I'm not talking about the tile in the bathroom, either. But instead, I'm talking about Obama... and Hillary.
I've been out of contact this weekend - went with the Den up to Chilhowee Gliderport in Tennassee, and I get back to some very strange goings-on.
Obama's left his church, purportedly because of their racist stance. Now, I'm a trifle confused at how he could be an apparently very active member of that church for TWO DECADES and suddenly go "Damn! I didn't realize it was Black Liberation Theology nuttiness! I'm outta here!"
There are rumors that a tape of his wife in full-blown racist-rant-mode is about to surface. I would not be terribly surprised if such a thing did exist - what I've seen of Michelle Obama on TV gives me the impression she's a rather hate-filled person. Oh, I'm sure she's fine with puppies and kittens, but there's a certain, um, coldness about her that I've found unsettling. Could have just been bad editing or staging, but she comes off as much more Hillary-esque than Laura Bush-esque - and not in a nice way, either. She, I could imagine, would have no problem shouting "Out of the way, cracker!" as First Lady if someone got in her way.
It seems strange to me that the path to healing the racial divide would first require getting in office someone who's gone to an overtly racist church, where a racist theology is spoken and taught. Perhaps someone smarter than I can explain how, for example, electing a confirmed and practicing KKK member as President would be a good thing for minorities, Jews and Catholics here in the US...
If someone can manage that, I've no doubt the Obama campaign could use them.
Hillary's been staying in the contest much longer than I would have expected - and done 'better' in places than I thought. How well she's going to do in the general election, I can't say. However - there's a couple of problems that I see.
Firstly, there's been a lot of folks who've registered Democrat because of identity politics. You have a Black and a Woman competing - no matter who wins there's going to be disaffected partisan voters. That's going to hurt the turnout for the Dems. It's also showing that the Democratic Party hasn't set itself up to be the party of all - but it's perhaps not terribly suprising considering how much of the Democratic Party identity has been focused on pandering to specific identity groups.
For the last 8 years, the Democrats have been driving a wedge into their own internal structure. Now it's deep enough to hurt badly - and I don't think it can take much more.
J.
Comments (7)
"I'm a trifle confused at how he could be an apparently very active member of that church for TWO DECADES and suddenly go "Damn! I didn't realize it was Black Liberation Theology nuttiness! I'm outta here!" "
Heh heh....that's funny!
Here's a blog for you to check out - lots of stuff on Obama, with links to a blog with even more. I'm convinced that the whole church thing was simply following Alinsky in his recommendation to use churches to gain an already organized group to begin political action with. Also, since O looked black (even though it appears he has only one ancester who was actually african - the rest appear to have been arab, and may even been among those who shipped other africans into slavery!), it gave him entry into a group that was already disaffected. Prime real estate for someone who planned on a social revolution.
http://pundita.blogspot.com/
Posted by suek | June 2, 2008 12:46 PM
Posted on June 2, 2008 12:46
I'm not surprised that Obama left the Trinity UCC when his membership there became a political liability. As far as I can tell from his political career, Obama didn't join the Trinity United Church of Christ for any readily discernible moral or spiritual reason. Apparently he joined Trinity because it was a powerhouse in the South Side Politiical arena. Because of Trinity's Rev. Jerimah Wright's political connections and the church's established leadership in the South Side's black community membership there had to be considered vital merit badge on Obama's quest to be the the second United States Senator from the South Side of Chicago and its first to be elected President.
Obama joined Trinity UCC in 1988 when he was a summer associate at the Chicago law firm Sidley & Austin. Four years later he graduated Harvard and returned to Chicago and Trinity.
In Oct. 1992 Obama married fellow attorney Michelle Robinson and Rev. Wright officiated. Interestingly, it's unknown to Google when the new Mrs. Obama became a member of the Trinity UCC.
When Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer decided to give up her seat in the Illinois State House to run for Congres in 1995, she hand-picked local left-winger and political newcomer Barack Obama as her successor.
Once Obama was on the ballot he didn't let a little thing like old friendships or political obligations hinder his style.
Obama is a politician, first, last and always. Anything that get in the way of his either being re-elected or elected to a higher office is not just expendable but discardable.
Obama will do or say anything get his hands on the Governmental Stick of Power and he's not about to let anyone or anything get in his way.
otpu
* Some people will seek the Stick of Governmental Power so they can use it on others.
* Others will seek the Stick of Power to prevent themselves from being beaten with it.
* Regardless of who holds it, the Stick of Power will whisper in it's bearer's ear and beg to the bearer to fulfill its purpose to beat someone, anyone, even if just a little bit.
Posted by otpu | June 2, 2008 10:59 PM
Posted on June 2, 2008 22:59
John -
The worst thing about Obama, from my point of view - is that he seems adamantly convinced he IS as good as he thinks he is, and he IS going to be able to 'heal the racial divide'.
I don't see he's got much of a legislative record, and his ideas are practical only if you rescind the laws of nature and lobotomize the entire country. He's not king, though I think he believes that once he's in office then all sorts of arcane powers will be his.
J.
Posted by JLawson | June 3, 2008 11:18 PM
Posted on June 3, 2008 23:18
Suek -
The problem with social revolutions is that usually they're very bloody and painful. I don't see Obama having sufficient determination to do anything that might be painful...
J.
Posted by JLawson | June 3, 2008 11:21 PM
Posted on June 3, 2008 23:21
>>The problem with social revolutions is that usually they're very bloody and painful.>>
Not if you get control of the society from within. If Obama wins, Democrats will control the Presidency, and both houses of Congress. They will enact the Marxist principles they've wanted to put in place for decades. I don't think the SC can do anything to prevent their destruction.
Look at Chavez - _some_ blood and violence maybe, but not much. It _will_ take blood and violence to get rid of him. I suspect the same may be true of the US if the Dems take hold. Maybe not - but I don't think it's beyond the Dems to fix elections, and kill free speech (as in talk radio and maybe even the internet).
Posted by suek | June 4, 2008 11:03 AM
Posted on June 4, 2008 11:03
They're already doing their damndest to stifle free expressions with PC 'rules' - and they've been talking about making sure the airwaves are 'fair', since it's heavily conservative.
Funny thing - wasn't Air America supposed to counteract the conservative stance? I think all they succeeded in doing was making it very clear just how abhorrent 'progressive' thoughts and attitudes are to the average listener.
We'll see - but I'm really starting to think Obama's not going to have a chance...
And a lot of other people, when faced with the fact that the Democrats are ineffectual at best and liars at worst, aren't going to be voting Democrat this year...
J.
Posted by JLawson | June 4, 2008 1:28 PM
Posted on June 4, 2008 13:28
Think you'll enjoy this...
http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/06/acknowledging-his-many-accomplishments.html
Posted by suek | June 5, 2008 11:08 AM
Posted on June 5, 2008 11:08