Posted on 10/08/2012 11:57:10 PM PDT by neverdem
In February 2001, Julieanna Richardson, as part of an oral history on black Americans called "History Makers," interviewed Barack Obama at length.
Although the 10,000-plus-word interview offers no Eureka moments, it does help demystify Obama's debate failure and deepens the doubt that he uniquely authored his own memoir, Dreams from My Father. Kudos to attorney Barron Sawyer for bringing this interview to light.
Richardson seems to capture the 39-year-old state senator as he was -- cautious, ambitious, and more than a little vain. Given his ambitions, Obama confined his discussion to topics that would not derail his political career. When asked about his influences, for instance, he did not mention Frank Marshall Davis, his communist mentor from Hawaii, or any of the other communists and fellow travelers he cited in Dreams, like Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, W.E.B. DuBois, and Frantz Fanon.
Off the cuff, here as always, Obama did not...
--snip--
Complicating Obama's debating posture was his inability to express his truest sentiments. As he told Richardson, he had long been asking himself, "... how do we bring about more just society? You know, what are the institutional arrangements that would give people opportunity?" He had learned as a boy in Indonesia that the wealthy were not "smarter or more able" than the poor, but rather "craftier, stronger or luckier, or more ruthless."
As Obama matured, he projected what he saw in Indonesia to America and came to see that the "racism in the United States is just one expression of sort of a broader set of injustices that you see around the world." Unable to voice his core beliefs in the debate, Obama lacked a true organizing principle around which to order his thoughts. This problem will plague him in the foreign policy debate as well, perhaps even more...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Yessir. I further contend that his pride has been the primary obstacle to most of his attempts to govern while in office.
Though I prefer to think that the cause was Obama's repugnant political philosophy, you are probably correct. All the Dems need is a shrewder leader and we'll all be socialists.
There are parts of his philosophy that are repugnant to most Americans, such as the anti-colonialism and the racism he possesses towards whites and especially Jews.
But as to the socialism, you are also probably correct. America is not as anti-Socialist as it used to be, due to the indoctrination at schools and the proliferation of Hispanic and African-American minorities that, on the whole, do not view socialism with disdain.
?
I don't get it. We are buds, but I don't get this comment.
Comsidering that Obama's most ardent supporters are Newsreaders who make millions displaying a similar skill, while calling themselves "Journalists", this is hardly surprising.
“his ability to read well”
He reads without comprehension; if he was quizzed on what he had just read he would fail.
I think both of you are 100% correct. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.
I think he’s saying we can beat this guy based on 4y of performance alone. I think incrementally you can pull some voters away from O by throwing this stuff on the wall as well.
BTTT
Another bump for a video I need to see.
That's a terrific analogy!
Make sure you read the entire article at link....Fauxbombah can no longer keep up the frauxnt.
If I understand this, they are saying that Romney is stronger in the debate because he is speaking from core beliefs while Obama would be tarred and feathered if he spoke from his core beliefs, so he must debate from a position with which he disagrees.
Actually, it makes sense.
Right!
He fooled the minority voters and the guilt ridden Liberals with no trouble at all. THEIR standards are not exactly insurmountable and their bias has conditioned them to think of mediocrity as an acceptable norm.
If he wants to convince anyone else, he’d have to start making some sense.
He can’t do that and remain within the traditional American political process.
Supporting and accepting an avowed Communist is not something the majority of Americans can properly bring themselves to do at this point.
My exact conclusion about O. He’s trapped without TOTUS. He cannot tell us what he really thinks because he knows he’d lose half if his support.
Thanks for ping- Cashill is so good.
The reader of Dreams had a right to expect more from "the best writer to occupy the White House since Lincoln" than this interview offers.Do the liberal butt-lickers really call him that?
Now, that’s funny...
-— Unable to voice his core beliefs in the debate, Obama lacked a true organizing principle around which to order his thoughts. This problem will plague him in the foreign policy debate as well, perhaps even more... -—
Great insight.
On the stump, he normally disguises his marxism as populism. But populism is hard to defend under cross-examination.
Post of the Day!
Sadly, this represents a large number of black Americans.
Even more sadly, it cannot be fixed.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f66_1349470513
Watch that short video to see some angry black idiots typical of today’s inner city feral black male gangbangers.
Funny, how yet again, we Americans must count on a foreign press to show us the reality of our own inner cities.
.
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.