Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nicholas Thompson who wrote (26838)	4/27/2008 11:19:28 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224680

Obama the Grievance Candidate:From Obama to the Wild Bunch V D HANSON BLOG Paradoxes everywhere What strange paradoxes: the more the Democrats tried to show their egalitarian fides, they more they crafted an undemocratic nominating process; the more Obama talked of transcending race, the more he appealed to racial solidarity; the more Bill Clinton stumped and shook hands, the more he threw away his legacy; and the more Hillary and Barack slurred McCain as a right-wing nut, the more they repaired his relations with the his conservative base. And all this is only half-way through… Obama and race Lately a number of Obama's African-American supporters have taken the airways to make the argument that his astounding percentages of 90% and above among African-American voters are not racialist because the community would not vote in such numbers for a Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice. But that is a dangerous comparison that raises only more questions. So it's politics, not race? Why then not a mere 60/40 margin over the ultra-liberal Hillary, wife of our first "black" President? The answer? Obama represents a certain racial chauvinism that neither a white liberal nor black conservative can convey. In other words, in the world of identity politics, he seems to reflect an authentic representation of grievance, and a perpetuation of the entire industry of racial reparations. Most think the corpus of Rev. Wright's sayings, comments like "typical white person", and snotty condescension about white Middle American yokels were terrible gaffes. True, but such wedge politicking apparently ensures him the astounding margins in the African-American community that really are unprecedented—when not long ago there were concerns among his strategists that he might not capture the black vote in such numbers. That problem of authenticy was put to rest by his choice not to disown Rev. WRIGHT. Speaking of whom, the snippets from his interview with a fawning Bill Moyers were about as disingenuous as they come. He claimed they were out of context and his critics divisive, but never disowned what he said. He claimed he was a pastor outside of politics, but his attraction apparently hinges on his political views about everything from the AIDs conspiracy to apartheid. And on and on. The problem with Rev. WRIGHT is, well, he loves the attention, makes a profit on it, and won't shut up. And as long as he is not disowned by Obama, the more Obama has to explain why he continues to worship in that church, whether WRIGHT is or is not really retired, and what exactly did Obama know and when did he know it. A fair reading of the Obama memoirs suggests he knew exactly what WRIGHT was saying and heard a great deal of it. It doesn't help his cause that when CNN and Fox bring in analysts from the universities (e.g., African-American studies professors), they not only excuse Obama, but WRIGHT too!—usually by the tactic of redefining a Martin Luther King not as a healer, but a proto-firebrand like WRIGHT. That sounds catchy and may ooh and aah the white elite base, but in the general election the defense of WRIGHT and what he stands for will prove catastrophic. To fathom the soul of the Obama campaign juxtapose Obama's Pennsylvania comments alongside the recent Axelrod's dismissal of the need to reach out to the white working class: "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes." Now we wait to hear the "context" for "don't rely".