Posted on 03/19/2008 4:00:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
Did Senator Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia convince people that he is still a viable candidate to be President of the United States, despite the adverse reactions to statements by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright?
The polls and the primaries will answer that question.
The great unasked question for Senator Obama is the question that was asked about President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; What did he know and when did he know it?
Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination a year ago.
Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead.
Why not, if it is only now that Senator Obama is learning for the first time, to his surprise, what kinds of things Jeremiah Wright has been saying and doing?
No one had to be in church the day Wright made his inflammatory and obscene remarks to know about them.
The cable news journalists who are playing the tapes of those sermons were not there. The tapes were on sale in the church itself. Obama knew that because he had bought one or more of those tapes.
But even if there were no tapes, and even if Obama never heard from other members of the church what their pastor was saying, he spent 20 years in that church, not just as an ordinary member but also as someone who once donated $20,000 to the church.
There was no way that he didn't know about Jeremiah Wright's anti-American and racist diatribes from the pulpit.
Someone once said that a con man's job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.
Accordingly, Obama's Philadelphia speech -- a theatrical masterpiece -- will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now "move on," even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush's 2000 election victory.
Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama's speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.
Best-selling author Shelby Steele's recent book on Barack Obama ("A Bound Man") has valuable insights into both the man and the circumstances facing many other blacks -- especially those who were never part of the black ghetto culture but who feel a need to identify with it for either personal, political or financial reasons.
Like religious converts who become more Catholic than the Pope, such people often become blacker-than-thou. For whatever reason, Barack Obama chose a black extremist church decades ago -- even though there was no shortage of very different churches, both black and white -- in Chicago.
Some say that he was trying to earn credibility on the ghetto streets, to facilitate his work as a community activist or for his political career. We may never know why.
But now that Barack Obama is running for a presidential nomination, he is doing so on a radically different basis, as a post-racial candidate uniquely prepared to bring us all together.
Yet the past continues to follow him, despite his attempts to bury it and the mainstream media's attempts to ignore it or apologize for it.
Shelby Steele depicts Barack Obama as a man without real convictions, "an iconic figure who neglected to become himself."
Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people's psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy.
But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No.
And just as expected, we now see the phony old school media telling us there was something special about his speech, about his delivery – when there really wasn’t anything special about it, neither in what was going to be and turned out to be his obvious and expected c.y.a. response, nor in how he delivered it. In fact, pretty much anyone could have predicted and given the same talking points before he even stepped up to the podium with all those American flags in the background, and they would have been dead on as to the same talking points that ended up coming out of his mouth.
Predicted. Obvious. Nothing special. Neither in content. Nor in delivery.
He doesn’t make it to the final rounds of this “American Idol of Politics” contest – and the phony liberal media can try to pretend otherwise but as Simon Cowell would say, “sorry, eleven year old girls may fall for this one but it was predictable, boring, this was really La La Land” . . .
“And guess who Lieberman is backing for President. He thinks the Dem contenders don’t have the “right stuff.”
And he is right to think that. McCain is my choice for President as well.
Obama has a number of negatives that will cost him votes. These include:
*He failure to distance himself from Rev. Wright sufficiently. Not only does Rev. Wright engage in inflammatory statements, but he lies - about AIDS, South Africa, etc. His comments about his grandmother were stupid. Can you imagine a conservative saying the same things about a spiritual adviser who promotes KKK? The speech gave Ferraro's comments credibility.
*Lack of experience.
*Wimpy image. He was too afraid to appear on FNC debate, and dismissed FNC viewers.
*He supported licenses for illegal aliens and he voted against the Cronyn amendment - this by itself makes him unsuited for POTUS.
America will get what most of America deserves.
Obama has already been getting 90% of the black vote and they are going to vote for him no matter what he says.
He needs to keep the white voters he already has and convince others to vote for him to win the nomination for president.
How many potential votes did Obama gain and how many did he lose with his "I Have A Whine" speech?
We saw a black man running for president of the United States lecturing white Americans that they need to stop being racists and start doing more for blacks.
The black man was wearing a $2,000 suit.
He and his wife have Ivy League law degrees.
They live in a $1.6 million dollar home purchased with some underhanded financial support from a political supporter.
His wife earned about $300k ayear after getting a $200,000 a year unearned raise when he was elected to the US Senate where he tried to get channel a handout of $1,000,000 in taxpayers money to her employer.
She also has an income of $50,000 a year for sitting on the board of directors of a company named TreeHouse Foods.
They had an income of about $1,600,000 in 2005.
They had an income of about $1,000,000 in 2006.
Their children go to expensive private schools.
In 2005 they donated $22,500 to their church where the primary message is to hate whites and hate America.
On the other hand a large number of the white Americans he lectured have lost their manufacturing jobs, are out of work, or working any job they can get.
They are raising families on $50,000 a year or less and pay high taxes.
They see much of their tax money going to social programs benefiting blacks, many of whom do not work and complain that the government doesn't do enough for them.
Their tax money is used to bus their kids to public schools in other neighborhoods instead of attending their neighborhood schools.
Many are veterans and very patriotic.
Should we add "cheap" to the list of adjectives that describe the Illinois Senator?
As I understand it, Christians are asked to "tithe" (that means ten percent) of their income to the church. The Obamas made millions over that twenty year period, and they paid a mere $20,000 in offerings? Their "one time" offering amounts to $1,000 per year.
Brings to mind the story of the widow's mite:
Luke 21:1-4
1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
Oh well, I'm sure the Obamas were donating of their abundance to other worthy causes, rather than limiting it to "Christian" churches.
Ain’t teleprompters wonderful in reducing the need to answer concerns with ahhh, ummm and you know?
LLS
Clinton Leads Obama by 26 points
YA THINK?
But now that Barack Obama is running for a presidential nomination, he is doing so on a radically different basis, as a post-racial candidate uniquely prepared to bring us all together.
Running as a post-racial candidate? My goodness, what a line. Anyone who has any doubts about racial issues needs only to listen to his "spiritual adviser" for answers - NOT.
I never knew that type of "racist hate speech" was used on a regular basis in predominately black churches. Now I can see why there is still a racial issue in this country. All the members attending that church (plus probably many more) were indoctrinated into "hate the white people" and "it's America's fault" on a regular basis.
The rest of the country has moved beyond the racial issue for the most part. In the history of American politics, it is always the democrats using the race, gender, class, _____________(insert issue needed on line). Affirmative action, EEO, welfare, etc., were all used by the left to keep the "unfortunate" in the same sad state of dependence on more and more government assistance.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I really enjoyed his choice of words in his sermon to us. I aspecially liked the part about some of Wright’s rants being “controversial”. Realy???
My dictionary defines controversial as open to controversy,debatable or disputed.
No debate,no dispute,pure HATE SPEECH!
By saying such statements are controversial,he tells us which side of any dispute he is on. What a snake!
Exactly! No way, absolutely no way, he didn't know.
Obama's campaign reminds me of a verse from a Pink Floyd song Breath Reprise (especially ironic because chief lyrics writer, Roger Waters, is such a left-wing nut case):
Far away, across the field,
The tolling of the iron bell,
Calls the faithfull to their knees,
To hear the softly-spoken magic spell.
Great way to lay out the facts.
Obama has already been getting 90% of the black vote and they are going to vote for him no matter what he says.
So much for not judging people based on the color of their skin.
Obama is not a myth to me. He is nothing but one of thse who talk a lot, while saying absolutely nothing
You’re welcome
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.