RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

What happens when you’re afraid, Barack?

Barack Obama, when he was safely ensconced in elite environs, opined that “bitter” smalltown white people — supposedly afraid because of economic uncertainty — “cling” to guns, God and bigotry. But, now, we suspect that Obama himself is scared. And, watching Barack’s actions in recent days, we’re spotting clues that he, his campaign and his surrogates are indeed consumed by fear.

Barack Obama is afraid: He has cancelled the debate in North Carolina (and we have proof, to be posted soon).

Barack Obama is afraid: He has openly predicted he’ll lose tomorrow.

Barack Obama is afraid: He has gotten notably “nasty” in his attacks.

Barack Obama is afraid: He has not taken any questions for 10 days from traveling reporters, who are “struggling” to speak with him.

Barack’s campaign is afraid: He has outspent Hillary three-to-one in Pennsylvania, and shattered all records for expenditures in any political race in Pennsylvania’s history.

Barack’s campaign is afraid: He has outspent Hillary by $7,000,000 in television ads alone.

Barack Obama is afraid: His campaign has set an imaginary 11% as the percentage Hillary Clinton must win by tomorrow.

Barack Obama and surrogates are afraid: His mouthpiece Ed Schultz — that bloviating AM radio host — just told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto that Clinton must win by 15% tomorrow.

Barack Obama’s campaign is afraid: They say that Hillary’s new ad is fear-mongering.

But the worst of the “spin” coming from him as well as his campaign and surrogates is to call Hillary’s supporters a bunch of racists. It is indeed a sad day when otherwise intelligent people are now so fearful about a looming loss in Pennsylvania that they are willing to chuck their own dignity, credibility and character to make such a demeaning, indefensible charge. Even a heretofore respected “progressive” blogger has strongly inferred that Obama can’t win in parts of Pennsylvania because of “racial resistance,” a coy phrasing that is “code” to indicate that all of those white voters are driven to vote against Obama because of the color of his skin.

Here’s the skinny on the racist gambit: Barack Obama’s hardcore followers have erected the lowest form of excuses, that are in fact racist, in order to pin the blame for Obama’s impending loss on “typical white people” — especially white men:

This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. … [...]

[T]he outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them.

– That’s written by a highly prominent Obama supporter on the pages of Huffington Post today …

PhotobucketJust who is that prominent Obama follower? She is Carl Bernstein’s “bitter” ex, about whom she wrote a “bitter” tell-all in Heartburn, a novel and screenplay.

Ephron is also the writer for You’ve Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle, and the aptly-named upcoming film Flipped, billed as a “perfect introduction to the adolescent war between the sexes.” (And it sounds like Nora is still fighting an adolescent battle between the sexes as well as between sexism and racism.)

Hell, the title of her HuffPo article is “White Men.”

In good part, Barack Obama’s remarks to that wealthy San Francisco crowd were, in fact, racist remarks about “typical white people” in small Pennsylvanian towns who “cling” to guns and religion.

What would Nora Ephron know about those typical white men, given that she is a wealthy, elite Hollywood screenwriter who socializes in the most select, monied social circles?

And what would Barack Obama know about typical white men, given that he prefers the company of corrupt elite politicians in large-city Chicago as well as anti-American radicals like William Ayers and homophobic preachers like Jeremiah Wright and James Meeks?

Except for his occasional forays into rural Illinois to win his Senate seat in 2004, and this year’s occasional trips to rural America to woo voters, he never is around “typical white men.”

And here’s what Nora Ephron and Barack Obama don’t know: They don’t know that these “typical white men,” many of whom I know and live near and who are good, good neighbors to me, would NEVER not vote for a qualified candidate because of the color of his skin. Oh, maybe a very few would be racist enough to let that factor stop them. But the vast majority of those “typical white men” are better than that. They have more character than that. And they know REAL LIFE a hell of a lot more than Nora Ephron or Barack Obama do.

But I will tell you one thing about those “typical white men” that I know well: They count a candidate’s character and who he has associated himself with as IMPORTANT indicators of what the candidate is made of.

The Washington Post‘s elite television columnist Tom Shales may not think that the questions in that ABC debate last Wednesday were important, but the “typical white men” who I know were GLAD to hear those questions. Those questions told them 1) the history of Obama’s choices in his associates and campaign benefactors, and 2) how Obama would react when confronted with a stressful question. And they saw that Obama could not handle the tough questions that relate to his character and his choices in his associations.

Now, Joe Scarborough is not so removed from the “typical white men” he has known during his days before and in his years as a Florida congressman that he doesn’t recognize the importance of questions about Obama’s longtime disturbing, close relationships with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers. And that was one point he was trying to make the other day on MSNBC, in a heated exchange with far-left Air America elitist Rachel Maddow (who is one of those “political analysts” who’s in the tank for Obama but won’t come out and say so, which she should):

Good for Joe for walking off the set of that pathetic program. When I watched the tape at Huffington Post, I paused it for a moment. Then I saw this, and simply had to capture the image for all of you to see:

Photobucket

As I wrote in a comment in another thread today, these elitist Obama followers have already set up the “narrative” for Barack Obama’s loss tomorrow, particularly if Hillary Clinton throttles him.

i can already hear the carefully-phrased commentaries that will come from the MSNBO commentators Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Can’t you? Perhaps Olbermann and Matthews can borrow the phrase “racial resistance” to explain away Obama’s loss and to pin the blame on smalltown white people.

His loss will be remembered, among the elite, as the fault of those “typical white men.”

I doubt that economic hard times make people want to buy a gun, search for God, or become a bigot.  But I do know from watching Barack and his campaign during the last week, that fear is the root of racism.  And who is showing fear?

  • Pingback: It Ain’t the Color of the Skin, It’s the Thickness : NO QUARTER

  • Nag

    Excellent post, Susan! You’ve hit it right out of the park.

    This disturbs me:

    But I don’t really have a feel for the Southwest and the Northeast. If Clinton is really carrying 70% there then there is a level of racial resistance to his campaign that I had feared but hoped would not materialize.

    This is from the “heretofore respected “progressive” blogger” of whom you spoke. If this was the only blog you read for the past few months, you wouldn’t know about the existence of Rezko, Auchi or Ayers. When you live in a bubble that thick, you have to just blindly accept this racist shit to rationalize your fear of the truth.

    • simon, too

      That’s it, see how selective psychology affects strategy, the ability to game, and win, for the long term?

  • Tina

    For the record, it was Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama, who made the statment about “angry whites” . Obama made no mention of race in his “angry and bitter” comments.

    Curious about what the author of this blog makes of Hillary Clinton’s comments about MoveOn.org and her resentment of “democratic activists” (the same ones who actively opposed the impeachment of her husband).

    Curious what the author of the blog insisting “Obama is scared” thinks about the fact the HRC had to lend her campaign money, that she has had problems paying her bills, and that some staff went without being paid.

    All of the other tactics arguments aside (who said what when), can some HRC supporter please tell me why I should support a candidate who could not run a fiscally sound campaign?

    No excuses, now. Just a response, specifically with regard to $$: If she can’t run a campaign, how can she run the country?

    • John

      Oh, so you are one of those “We need a CEO in the White House” types who gave us GW Bush?

      Or are you just going to ignore the fact that that Obama, with the entire media on his side, with a 5-1 fundraising advantage, with the DNC in his back pocket, can’t close the deal? Gee, how’s THAT for running a great campaign?

      Bleat your Obamabot talking points someplace else, please.

  • JULIE

    BARACK OBAMA ACTS LIKE A WOMAN

    • beebop

      No, he doesn’t ….. real women disown his behavior!