Hope, Change, Hate

BHO has tried to campaign almost entirely on his skills as an orator, his now almost self-parody of stating change, self-styling himself as a bipartisan healer, and an ideas of post-racial unity. He's saying he's beyond the normal politician.

For bipartisan chops... his record speaks for itself (remember that previous post about that being a dirty trick?). This is why his campaign has been fuzzy on the details and high on the savior rhetoric.

He's even got posters made up for himself using the same artist behind "Obey the Giant".
What used to be satire of Soviet propaganda is now earnestly being used to stump for the latest "Dear Leader"


For the racial healing and unity part...

Neglecting the question of if it's even the job of the US president to "save our souls", "heal our meanness", or "bring us together". Does BHO even have the ability to do it?

Consider the situation with Revered Wright.
This was a pastor in a church that BHO reached out for, one that he has gone to for twenty years, has donated to. This is the same preacher that he had marry him and his wife, that baptized his daughters, that was even the source for his autobiography (kind of odd that he's already written that).

So this is not a casual relationship.

And what kind of man is the Reverend? A youtube search can be very illuminating.
Look up things like: CIA, US government, Jews behind crack-cocaine, AIDS being made by the US government to kill blacks, that America deserved 911, that whites are responsible for a whole litany of ills.

In short, the man is a hater and a racists. He preaches hate.

I'm sure that the proper "context" would make it all better. And it's only fair. I mean when it came out that Huckabee's spiritual advisor has spewed a constant stream of racists and paranoid ranting... Oh wait that didn't happen. It doesn't take much imagination to see what would happen if a Republican had a history with a preacher of this degree of hate.

Now you'd think this, spiritual mentor, to BHO would be an ideal candidate for him to help?
But you see... that would require BHO to actually do something and take an uncomfortable stand. He'd rather have it both ways.

Just look at his tepid response to this scandal

Until this speech BHO was saying he never heard his pastor say such hateful and unhinged things. Which given the 20 years meant that BHO was either lying, massively unobservant, or astronomically lucky.

One nice thing about this speech. It clears things up, BHO was lying.

His response also shows how he tries to wriggle and two step around this issue. He won't condemn this hateful man, but he'll criticize the rest of us for not getting the context.

At least one nice thing is that this has shown that BHO is just the same old politician we can expect from the far left. Unwilling to deal with the madmen and snakes in his own party.

He's met with members of the 60's radical group The Weathermen. Unapologetic domestic terrorists.


But like the Rezko scandal and the Powers scandal (wow... BHO also touts his judgment... guess it doesn't apply to when he picks associates) this is just Obama playing politics.

He worked with Rezko, wheel greaser extraordinaire to help get further in the Chicago political machine, and he associated with this church for a long time to build up his reputation in the "Black Community".

Well it's either that or BHO really does like listening to hateful, vitriol.

He's also said he would no more disown Wright than he would his Grandma. Obama also seems to forget that while you can't pick your family (or at least his racist white grandmother) you can pick your friends. Or in this case your pastor.



Oh yes... how does BHO deal with racism in past instances?


I doubt this would mean much to those that already feel Obama will heal their souls, but to those still on the fence... it's disturbing.

It's been a very... interesting election.

Having it both ways or just "nuanced"?

It seems that OHL (Must be careful not to use his full name) is having his past examined.

Now it seems a bit "old fashioned" to judge a man who wants to be president based on past choices; it'd be much nicer if we were all to just get weak in the knees at his speeches.

Maybe we should look into the character of a man Obama saw fit to marry him and his wife, baptize his daughters, and from whom he got the title to his autobiography. Rand has some thoughts on that and what said preacher is like.

Not exactly the clergy man you'd expect a "uniter" and "post-racial" man to seek out.

Related, John Podhoretz on why Hillary! is staying in. Of course she's biding her time.

Obama's Change

More changes from Obama. From someone in Iraq.

Anyway, if Obama agrees that al-Qaeda is already in Iraq, and if he is aware of recent military successes against AQI, then the obvious question at the center of the election is, what now? Obama’s answer seems to be, let’s get out, but if the situation becomes what I already know it is, let’s resume military action to stop it. Huh?

Hat tip Glen

Odds and Ends about Obama

Michelle Obama's had a few... odd turns of phrase as of late. A few days ago she said “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,” about her husband running for president. Isn't that a bit... shallow? You'd think she'd mention some other stuff, civil rights or something else, right now the Obama campaign is getting disturbingly self referential.

In a later speech she said "Barack Will Never Allow You to Go Back to Your Lives as Usual." and indicated the use of presidential power to make people not be cynical and apathetic. The link has more info,

Combined with messiah rhetoric... it's creepy. It's going a bit beyond politics and into... worship.

James Lileks a great commentator on minutia of daily life and other pop-culture debris rounds out talking about his car heater problems and treacherous murals to mention something about Obama supporters He was listening to a radio call in show where the hosts were asking people to call in and say what they liked about him...

Follow the link to see some of the reasons. As I mentioned here it fits in with Rand Simberg's feelings on him being an Empty Suit.


The gem from Like's post:

There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. I remember the same zeitgeist afoot in the land in 1992; change was the mantra then, too. Odd how things turn out – I’d be happier with Hillary as President than Obama, simply because she seems a bit more seasoned and realistic. And I do find it interesting that people who have decried the shallow, theatrical, emotion-based nature of contemporary politics are now so effusive in their praise for someone’s ability to move crowds. Perhaps they don’t mind a fellow on a white horse if he promises to nationalize the stables.

A simple hint, if you're a senator and going on national TV to stump for Obama... make sure you can handle softball questions about him. Like: "Name his legislative accomplishments." Did the guy expect to have such an easy interview that no one woudl ask him to give reasons for his support? I make fun of the MSN but they're not that bad... right?


I've mentioned it before but maybe this is why Earl Ofari Hutchinson thinks campaigning on issues and fasts is a "low down dirty trick."


Is this what we've come down too? I thought the 2004 campaign was bad, but at least the supporters of Kerry or Bush actually could say more about what their guys did. There was more substance than just "Bla Bla Bla Hope. Bla Bla Bla Change."

A bomb goes off in Copenhagen

Developing

Good for Ryan Miller

I'm a fan of the Sabres hockey team.

Which made today's preformance a real shame, but disapointment is a part of being a fan of a Buffalo sports team.

But anyway I saw an interesting add today.

Ryan Miller in an endorsment

It's an okay add but neat, and fun to see his some clips of him in action.

End through Winning?

On the anniversary or the Surge's start Gatewaypundit has information on the changing situation in Iraq.

" It goes without saying... There would be no party, parade or cake today if the Democrats had their way."
Go read it. What's linked in there is more informative than my rambling thoughts. Remember, if the Democrats got what they wanted, this would not be happening. That's important to consider.

Hmm... Iraq having violence go down to a very significant degree. Their parliament has passed three laws that are very critical to the political benchmarks.

If things hold out for the next few months, something that gets more and more likely with each passing day, and if a democrat is elected to the Whitehouse will they pull out? Will they appease their radical left in the face of reality? Are they that cynical to destroy a fledgling democracy that might get it's start just to appease their base, just because they hate an ineloquent Texan?

Which would be more important to them appeasing the ironically named "reality-based community" or not screwing things up worse than Bush ever did? Bush took a totalitarian state and made it into a mess of near civil war and then let someone competent take over and start to turn things around.

Speaking of cake the new president has a chance to have it and eat it too. If things go well enough they can end the war and do it in the amazing way by WINNING it. You know... having more democracy, more freedom, more rights for women. How... progressive.

A more stable Iraq would require less troops, and the US has a long history of basing troops for decades in territory long after the fighting: Cuba, Philippines, Japan, Germany, Korea, ect... ect.

Would the new president do this? That depends on what they care about more, and how the reality of the situation goes. The American populace doesn't like the War, but they hate loosing even more, especially when it looks like victory is closer now than ever before.