestly think people who oppose Obama do so because of his race. They are obsessed with race.
Obama is going again for another Tour de jour. This time in Switzerland courtesy of George Clooney.
Time to impress again the voters. The world ..”truly likes him..truly likes him”
Hank,
is the “right” to be excited a civil right or a God given right? Maybe it’s an Obama given right?
You moonbat liars aren’t insinuating that moderates and conservatives are racists, you’re screeching it from the pulpit. That’s one of the many reasons you’ve become the legitimate target of ridicule and consescention. (I’m sure you’re used to it.) Claiming to be middle of the road is deeply dishonest of you.
Correctly exposing the cultist bent of the Anointed One and his Obamatons is honest. McCain is just saying what the media refuse to.
What exactly excites you about your Messiah? His rank dishonesty? His racism? His divisiveness? His ignorance? His inexperience? His arrogance? His contempt for the public? His failed policies? Maybe…….his race?
I am middle. I just like to debate
I don’t think that’s disingenuous at all. I feel like the middle is shrinking because of the f@cked up media is always on one side or the other. That is super unhealthy for our nation in my humble (but maybe arrogant too if that’s possible) opinion.
Hank,
the middle is definitely shrinking, and I agree, it is the media. They hype every story, every disagreement, every gaffe of a politician. They have divided America into blue and red. Journalism hide behind the veneer of objectivity and proceed to tear us apart.
but, the blame is really with us, the everyday citizens, and the quiet middle. Moderates tend to be quiet people, going about their lives on a local level. However, this democracy needs a way for its citizens to come together after work hours and engage in civil agreement or disagreement. Unfortunately, Obama just plays on this need with his New Politics. Its nothing new, and it is certainly not post-racial, that’s for sure.
I have really enjoyed your posts. A lot of the Obama supporters are just nasty, without content. You are a breath of fresh air. all the best
Jay,
Kirchik writes an article that cites a Moynihan article about the “ridiculous, schizophrenic and often scurrilous accusations” of racism directed by Obama and his worshippers towards the ever honorable McCain, and how do you respond? With yet more ridiculous, schizophrenic and scurrilous saccustaions of racism. Add “ironic,” hypocritical” and “stupid” to the list of adjectives describing you Obamatons. Do you even realize that your empty accusations are blowing up in your faces?
Your inane assertion that “the Chosen One’ is code for “uppity” reminds this “typical White person” of college speech codes that deem “water buffalo” to be an anti-Black racist epithet.
The Nation of Islam is moderate compared to you dingbats. You Obamatons are the most race obssessed finger pointers in the country. The funny thing is, your Saviour isn’t even Black!
I think the question for you Hank is, have you posted on a left wing sight and have they been as considerate to criticisms of their opinions as people on this blog are of yours? Every left leaning blog that I read degenerates into name calling. I want to know what anyone likes about Obama on substance. He is soft on defense, big on spending, and not experienced with economic issues. I think he is inexperienced and risky. He has associated himself with people who are clearly anti-Israeli. I have no idea why a reader of commentary would even give voting for him a second thought.
Hank,
you cant be a centrist if you support an extreme leftist like Obama, who has been described as the most liberal (illiberal left,) Senator in Congress, based on his voting record. It’s a clear contradiction of terms.
So tell me. What exactly excites you about the Anointed One? His rank dishonesty? His racism? His divisiveness? His ignorance? His inexperience? His arrogance? His contempt for the public? His failed policies? Maybe…….his race? Or do you honestly think his campaign slogans and endless drivel are “inspiring?”
Menchik is right about your comments not being as offensive and asinine as those of other Obamatons around here, but your arguments are dishonest and your devotion to the Anointed One is creepy.
Jonas has clearly lined out the speech codes by which some Obama critics will attempt to inoculate themselves against all charges that their criticisms are motivated by anything less than good ol’ fashioned policy differences. Here’s how it works:
McCain puts out an ad comparing a Harvard law graduate and popularly-elected United States senator to two brainless, drugged-up white women (I noticed he didn’t use Beyonce Knowles or LeBron James, successful businesspeople in their own right who, arguably, have not reached their full potential, which is part of what McCain is saying), and we are supposed to believe it is really an ad contrasting, say, their positions on the Surge or abortion. Right.
Obama gets criticized by the likes of Jonas for traveling the world (which, by the way, the McCain team dared him to do) and calling himself a “world citizen” eventhough W, Reagan, and H.W. Bush have all done both, and we’ve had eight years of “leadership” from a president whom, as governor, openly admitted to never going abroad himself.
McCain, meanwhile, can produce numerous books, sign off on a biopic, appear on Saturday Night Live, ditch his disabled wife for a beer heiress, and still be hailed as a veritable prairie populist. Nope, no celebrity there, and if you call it celebrity, then dang it, you’re sliming a war hero!
If it is suggested that time in Washington isn’t always indicative of success, given that McCain’s major legislative “achievements” were such failures (McCain/Feingold, which still gave us Moveon, and the Immigration bill, which the senator today says he would not even support), all such suggestions are ignored, facts be damned. If, on the other hand, you point to Obama’s work with Dick Lugar on loose nukes, or Tom Coburn on government transparency, you are dismissed as some clean-shaven elitist collegian with no eye for “sexy” issues, like, you know, championing wars with no definable end.
Finally, people like Jonas will try to say that people like me believe all criticism of Obama is racist. That’s not my view. “Messiah” and “The One” are problematic code terms because of what they overlook. They overlook the fact that all presidents and presidential aspirants are arrogant (indeed, what else but arrogance makes the likes of Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney think that they can win?). They overlook the fact that Lincoln was a middling state legislator before he sought the presidency; they overlook the fact that the Roosevelts, Kennedys, and Bushes all played their familial connections to the hilt, the picture of arrogance. They overlook the fact that George W. Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier to holler “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” in a war in which shots still ring out. They overlook the fact that John Kerry was cocky enough to give the military salute at his own nominating convention, when that was, in fact, a toxic mix of politics and the military.
Similarly, those who deny that “code” event exists overlook recent history. What else but “code” was the “Daisy” ad, the suggestion by closet bigot Lyndon Johnson that a vote for Barry Goldwater was a vote for nuclear annihilation? The implication was that Goldwater-a known hawk-was an UNSTABLE hawk, and in the heat of the Cold War, Johnson played to those fears, winning in a blowout.
I am not “obsessed” with race, and I do not support Barack Obama because of his race, but I have noticed that there is never any serious policy discussion from the likes of Kirchick and Rubin. They don’t link to any articles, votes, position papers, or speeches that reveal Obama to be anything less than the America-hating pacifist they think he is. They prefer to talk about the Surge, instead of the war, as though a single strategic decision is a validation of the entire effort, and that, had the Surge not been implemented, another strategy would not have worked or even been tried, like Biden’s partition idea, or the Baker/Hamilton recommendations. They whine about Reverend Wright-whose odious views on Israel are no different than those of most ultra orthdox rabbis, and say nothing of McCain’s courting of a “minister” who thinks the Holocaust was God’s own creation. Furthermore, on all matters of race, they insist that minorities should bootstrap themselves up without government help while simultaneously arguing that Barack Obama is too stupid to keep Wright’s craziest views out of his politics.
Obama has many conventional Dem positions, so this makes him-in many ways-an ordinary politician, but I agree with enough of these positions to ask about a politician’s effectiveness in carrying them out. That’s the rub for me. That and the fact that, in many ways, Obama’s trying not to be ordinary. I count his embrace of national service as an example of this.
Finally, whoever brought up the “water buffalo” thing: hilarious. Never heard it. And as for the Nation of Islam reference: I think they’re polling higher than the GOP right now.
Thanks Jonas,
I can’t agree with you that Obama is more to blame then McCain is. Really both are far superior to Bush so in that respect I feel like we are improving.
ilan,
You make a good point. I do argue with people on the farther left but usually they are mostly smiles these days because I support Obama. But I did get into it with many Hilary people much more then i got into with McCain people a few months back though.
Again I think Bloomberg is the real deal and his leaning toward Obama has been a big influence on me ill admit.
Phil,
I don’t agree about the accusations of being the most liberal and that tag I wouldnt give a sh@t about anyhow… same as if the left calls McCain a neocon… its BS.
What does scare me a bit is I think McCain is being careless when he says we should kick Russia out of the G8.
I don’t think anyone is changing anyone elses mind here.. but its mostly positive and thought provoking.
Jay,
you just wrote an incoherent and rambling 10 paragraph rant about race, and you Obamatons claim you aren’t obsessed with race?
You still haven’t explained how any of the criticism levelled at your Anointed One is racist in any way, shape or form.
Claiming that “there is never any serious policy discussion from the likes of Kirchick and Rubin’ is simply untrue. It’s so demonstrably untrue that I can only assume you’re lying about it.
On a lighter note, the water Buffalo thing is from the late eighties or early nineties, when political correctness first became the norm on university campuses. Some obnoxious tart was hooting and hollering outside of a dorm room were students were studying and working. Because she was fat, one of the students whio stuck his head out a window and told her to shut up called her a water buffalo. Because she was Black, he was punished. He may have been expelled, I don’t remember.
Some free advice: I know it’s hard because Obama is such a lousy candidate, but stay honest when you promote him. People will take what you have to say more seriously. Falsely accusing his opponents of racism is a sure fire way to be treated as a partisan crank. Especially seeing as how bama is a racist and has always surrounded himself with extreme racists.
Hank,
if you reread my comment, you’ll notice that I didn’t endorse the description of Obama as the most “liberal’ (left-wing) politician. I would put him near the top, though. I would put McDermott, Murray, McKinney and Feingold near the top too, but once a Congressman strays left beyond the bounds of rationality, I think it’s impossible to determine which is the most demented.
You didn’t answer a single one of my queries–as usual. If you expect people to respect your opinion, you have to articulate it at the very least. If you don’t defend your positions, I cant take what you write seriously.
OK phil.. ill try..
“So tell me. What exactly excites you about the Anointed One? His rank dishonesty? His racism? His divisiveness? His ignorance? His inexperience? His arrogance? His contempt for the public? His failed policies? Maybe…….his race? Or do you honestly think his campaign slogans and endless drivel are “inspiring?””
I feel like ive answered this in many posts… this is one question correct?
Anyhow… I think his ability to build hype, motivate people, and charisma is going to be a great asset in world politics. I also think he is surrounding himself with diverse and smart people. Hagel, Bloomberg, Buffett, and many more. I also respect that he does not dumb down his speeches and conversations to the lowest common denominator as has become common practice during the Clinton and bush years. It is also kind inspiring and sends a positive message to the world and our kids that a half black guy can do this. And lastly, and maybe most important, is a McCain victory, unfairly to him, will be seen as a stamp of approval to the world, history and a good percentage of Americans and I just can’t stomach that.
I wish McCain won in 2000 I really do.
I realize most of my positions will be attacked, but they are honest and my opinions and mine only.
EDIT LAST LINE
stamp of approval OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
getting tired…
According to the twisted logic of this publication, anyone who looks in askance at Israel is an anti-Semite.
Anyone in the Obama camp though, who suspect a strain of racism in a country that is well known for its racist attitude, a country where blacks were routinely lynched 50 or so years ago, that person is delusional.
Great logic!
Oh, Philip, reading comprehension. Try it.
First, if you think Obama’s a racist, there’s nothing anyone can do to sway you. How many millions voted for him in the primaries? Were all of them-every single one-conned? Think John McCain’s a homophobe for remaining in a political party that would write gays out of the country? I don’t, but he is a deeply torn politician, just like his opponent. (And yes, I’m comfortable enough in my white skin, having paid for college on my own all the way through, to let the “typical white person” comment go; sorry you’re not.)
You didn’t engage any of the arguments in the post, you just threw feces about how long it was. Well, pardon me, but we are not writing for Harper’s in here. It is late, and I was writing on the fly. Some of us have lives.
So. Let me distill the arguments: given what we know about the historic role of arrogance in politics, what is unique about Obama’s arrogance, and why should his seeming “inexperience” prevent him from running when other greenhorns have become president, Prime Minister or what have you, and done well? I’m going to assume you’ve read enough history to know that the “young man in a hurry” campaign is not unprecedented in our politics (David Cameron, eh conservatives?), but I could be wrong about your level of historical knowledge.
The same goes for your understanding-or lack thereof-of political messages. Barry Goldwater did not deserve to have his career consumed by Lyndon Johnson’s fake mushroom cloud, just as Obama deserves to be engaged on matters of policy, not the phony contention that his cockiness is somehow sui generis. It is not. However, when they overlook the historical role of arrogance in politics and perpetually insist that Obama’s cockiness is somehow unique, some critics make it hard for observers not to conclude that there is racial resentment in play.
Jay,
What an original lay out. Seems familiar.
ok, here are the new rules.
These are the celebrity people McCain is allowed to use to poke fun at the One.
Here are the words McCain is allowed to use to poke fun at the messianism.
It is just simple speech codes, drawn out in a 10 page response. Also, your facts don’t hold up either. Please list the speech where Reagan or Bush talked about global citizenship.
Obamatons are unable to list the achievements of Obama, so you go on the offense with accusations of racism. It changes the debate, for sure, but I think most Americans understand the tactic and Obama’s poll numbers will continue to drop.
or He could just agree to the townhall meetings, and talk about how to spend the dollar bills, rather than the differences between Himself and those other presidents.
What makes it truly funny is that many of these same “racial cryptographers” don’t see anything anti-semitic about pushing the line that AIPAC and the Jews pushed us into Iraq and control our foreign policy (not to mention control the banks, media, etc.)…
Jay said:
“So. Let me distill the arguments: given what we know about the historic role of arrogance in politics, what is unique about Obama’s arrogance, and why should his seeming “inexperience” prevent him from running when other greenhorns have become president, Prime Minister or what have you, and done well?”
In another post Jay refers to Lincoln as a “middling state legislator” as his greatest accomplishment prior to becoming President. I take it Lincoln was one of these “arrogant” politicians who Jay thinks have been given a free pass while Obama is excoriated. As a constituent of both the Land of Lincoln and of Obama, I feel uniquely qualified to address these ill-informed and false statements.
First, get your facts straight. Lincoln was both a state legislator and a U.S. rep. before becoming President. His achievements as a lawyer I will address below. As a state rep., Lincoln spoke out against slavery as far back as 1837. Remember that though Illinois was not officially a slave state, Lincoln was a rep. from south-central Illinois. Two of Illnois’ border states were slave — Kentucky and Missouri — and the southern part of the state is much closer politically and culturally to the South than to the North (it still is). His position was not a popular one. Unlike Obama, Lincoln started taking unpopular positions early in his political career if he felt they were just. Obama has yet to take an unpopular position that would hurt him politically with his base. This is reason number one why people don’t trust him.
As U.S. rep. from Illinois, Lincoln ended up having to step down at the end of his term because he shot his mouth off about the Spanish-American War. He was against it, again, an unpopular position. This cost him politically. Obama only opposed the war when he represented Hyde Park in the state legislature, an effectively 100% Democrat district. When he got to the Senate, he began voting for resolutions to support the war. Only when he decided to run for President and needed to play to his insane anti-war base did he begin voting against funding the war. No political courage whatsoever. And obviously not Lincolnesque, to say the least.
As a lawyer, Lincoln was famous throughout the Midwest, particularly in connection with his work for the Illinois Central Railroad. Not only did Lincoln participate in and win many civil cases that are still cited as precedents in railroad law, but his briefs are still taught in law schools all over America for not only his legal reasoning but for the beauty of his language. There are lines Lincoln wrote as a lawyer that can make a grown man cry, I promise you. Obama, on the other hand, never wrote a single piece of legal scholarship the entire time he was a lawyer or teacher of law. Nor did he ever work on one case that became important to the law. He never even made much money as a lawyer. Is there some other benchmark by which we judge lawyers that I have forgotten?
To compare Obama to Lincoln is risible. We think Obama is arrogant because he has no history of achievement as a student, as a teacher, as a state legislator or as a senator. I will admit that he and his wife appear to be excellent parents. Other than that, I can’t think of one achievement I would point to as noteworthy.
Obama is a “celebrity without portfolio,” as Lindsey Graham so effectively summed it up. No one is arguing that Obama’s “cockiness is unique.” People are arguing that his cockiness is without portfolio, unlike that of Kennedy, Bush or McCain. Obama is to Lincoln as Andy Warhol is to Da Vinci. Please don’t come in this forum attempting to spread disinformation. You won’t get very far. This isn’t DU for DUmmies.
CFB:
great post. I too have heard Obama compared to Lincoln on numerous occasions as inexperienced, but you’ve really nailed it. (Lincoln was considered a back-woodsman and uncouth – THAT was the reason he was considered by much of the political elite as unfit for higher office – not his real accomplishments and character. If you think about it, Obama is kind of the anti-Lincoln: no real accomplishments, but, boy, is he a SMOOTH talker, and doesn’t he look good, and won’t the world be impressed if he’s our leader?)
We know we can’t say “blackhole,” as in “it disappeared down a blackhole”; we can’t use the word “niggardly”; Arkansas has to recall all license plates with the three randomly selected letters “NGR.” Now I can understand the HOPE for CHANGE. This country will be different when THE MESSIAH rules. Assuming, of course, he is not defeated by RACIST America. Meanwhile, the politically correct thought police will monitor every word you write and speak for racist meaning. Because, believe me, when you speak disparagingly about The One you are speaking in racist code, even though you do not know it. To wit:
Noah’s Shark
By JAMES TARANTO
August 5, 2008
Back in April, we noted an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times by one David K. Shipler, an expert on adjectival racism. In his view, pretty much any adjective is a few degrees of separation from a racial slur, and thus one should exercise extreme caution when modifying Barack Obama in a sentence.
Example: “ ’Elitist’ is another word for ‘arrogant,’ which is another word for ‘uppity,’ that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves.” And:
Casting Obama as “out of touch” plays harmoniously with the traditional notion of blacks as “others” at the edge of the mainstream, separate from the whole. Despite his ability to articulate the frustration and yearning of broad segments of Americans, his “otherness” has been highlighted effectively by right-wingers who harp on his Kenyan father and spread false rumors that he’s a clandestine Muslim.
Here’s another example. Some people have said Obama has a “thin résumé.” But “thin” is another word for “skinny,” which is a slur for “black.” Or so it is according to Slate’s Timothy Noah, who has found invidious racism in the pages of the venerable Wall Street Journal.
Now wait, CFB and Co.,
Yes, Lincoln was a U.S. rep, but he also had a reputation as a bit of a political also-ran at the state and federal levels, having lost races before and expressed serious doubts about the trajectory of his political career. As president, he proved to be a once in a millenium leader because he had to confront a once in a millenium moral issue. The Iraq War is tough, but it will not threaten our republic as slavery did, so of course Obama doesn’t compare to Lincoln. Let us get that straight.
However, Lincoln also had to face career-threatening whisper campaigns about his sexuality and mental health because he roomed with a man and experienced bouts of depression. Read the work of Professor C.A. Tripp and the book, “Lincoln’s Melencholy,” and you will discover that smear artists existed in Lincoln’s time, as well.
“Obama has yet to take an unpopular position that would hurt him politically with his base.”
Also false. His “base,” to the extent that it can be described as some hyper-ideological monolith, wants him to defund the war all by himself. He won’t do that, and I don’t think he should; the MoveOners ought to stick to pamphleteering in their mothers’ basements.
“Obama only opposed the war when he represented Hyde Park in the state legislature, an effectively 100% Democrat district. ”
Any way you spin it, this is BS. I supported the war from the start, but I also laughed at its opponents. The climate was quite cutthroat at the time, and the president had the public overwhelmingly on his side, so opposing the war took some measure of guts. I would add that it is possible to oppose a war on principle yet vote to continue funding it. For it will be the responsibility of the next president to end the war humanely, and ending the war in a humane manner will probably require us to keep funding it as we gradually bring it to a close. Also, whether or not one opposed a particular war at the start says something about the kind of foreign policy thinker she is. There is no evidence that McCain will not see an electoral win as a validation of his philosophy of pre-emption. This was necessary on the matter of Iraq, I think, but not workable as fixed US policy without the reinstatement of the draft, which McCain, and the majority of Americans, oppose.
“(H)e has no history of achievement as a student, as a teacher…” Really? He was sharp enough to get into, and excel at, Columbia and Harvard. I’ve read arguments her suggesting he was solely an Affirmative Action admit; by that logic, no minority candidate would get into Columbia or Harvard. Also, doing well in school is a conservative virtue, and you righties
extoll excellence in education, provided it is achieved through vouchers and private schools, by your preferred list of scholars, from Buckley, to Connerly, to Sowell. Furthermore, as an ex-teacher myself, I would contend that respect from former students and colleagues as a strong mentor and thinker count for a great deal. Obama had both, whereas finishing fifth from the bottom of one’s class is hardly something to be proud of. Comes the question, when will the magazine of Rustin stop being so viscerally anti-intellectual?
“Obama, on the other hand, never wrote a single piece of legal scholarship the entire time he was a lawyer or teacher of law.”
Editors of law reviews often refrain from publishing their own work. In fact, according to many of his conservative UC colleagues, Obama spent more time bettering their arguments than anything else, which shows me he was never a flaming lefty ideologue.
At the legislative level, the Obama-Lugar loose nuke bill and the Obama-Coburn gov’t. transparency legislation are a big deal to wonks like myself. I’m not going to apologize for following issues. Again, this stuff isn’t as sexy as campaign finance reform or immigration, but McCain’s work on all of that has since failed. So, for all his years in Washington, McCain’s own legislative record has suffered significant body blows.
Finally, Kennedy and Bush. Funny you should bring them up. First, JFK: since when are using your father’s connections to get into congress and stuff ballot boxes with the votes of Chicago’s dead considered accomplishments? As for W., he was a failed congressional candidate and businessman who also relied upon his father to bail him out. His only real authority as Texas governor rested in executing criminals. Of course, the power of the executive branch varies from state to state, and Texas’s is as weak as Virginia’s, which is why I flinch at the though of Tim Kaine on a Dem ticket.
Regarding McCain: he is plenty more honorable than Kennedy and W., but family name and eventual wealth did play a part in his rise; even the good senator knows he mustn’t run on his war heroism alone.
For the record, I find Tim Noah’s freakout to be ridiculous. Taranto’s right. For once.
And here’s a bit for Jonas re “citizen of the world”:
“I’ve had to make some very difficult decisions, as you know, and I made the decisions based upon what I think is in the best interest of my country, the security of my country. But I also believe the decisions I have made will end up helping people realize the great blessings of liberty. I believe people ought to be able to worship freely, or not worship at all, but you’re equally a citizen of the world. I believe that poverty and hopelessness in the spirit can be changed. I believe the United States has got an obligation to help others.”
Bush in ’06 (http://tinyurl.com/5l732w)
Bush I: http://tinyurl.com/6hp9b2
Reagan: http://tinyurl.com/63cnvf