Barack Obama with his spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright

In March of 2008, the Jeremiah Wright tapes hit the news, nearly derailing Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.  Obama’s spiritual advisor, the pastor of the church the Obama family had attended for 20 years, was seen on videotape cursing America, among other unsavory things.  But the liberal press quickly circled the wagons and declared it a non-issue.  Nothing to see here!  Move along, folks!

Obama dealt with the issue as he deals with all issues: a scripted speech read from teleprompters.  In that speech, he downplayed the fact that his own campaign had accused his rival, Hillary Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton of “playing the Race Card,” when in fact his campaign had taken their comments completely out of context and fed it to the press, thereby playing the Race Card themselves while accusing the Clintons of doing so.

Somewhere in this situation, the phrase “a national conversation about race” was put into our national psyche.  Actually, it was President Bill Clinton who had called for “a national conversation on race” back in 1997.  I guess that phrase was spoken or inferred by somebody during the Obama/Wright flap, because it seems to have become part of that event, but I’ve just spent an hour Googling variations on that phrase and the name Obama, and I can’t find a direct quote of Obama using that phrase.  Interesting.

At any rate, plenty of people, including our best pundits, ran with that phrase after the Rev. Wright dust-up, and it was something everybody was talking about for about a month, during which time it seems the press decided Obama was the nominee and that Hillary was a racist for not conceding.

Like any cunning politician, Obama himself has not personally played the Race Card in an overt and direct way that could be perceived by the general public.  He has not personally called anyone a racist outright.  But his hordes of rabid devotees have certainly played it, and the press has played it, and his campaign has played it.  We’ve all been called racists, those of us who dislike his policies, his actions, or the sound of his voice.  Criticize his clothing, his choice of words, or his taste in salad greens, and you’re a racist.  We know that ridiculous accusation all too well.  I reckon I’m a racist if I call attention to that bump on his nose.

I think most of this comes from white progressives, but clearly many African-Americans make the claims too.  What I don’t hear anyone saying is that people who accuse others of being racists seem way too focused on race, so it seems to me that they are the racists.  It’s kind of like that old frat fart riposte: he who smelt it dealt it.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I often remember those famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., his dream that someday people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  I believe in those words.  That’s why I believe my judgments of Obama, which are based on the content of his character and not the color of his skin, are not racist at all.  In fact, they’re just what the Dr. ordered.

Seems we never succeeded in having that great national conversation about race, which I suppose was intended for us all to completely understand, sympathize, empathize, and love one another as spirit souls, to rise above all racial prejudices, to become colorblind, and all that other hippie-dippie new age pipe-dreaming.  Yawn.  Been there, done that, got the headband.

There is racism in every race.  It’s not just a white-on-black thing.  There are as many forms of racism as there are ethnic groups and languages to express them.  It’s all tribal at its root.  It was racism in the Bible when the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians, and again when the Jews warred with the Philistines (the ancestors of the Palestinians), and they’re still at it some 3,000 years later.  And you think 10 years in Afghanistan is a long war?

Sometimes racism is too subtle to be perceived by races that are further removed.  For example, my maternal grandfather, an Irish Catholic, was often terrorized by the English Protestants during the 20^th century right here in Kansas.  But they’re all white people from Great Britain, right?  Well, we all know that the red-haired Irishmen are hell-raising alcoholics.  And it’s a fact that most Englishmen have puffy eyes and bad teeth.  That’s race distinction.  It was racism when the English-Americans put up signs telling the Irish-Americans they won’t be hired, and won’t be served food or rented rooms.

I’m not implying that the racism my Irish forefathers experienced is on the same level as the racism black folks have had to endure.  I’m just saying that many ethnic groups have been victims of racism.

Almost every war that’s ever been fought involved racism, often in the form of nationalism, but almost always there is some form of tribalism at its root, and tribalism is racism.  All those tiny countries in Europe can tell you how the people in the country next door are different from them in physical ways, which is racial distinction.  There’s nothing wrong with recognizing racial distinctions.  It’s only wrong when there is racial hatred.

But we are now told that the only racism that matters is when whites discriminate against blacks.  The basis of this exclusive relationship is the fact that once upon a time in America, some whites owned black slaves.  Nearly all societies in past ages allowed slavery in one form or another, so it wasn’t a unique situation, but that doesn’t make it excusable.  When one race or tribe conquered another, prisoners were taken, and they were usually put to hard labor, or sold.  In fact, most of the African slaves that were brought to America were purchased in Africa from black or Arab slave traders, like Obama’s Kenyan ancestors.

No doubt about it, white slave owners and those who enabled slavery and kept it legal were very misguided and sometimes cruel.  Our revered Founding Fathers made it legal and some took part in it.  It’s a sad and sick chapter in our history.  But those people have been dead for over 150 years.  I know for a fact than none of my ancestors were slave owners, so I have absolutely no guilt about that whole deal.

Legal, forced segregation was another sad and sick period in our history, and it went on for a hundred years after the Emancipation.  It’s shocking and disgusting that it lasted so long.  It started out as sort of a transitional time, when former slaves were suddenly free to make their own way, but white people still viewed them as second class citizens, or worse.  It was an awful and ugly thing.

Although it’s no longer legal to force segregation, all ethnicities seem to willfully engage in self-segregation.  People of all ethnicities live in their own little enclaves of their own kind, and for the most part, we seem to be happy in our sameness with our neighbors.  Racism and xenophobia exist in all cultures, and we all seem to feel safest amongst our own kind.  That’s not racism.  That’s just nature.

Yes, racism is a horrible and ugly thing.  Most of us know real racists.  We may have grown up with them, in our families or among our friends.  We may still have to endure racist employers or neighbors.  If you know real racists, you know whether or not you are like those people.  I know I’m not like them at all, and I feel no “white guilt” for myself, just because there are so many white racists.

That’s not to say I have no sympathy for blacks, especially the descendants of American slaves.  The indignations they have had to face are unimaginable to the rest of us.  The discrimination they still sometimes face, through no fault of their own, is still a shame upon our culture, in America and abroad.  But just as we should not punish all blacks for the bad behavior of a few, all whites should not be punished for the bad behavior of a few.  The small portion of our white ancestors who were slave owners many generations ago should not be relevant for the vast majority of white people today.

Personally, I’ve have lots of black friends, Indian friends, Mexican friends, and a variety of mutts.  None of it really mattered to me, for the most part, but we all knew full well how different we were from each other.  We weren’t blind or stupid.  Sometimes race became an issue, but I don’t remember it ever ending a friendship.

Sometimes I have instinctive or gut feelings that make me uncomfortable, a little racist I guess.  But those feelings aren’t because I dislike black people.  It’s because I’ve been victimized by young black men, in ways that no other racial or demographic group has ever victimized me or people dear to me.  These incidents include some really bad stuff, including two friends murdered in separate incidents, both by young black men.  I’ve personally been badly beaten by groups of young black men on two occasions, and I’ve had my home and office burglarized by young black men.  So yeah, young black men do scare me, especially if they seem to embrace the “gansta” lifestyle, or if I encounter a group of them in an isolated place. Does that make me a racist?  I don’t think so.  I think it’s a logical reaction to having been a victim of racism.  I feel these things happened because those young men hated white people.  They were racists, plain and simple.

If all the bad experiences you’ve ever had with dogs have been with German Shepherds, you are bound to develop a fear of the German Shepherd breed.  It’s only natural.  Your hair would start to stand on end at the sight of one, as surely as Pavlov’s dogs salivated at the sound of a bell.

So when some naïve progressive Democrat white fool calls me a racist for campaigning against Obama, I resent it.  They don’t know about the many times I’ve argued against racism to my racist friends, family members, and strangers in public.  They don’t know how I bite my tongue in anger when people use the N word at work, where I am powerless to do anything about it.  They don’t know that I felt I was a part of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, before most of them were born.  They don’t know that I employed many young black men and trusted them completely during the many years I owned a business.

I know there is not a thing I can say to enlighten these idiots, so I just try to ignore it or laugh it off.  If I tried to explain it to them, I’d just get all frustrated and angry.

So I just try to silently meditate on those words of wisdom that sum it up so well:  he who smelt it dealt it.

Does Pakistan suffer today because of his death? Yes. Does it change anything on the ground? No. 

He was slain because he called the notorious blasphemy law as black law. He stood up for a Christian woman who was accused of blasphemy and was sentenced to death by a local court. Taseer wanted his government to repeal the blasphemy law that was incorporated in the 1980s by the military dictator General Ziaul Haq. It was a legitimate demand. In his own words, “these are man made laws and men can correct this”. 

These black laws will now be repealed or not? This does not change anything on the ground either. 

Nothing will change on the ground because nothing changed a decade ago when a Christian cricket player on the national team was allegedly forced to convert. Nothing changed when pop singers one after another started denouncing their own careers and joined the elite mullah ranks. Not a thing changed when two boys were lynched publicly just last year. These were the obvious symptoms of a society turning intolerant, self-righteous, and violent. A society without the respect for law and order. 

It changed nothing back then, it will not change anything now. Hence, the events that followed Salmaan Taseer’s gruesome murder are disturbing. These events have nothing to do with a religion, or its preaching, but everything to do with the mindset that has been developed over the years. Evidently, this mindset is irrespective of class. The jubilant response on Facebook and YouTube was not by the uneducated and madrassa clan. A Pakistani blogger summed it up well: “If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you’d think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan.” 

The killer’s overwhelming welcome at the courts by men who know how and why a law is made demonstrates that the liberals – a minority in Pakistan – have been reduced to an endangered species.  

And that is what has changed. And that is what matters today on the ground in Pakistan. 

Do a little math. The killer is a 26 year old man and hails from a semi-urban area. He joined the Elite force in 2003 which means he was 18 then. General Musharraf toppled a democratic government in 1999, and the killer must have been 14. And this is the age group that’s using the Internet, Facebook, YouTube and blogs more aggressively. This is the age group that went through a whole “moderate enlightenment” phase fully sponsored by Pervez Musharraf and shamelessly supported by George Bush for almost over a decade. And this is the group that has the street power in Pakistan. This is the group that is the future of Pakistan. Its mind has been infiltrated by private television, launched during Musharraf’s era. Instead of promoting freedom of speech, it promoted violence, illiteracy and conspiracy theories. It produced the “I-know-more-than-you-know-coz-I-like-that-anchor-and-you-dont-watch-that-show” minds, whereas before young men from the same age group used to extract influence from their family heads. 

The dual game of the military government ten years ago, fully supported and encouraged by the US government, produced a whole generation that detests its own constitution and Western freedom of speech values. This generation is the raw material available to and exploited by religious groups, ready to kill and get killed. My philanthropist friend Manzur Ejaz believes that the right wing in Pakistan is organized and has ideological strength. It has been supported by the State machinery through an education system and infested state institutions, while its opposition lacks committed people, organization and a cause. 

This sorry state of Pakistan is pretty much an example of Martin Niemoller’s ‘First They Came.’ 

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.



Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.

This existing situation has nothing to do with the drone attacks carried out today or the policy changed in favor of Pakistan. The ruling party was once considered a liberal group, but now its own members and sitting ministers publicly announced that they will shoot a blasphemer themselves. They align themselves with so-called “moderate” Muslim politicians like Imran Khan who have practiced Western values but sympathise with the Taliban. 

This indicates that now the dominant political philosophies are right, center to right and very right groups. It has men that have a soft heart for fundamentalists. The absence of a left–because the representative parties or groups were systematically dismantled by military dictators–will bring more extremism. 

Persons with liberal thoughts need protection, which requires some strategy as well as strength. It has to organize itself and build an anti-mullah manpower. It’s a war now, and decisions taken today will reflect the systems adopted in the future. And that will change everything on the ground.

–
Crosspost: ThePakistanUpdate.com

As expected, my representative, Jim Clyburn, the Clinton backstabber, won his gerrymandered district. What else is new? Well, actually something quite historic. Republican Tim Scott, endorsed by Sarah Palin, and an African American, ALSO won. It is the first time a Republican African American has won in this state in over a century.

And, it makes South Carolina the first state to have two African American representatives from both sides of the aisle serving at the same time. This Post and Courier article had this comment from Mr. Scott:

[snip] Scott said he hasn’t thought at all about the historical significance should he and Clyburn win and head off to Washington.

“The significance of it would be that we as a state continue to evolve, and we elect people who reflect our issues and our core value systems,” he said. “This time it happens to be two black guys, but in the end I think it’s significant that people are still voting based on how candidates represent the issues.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Indeed. But race is not the primary focus for Representative-Elect Scott as this Post and Courier article highlights:

[snip] “All we hear is the issue, ‘He’s a black Republican,’ ” Scott told a few hundred supporters inside the Hilton Garden Inn in North Charleston Tuesday. “I got to tell you. I’m black. I’m proud. I’ve got a bald head and my smile is beautiful.

“But all those things don’t matter. … With a strong victory, what we realize is that people are more concerned with the character of the individual, not the characteristics of the individual.”

Scott stuck to conservative Republican themes, such as repealing the new federal health care law, lowering taxes to promote business and reigning in Washington spending. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I have to give it to him – his smile is beautiful. And good for Representative-Elect Scott for echoing the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. Yes, this is more about character than the color of the skin. Amen to that.

And as Representative-Elect Scott said, the state does continue to evolve as it also elected not only its first woman governor, Nikki Haley, but its first Indian-American. Governor-Elect Haley credits Sarah Palin for helping her to spread her campaign message here. Haley, like Scott, focuses less on the historic nature of her win, and more on the importance of what she hopes to do in the state as governor, according to this Post and Courier article.

History was made across the country last night with Republicans picking up seats as governors, representatives, and senators. And I would sure love to hear what went on in your individual states. But before I sign off, there was yet another first last night. The first women to be on the ticket as Vice Presidential candidates for their respective parties were together for the first time. Yes, Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin sat side by side discussing politics, issues, and breaking that glass ceiling. It was quite a moment, as the video below highlights:

Cool, right? I love how affectionate these two women are with each other. Dare I say it, they seem to actually like each other. And honestly, I thought Palin did a much better job of addressing the sexism directed at women in politics. Ferraro seemed to dismiss it as “business as usual,” but Palin made it clear that should not be the case.

Yes, lots of history made last night, especially here in my state. Now, tell me what went on where you are!

UPDATE: On Thursday, the Post and Courier had an interesting piece about Representative-Elect Tim Scott as he begins to garner more attention as the first African American representative from SC in over a century. But what I found to be particularly intriguing was the following statement from Mr. Scott:

[snip ]He talked little about his historical bid to become one of the few black Republicans to serve in Congress in recent memory. However, Scott said he realizes that he will continue to be asked about that –and he revels in the extra-large microphone he can expect to see before him.

“If I can continue to talk about what the tea party talks about, what conservative Republicans talk about — that if you don’t have it, you just can’t spend it — if I can do those things because I have a very shiny bald head, then that’s a wonderful thing,” he said.

Scott said he has not decided if he will join the Congressional Black Caucus, though he did join the S.C. Legislative Black Caucus.

He said doing so would give him another platform to spread his conservative message, but “the con of it is that it re- enforces the fact that there’s a necessary divide, and that divide has to be addressed only by the people who have the same characteristics. I just don’t think that’s fundamentally good for our country.

“I’m of the idea, as Pollyanna as that may sound or as Utopian as it may be, I believe the more we focus on a collective response to all the issues, the more it impacts appropriately and properly those folks who desperately need help.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, there’s a concept, eh? No, not the “shiny bald head” part – that’s just funny. Rather, the idea of focusing on what’s important, thus helping those who need it most. Wow. What a concept.

UPDATE 2: The New Agenda has compiled the data of the wins by women in the 2010 elections. There were lots of firsts, not just Nikki Haley, but Susanna Martinez, governor-elect of NM, the first Latina woman elected from the Republican Party. Oklahoma also elected its first woman governor. How cool is this? Check out The New Agenda and see how the women did.

Oopsie daisy – sounds like another faction unhappy with Dear Leader. The African American community has been one of the most stalwart groups in supporting Obama in the polls, so this could be a troubling change for Obama. Those days may be coming to an end, at least for some in the community, and with good reason:

[snip]Since Obama has taken office African Americans have faced a number of disproportionate “highs,” few of them good, such as an exceptionally high unemployment rate, a high foreclosure rate, and a high number of African-American political figures deprived of the president’s support or dismissed from his administration (such as former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, former Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, South Carolina Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene, former green energy czar Van Jones, Democratic Illinois Sen. Roland Burris, Democratic New York Gov. David Patterson, would-be Democratic New York Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., and Democratic Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Maxine Waters of California and Kendrick Meek of Florida).

Dr. Cornel West, professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, is one African-American leader who has been far from pleased with Obama’s neglect of African-American issues. West told The Daily Caller that he has been extremely frustrated with the president’s relative disinterest in civil rights
issues.

“He can take the black base for granted because he assumes we have nowhere else to go,” West said. “But we just won’t put up with it. He has got to respect us.”

West is not the only black leader who feels this way. Behind the scenes, West says, many African-American leaders are not happy with Obama’s failure to address issues important to the black community, especially considering the support the community gave the president during the 2008 election. But, according to West, many of those dissatisfied leaders are hesitant to step forward.

“There hasn’t been a lot of talk about it because I think most black spokespeople, at the moment, are scared of the Obama machine,” West said. “A lot of us are trying to put the pressure on him without aiding and abetting the right wing.” [snip]

I just have to say, as someone living in SC, surely no one really expects Obama or ANY Democrat, for that matter, to support Alvin Greene. For heavens sake, the man was just indicted on two counts of showing pornography a couple of weeks ago. He was kicked out of a SC restaurant on Tuesday. Originally, it was a campaign stop – until those pesky little indictments came down. The organizers canceled the meeting, but Greene came anyway. He, and a companion, were, um, ushered out of the establishment. Heck, even I don’t blame Obama, or ANYONE, for steering clear of this guy. Just saying.

As for my former professor, Cornell West, it is a bit surprising that he, and others, like Dr. Leon, are speaking out already. Now, West was a Hillary supporter, just to be clear, prior to Obama’s being given the nomination by the rule-breaking DNC. But that does not mean he wouldn’t have some real expectations about what Obama might do for the African American community in this country.

Shelby Steele from the Hoover Institute, has some thoughts on the matter, as well:

[snip] Steele pointed out that Obama does not owe the black community as much as they believe he does due to the fact that whites were the ones who elected him — specifically by throwing their support to him during the Iowa caucus. Initially, the African-American community was significantly supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

“Once blacks began to see that whites were with Obama they didn’t want to be left standing at the station so they jumped on board,” he said. “They were not his base anyway. So he is not confused about that. That said, blacks will continue to vote for him. They vote for every Democratic candidate at a rate of 90% so Obama can absolutely take them for granted and will.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This raises a couple of points for me. One, not only are whites the ones who elected Obama, they are also the ones who REARED Obama. It is remarkable to me how completely and fully both Obama’s mother and grandmother have been wiped from history. They are the ones responsible for rearing him. That is to say, he was not raised in a traditional African American community. To pretend otherwise has been one of the most glaring manipulations of the entire election.

Two, yes, many in the African American community were breaking for Hillary Clinton. My first rally in Charleston was easily, easily 1/2 African American, if not more. But, when Obama and his campaign played the race card against Hillary Clinton in SC, employing that turncoat, backstabber, Jim Clyburn, that many in the African-American community turned away from her. She, along with her husband, were characterized as racists by Obama, and for some reason I still cannot fathom, the community, the COUNTRY, bought that, despite their long, long history standing in stark defiance of that claim. But they believed Obama.

Instead of a hard-working Hillary Clinton in the White House, who would indeed have worked on behalf of the African American community, and ALL Americans, who would not be taking vacation after vacation after vacation while the Home sales worsen, more jobs are lost, and the DOW tanks, they got Obama. Even if he IS vacationing in the “historically black section of Martha’s Vineyard” at a gazillion dollars a week, I might add.

Still – it begs the question: just what did the African American community think Obama was going to do specifically for them? Oh, wait – I remember:

Wow. That is still hard to believe, that anyone thought that would happen if Obama became president. But someone clearly spread that word – she was not the only one who seemed to think that was the case.

Anyway, I think Leon sums the issue up perfectly:

[snip] “My take on that is, you have to treat him the same way you would treat any other president,” Leon explained. “Especially since he is not giving you any reason to treat him otherwise. And it is going to be very difficult, whether it is 2012 and he is not reelected or it is 2016 and we’re dealing with a new president — who most likely will not be African American — it is going to be very difficult to hold that new president to a different standard.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

There’s a concept – treat Obama like every other president. That would be a change, wouldn’t it? Holding Obama to all the same standards as every other president or presidential candidate? What a novel idea. It’s too late for the latter now, but 2012 is not that far away (it just feels like it is).

I guess we will just see how this continues to play out, and if the dissatisfaction with Obama trickles throughout the African American community, not just the leaders and intellectuals. Time will tell…

Leave it to Maureen Dowd to miss the forest for the trees in her argument that

“The Obama White House is too white.”

In Dowd’s latest NYT column, You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing, she discusses the Shirley Sherrod incident, and writes that “unlike Bill Clinton, who never needed help fathoming Southern black culture,” the Obama white house just doesn’t get the “central African-American experience.”

Dowd contends the Obama administration had better shape up otherwise…

“…[T]his administration will keep tripping over race rather than inspiring on race.”

and

“We may not have a “nation of cowards” on race, as Attorney General Eric Holder contended, but we may have a West Wing of cowards on race.”

They are cowards. Period. Yet they use the Rovian tactic of blaming others for sins of which they themselves are guilty.

While Dowd understands that Barack Obama’s exotic background and upbringing in Hawaii may be a contributing factor to his seeming lack of understanding, she cannot admit that White House insensitivity on racial issues is due to much more than his being surrounded by “smart-ass white boys” as she puts it. The real problem stems from something far worse. His administration’s actions are governed by branding, political expediency and preserving Obama’s popularity.

When polling rather than conscience drives your actions, the Shirley Sherrod firing fiasco is the result.

Dowd then resorts to the typical “let’s attack FOX News for the hell of it” gambit:

“The West Wing white guys who pushed to ditch Shirley Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce…”

Dowd does not clarify what Glenn Beck “pouncing” actually meant – Glenn Beck pounced on the White House, not Sherrod. Beck felt they had unjustly fired her. But Dowd could not possibly admit that Beck took Sherrod’s side. Sherrod could not either from the looks of it and wanted to continue to paint FOX News as the bad guy when the network held off on covering the story until they got all the facts – unlike President Obama. Sherrod was forced to resign before FOX did any “pouncing.”

And what of the NAACP? They were the ones with the entire tape – why didn’t they speak on her behalf, if indeed they had the basis to do so?

Perhaps Andrew Breitbart was wrong to show the edited tape of Sherrod’s remarks. It is up to you to decide whether you believe he did so less to slam Sherrod and more to slam the audience at the NAACP dinner who reacted appreciatively to what he felt were reverse racist sentiments on her part.

Dowd also complains…

“At some level, [Obama] acts like the election was enough; he shouldn’t have to deal with race further. But he does.”

…“Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official.

Um. I did. So did a lot of other folks on this blog.

In May of 2008, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson penned a piece entitled The Card Clinton Is Playing – accusing Hillary Clinton of playing the race card to advance her candidacy while ignoring the fact that the Obama campaign had been playing that card daily and with impunity. I responded to Mr. Robinson’s accusations. In pertinent part, I wrote:

…The few like Tavis Smiley, who criticized Sen. Obama for skipping the State of the Black Union, and I believe [Senator Obama] also decided not to speak at MLK’s anniversary event, raise an interesting point. Senator Obama is, perhaps of necessity, courting the white vote and taking for granted the African American community who vote for him in droves. I believe, if he were to be elected, aside from the great symbolic value of having him in office, which I grant you is no small thing, the AA community may suffer because the white liberal elite in the party pushing to elect him will feel they’ve put a band aid over the racial divide in this country, while in actuality doing little to heal it.

Apparently Dowd agrees, complaining that Obama is “light years” behind Bush on developmental help to Africa and wouldn’t let Muslim women in head scarves appear behing him at a rally because Obama staffers were afraid he would be painted “as a radical/Muslim/socialist.” She accuses his staffers of insensitivity — as if Obama were somehow not involved in these decisions. Isn’t he the President?

Ms. Dowd – it is not “insensitivity.” It is Obama’s ‘you are a notch on my bedpost, I use you for my own purposes and otherwise you can get lost attitude.’ This White House is run by a bunch of arrogant frat boys. What do you expect?

Dowd also reported:

“I don’t think a single black person was consulted before Shirley Sherrod was fired — I mean c’mon, “ said Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. [snip]

“The president’s getting hurt real bad,” Clyburn told me. “He needs some black people around him.” He said Obama’s inner circle keeps “screwing up” on race.

A laughable comment to be sure. I don’t know whether President Obama needs “some black people around him” as much as he needs to grow some genuine leadership ability and the willingness to do his homework before making a judgment on an issue of which he knows nothing.

A disproportionately high number in the black community have been adversely affected by high unemployment, something NYT columnist Bob Herbert has pointed out many times. He too, is wondering why the President is “screwing up on race.”

Perhaps Rep. Clyburn and others are now regretting having played the race card on the Clintons during the primaries, who have done more for the African American community than Obama ever has.

President Obama had never in his career exhibited compassion or understanding of these issues, certainly not to the point of taking action on them. How did Dowd, Herbert, Robinson, Clyburn or anyone else assume he would be magically transformed once elected?

President Obama’s administration only uses the race card as a defensive tool and a shield against criticism of his inane policies and actions. That has officially backfired. It backfired in Massachusetts with his “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” remark, as it has once again with Shirley Sherrod.

More is required than different advisors.

The White House has a horrible habit of working reactively, resorting to a “don’t blame me — it’s the other guys fault” mantra. That is not genuine leadership, which, of course, has been the problem all along. Every time one of these incidents gets played out before the American people, it is further evidence that those in charge have not done their homework and cannot grow beyond making pathetic excuses for the same. Slowly but surely, the country is getting a glimpse into the real character of this administration.

And what does it mean for our foundational rights as a country?

Recently, J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney, made some serious accusations about how the DOJ is doing business under Obama. Adams’ initial comments had to do with the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) about which I wrote recently, and the refusal of the DOJ to pursue a case against the NBPP despite irrefutable evidence of voter intimidation. Those charged with this issue flat out refused to even read the memoranda on the NBPP’s actions. Consequently, for this and other reasons related to this case, Adams resigned his position at the DOJ.

Here is Mr. Adams describing the situation at the DOJ to Megyn Kelly, also an attorney:

But wait, there is more. Mr. Adams is no longer holding back, and has exposed another issue related to the DMV and Voter Registration law at the DOJ in this piece:

This is beyond the pale.

So, let me see. NBPP 1, Voters 0. Dead People voting 1, fair elections, 0. Lawlessness in the DOJ 1, true justice, 0.

Mr. Adams testified before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights about this very issue this past week, stating:

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified.

That is a staggering claim. Just think about that for a few minutes. This is the DOJ, after all.

One more quote from this article should also give you pause (and thanks to Ani for highlighting this):

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

We knew that, of course, but now we have a DOJ whistleblower confirming it. Wow.

That Obama, fulfilling his campaign promise of bringing change to America. He surely is, just not good change. Now, despite the protests by the NBPP to the contrary, voter intimidation is permitted by the DOJ, depending on who is doing it, of course.

This is a sad, sad time in our country, when voter intimidation is not just allowed, but protected, by the Department of Justice. When the DOJ states it won’t be bothered with enforcement of the law against voter rolls being padded with the names of dead people, and those who are ineligible to vote.

This is our fundamental right as Americans, the right to vote, free of intimidation and threats. It is our duty to have our votes counted, and to have the process as clean as possible. It is clear that Obama’s DOJ has zero interest in making that happen.

And that cannot stand.

Take for instance this African American Tea Partier being asked by an NBC reporter (oh, there’s a shocker) if he felt uncomfortable. Here is his answer:

“These are my people.”

That seems to be the refrain running through this article as well:

Among the many reverberations of President Obama’s election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

The House has not had a black Republican since 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left after eight years.

But now black Republicans are running across the country — from a largely white swath of beach communities in Florida to the suburbs of Phoenix, where an African-American candidate has raised more money than all but two of his nine (white) Republican competitors in the primary.

Let me stop right there to remind people why there would have been more African Americans running during Reconstruction. Lincoln was a Republican. That’s the short answer. But this is not Reconstruction, so what’s the deal? This is:

Party officials and the candidates themselves acknowledge that they still have uphill fights in both the primaries and the general elections, but they say that black Republicans are running with a confidence they have never had before. They credit the marriage of two factors: dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, and the proof, as provided by Mr. Obama, that blacks can get elected.

“I ran in 2008 and raised half a million dollars, and the state party didn’t support me and the national party didn’t support me,” said Allen West, who is running for Congress in Florida and is one of roughly five black candidates the party believes could win. “But we came back and we’re running and things are looking great.” (Photo by Allen West Photostream.)

But interviews with many of the candidates suggest that they felt empowered by Mr. Obama’s election, that it made them realize that what had once seemed impossible — for a black candidate to win election with substantial white support — was not.

“There is no denying that one of the things that came out of the election of Obama was that you have a lot of African-Americans running in both parties now,” said Vernon Parker, who is running for an open seat in Arizona’s Third District. His competition in the Aug. 24 primary includes the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, Ben Quayle.

Princella Smith, who is running for an open seat in Arkansas, said she viewed the president’s victory through both the lens of history and partisan politics. “Aside from the fact that I disagree fundamentally with all his views, I am proud of my nation for proving that we have the ability to do something like that,” Ms. Smith said.

That sentiment I can appreciate. I imagine it does bring a lot of pride to a number of people that Obama got elected since he is biracial, but that, in my opinion, is not enough reason to vote for someone. Still, I get her point. And good for her, as well as the other GOP hopefuls for stepping up:

State and national party officials say that this year’s cast of black Republicans is far more experienced than the more fringy players of yore, and include elected officials, former military personnel and candidates who have run before.

Mr. Parker is the mayor of Paradise Valley, Ariz. Ryan Frazier is a councilman in Aurora, Colo., one of four at-large members who represent the whole city. And Tim Scott is the only black Republican elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives since Reconstruction.

“These are not just people pulled out of the hole,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a black conservative group. That is “the nice thing about being on this side of history,” he said.

He added that the candidates might be helped by the presence of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who is black and ran for the Senate himself in 2006.

“Party affiliation is not a barrier to inspiration,” Mr. Steele said in an e-mail message. “Certainly, the president’s election was and remains an inspiration to many.”

But Democrats and other political experts express skepticism about black Republicans’ chances in November. “In 1994 and 2000, there were 24 black G.O.P. nominees,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic political strategist who ran Al Gore’s presidential campaign and who is black. “And you didn’t see many of them win their elections.”

No, these are not “fringy players” at all. But why Donna Brazile, who ran a flawed and FAILED campaign for a man who should have won in a slam dunk is considered a “strategist,” is beyond me. I have never understood why in the world her opinion matters given her handling of Gore’s campaign.

And I especially do not care what she has to say after the way she acted in 2008. I could write a whole other post on Donna Brazile and her nefarious tactics during the 2008 Primary, but let this term in regards to SC, FL, and MI suffice, “Nuclear Option.” All of that is to say, I have zero respect for her or her opinion.

Though I do have more respect for this man’s opinion:

Tavis Smiley, a prominent black talk show host who has repeatedly criticized Republicans for not doing more to court black voters, said, “It’s worth remembering that the last time it was declared the ‘Year of the Black Republican,’ it fizzled out.”

In many ways, this subset of Republicans is latching on to the basic themes propelling most of their party’s campaigns this year — the call for smaller government, less spending and stronger national security — rather than building platforms around social conservatism.

“Things have evolved,” said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who is heavily involved in recruiting Republican candidates. “I think partly the level of hostility to Obama, Pelosi and Reid makes a lot of people pragmatically more open to a coalition from the standpoint of being a long-term majority party.”

Many of the candidates are trying to align themselves with the Tea Partiers, insisting that the racial dynamics of that movement have been overblown. Videos taken at some Tea Party rallies show some participants holding up signs with racially inflammatory language.

We know EXACTLY who those people were holding up racist signs at the Tea Parties, and they were NOT Tea Party members. It is disturbing to me the lengths people will go to demonize a group like this. I can only think they feel exceedingly threatened, and respond by acting like a bunch of thugs and punks. Nice the way the article slid that one in there, even though there are groups actively trying to infiltrate the Tea Party to discredit it. Not that you’d know that from this (it took me two seconds to get those links, something the writer might have tried). Along those lines, the article continues:

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 25 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, compared with 11 percent of the general public.

The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”

Oh, oops. I wonder how the Media and Liberal Elite will deal with this claim? No doubt, they will tell these African Americans that they are wrong, that they just don’t recognize the racism, or some other patronizing, arrogant, dare I say it, racist response, from people who have never been to a Tea Party rally.

But I digress. There is reason for these GOP hopefuls to be hopeful:

There is also some evidence that black voters rally around specific conservative causes. A case in point was a 2008 ballot initiative in California outlawing same-sex marriage that passed in large part because of support from black voters in Southern California.

Still, black Republicans face a double hurdle: black Democrats who are disinclined to back them in a general election, and incongruity with white Republicans, who sometimes do not welcome the blacks whom party officials claim to covet as new members.

This spring, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia was roundly attacked for not mentioning slavery in his Confederate History Month proclamation, which he later said was a “major omission.” Black candidates said these types of gaffes posed problems in drawing African-Americans to their party, but also underscored their need to be there.

“I think what the governor failed to do was to recognize the pain and the emotion that was really sparked by the institution of slavery,” said Mr. Frazier of Colorado. “As a Republican, I think I have a responsibility to continue to work within my party to avoid those types of barriers. The key for the Republican Party is to engage every community on the issues they care about and not act as if they don’t exist.”

Yeah, that was stupid of McDonnell in a big way, but it is also a way for the Times to try and paint the Republicans with a broad brush of racism even while they are talking about African Americans running in the RNC. Not that it isn’t an important issue – it is – but for it to be the concluding paragraph in a story about experienced, knowledgeable RNC hopefuls who are African American seems telling.

Is it just me, or has the writing at the Times become sloppier? Innuendo and unsubstantiated claims seem to have taken the place of actual journalism. I dunno – could just be me.

Anyway, it is an interesting element to the upcoming election about which we have heard very little. These are serious candidates running for serious positions. They have experience, they hold political positions now, and they are looking to make change. Just not the kind for which Obama and the DNC were hoping, no doubt. It will be interesting to see how these races play out in November.

Naturally the race baiters, race hustlers and sycophants to the current administration are frustrated. Their heads really ought to explode when they watch this video. Please enjoy some tea party folk being interviewed at these protests*…since the MSM et al are so busy tellin you there are no black Americans participating in these rallies…

I wonder what the exploding heads will say now.

Chat away.

**********
* H/T Hot Air for finding the video.

I’d like to address the objections.

Protest is the American way. The health care bill, a massive piece of legislation, had many elements which some could find objectionable. Mandates are worrying, as is the fear that premiums could go up. There are genuine concerns that the “reform” could turn out to be a souped-up version of COBRA, making insurance obligatory but unaffordable, ultimately benefitting only the insurance companies. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That’s one of the great aspects of living in a democracy.

What is not reasonable, however, is circulating pictures of the President disguised as a witch doctor, or spitting on and hurling racial and other epithets at Congressmen (or anyone else), or sending images of nooses, or issuing death threats. This form of “protest” has nothing to do with TARP or health care or anything else. Anyone who defends such behavior should hang their head in shame. Indeed, such acts should be vehemently discouraged and the perpetrators shunned from civilized society.

The Tea Party’s message of smaller government and fiscal responsibility is being drowned out by the movement’s most extreme elements. In this the movement is comparable to A.N.S.W.E.R, a group begun to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which then degraded into an umbrella group for every embittered leftist with an ax to grind, from PETA to the Free Mumia crowd to the pro-Palestinian folks. Ultimately the anti-war message was diluted and A.N.S.W.E.R turned into a joke.

Another group that found itself in the trashbin of history was the loosely formed anti-World Bank/WTO/IMF crowd, whose members had no problem protesting the worthy cause of international debt reduction by rampaging in the streets and committing acts of vandalism while filming all the exciting anti-globalist fervor with video cameras and cell phones imported from Asia. Any sympathy they may have generated went up in smoke as the public watched the violence and mayhem.

During campaign 2008, left-wing blogs turned into cesspools of misinformation and ad hominem attacks on the Clintons, going so far as to resurrect the “Vince Foster Was Murdered” canard. The outrageous sexism of the blogosphere and the media was harshly and justifiably criticized on this blog. To ignore the extreme elements of the Tea Party is to do an injustice to those decent people who want to have their voices heard, but do not want to be associated with the ugliness of the extremes.

But what is not being focused on in this book, at least so far, is how clearly it asserts the fix was in AGAINST Hillary Clinton. In each piece thus far, there has been something about the DNC not wanting Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, or the senators with clout secretly backing Obama. In the NY Magazine article, “Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster,” there are passages like this:

Edwards never expected to be the third wheel in 2008. The race was going to be Hillary versus him. That was how he saw it from the start. She would be the front-runner, of course. But as sure as night follows day, there would be an alternative, an anti-Hillary, and he would be it.

The Democratic Establishment agreed that there would be—and certainly should be—a viable challenger to Clinton. The party’s pooh-bahs on Capitol Hill were privately terrified about the prospect of Hillary rolling to the nomination. They feared that she was too polarizing to win, that she would drag down House and Senate candidates in red and purple states; and they worried, too, about Bill’s putative affairs (emphasis mine). But while the Clintons themselves regarded Edwards as Hillary’s most formidable rival, there existed a deep wariness about the North Carolinian among his fellow Democrats. In the Senate, in particular, Edwards was regarded almost universally by his former colleagues as a callow, shallow phony. Quietly, the Establishment began a quest to find a different alternative, eventually settling on the unlikely horse that was Obama—with Harry Reid personally, and secretly, urging the Illinois senator to run against Clinton.

So much for the people choosing our nominee, right? I just love that the “pooh-bahs” decided that Hilary was too polarizing. THEY created this hype, along with the Republicans during Bill’s tenure, and with the MSM. But the people who listened to her, who read her policies, who saw how she worked, knew she was exactly who we wanted to run for president

This isn’t the only example out of this book. There is also the claim by the book’s authors that Chuck Schumer secretly supported Obama, though he publicly claimed to support Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, Schumer’s people claim this isn’t true, but again, even taking what the authors wrote with a grain of sand, this doesn’t sound good. The book goes on to claim Schumer encouraged a “get tough” policy against Clinton, and enlisted another senator to support Obama, presumably in his stead:

The book reports that in the summer of 2007, Schumer and others wanted Team Obama to get tougher on Clinton.

At one point, the authors contend, Schumer felt “Obama needed to take a two-by-four to Hillary,” the book says.

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill was tapped as the messenger from the worried senators to the Obama campaign.

She denies feeling any such pressure.

“It wasn’t like he [Schumer] came to me and said, ‘Be for Barack Obama – I gotta be for Hillary,’” McCaskill told the Daily News Saturday. “He never, ever said a word to me that would give the kind of impression [this book seems] to be giving. He was never giving advice to the campaign on how to undermine her.”

What a bunch of back-stabbing conniving Brutus’ these senators are. And the DNC, too, if you ask me.

The glaring fallacy with the logic of the DNC and its minions are the number are Republicans who crossed over for Hillary Clinton. Former dyed-in-the-wool Republicans becoming caucus captains for Hillary in Texas, for example (an example relayed to me by the person who crossed over). All of the post voting showed Hillary Clinton got the majority of Democratic votes AND a large number of Republican votes. Yet the DNC in its infinite “wisdom” decided Hillary Clinton could NOT be the nominee, and worked their asses off to break every rule necessary to make that so.

No doubt, there will be more to this book after it is released this week, but there are some glaring omissions mentioned thus far. Ben Smith noted that Obama was pretty much the same throughout the campaign, thus most of these revelations are about the Clintons, the Edwards, et al. But as one commenter noted:

Where are the stories of how the campaign handled Jerimah (sic) Wright?

Where are the stories about how they had to put a muzzle on Michelle Obama?

Where are the stories about ‘sweetie’ and calling his grandmother a ‘typical white person’?

And who did Obama think he picked when he picked Joe Biden? He must be stupid if he is surprised by how he has acted!

The secret to Obama winning was the media and frankly Mark Halprin doesn’t want to blow that gig.

No kidding. Don’t forget the “Obama and Biden Can’t Stand Each Other” part of this book referenced above, which is sure not getting much play by the MSM:

The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed.

Instead, a separate campaign call was regularly scheduled between the then-Delaware senator and two of Obama’s top campaign aides – “so that they could keep a tight rein on him,” write journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in “Game Change,” a long-awaited account of the 2008 campaign.

Uh, yeah. So, the bottom line as far as I can tell from this book so far is this: the Democratic Party committed massive fraud in 2008, costing voters millions of dollars in campaign donations to candidates they had already determined were not going to get the nomination. That is fraud, pure and simple. Not only did I give donations (in the beginning to John Edwards), but I gave a LOT to Hillary Clinton.

If the DNC knew they were never going to let her get the nomination no matter how she performed, no matter how many people voted for her, no matter WHAT, that, to me, is fraud. And they damn well better be held accountable for that, don’t you think?

“Few would have seen on that day that… that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.”

That comment was SO out of place, and SO unnecessary.

Yet, SO typical.

Here is how the AAPOR defines the Bradley effect on page 53 of the report:

the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent.

And here is what their extensive and rigorous report found (pages 53-54):

Several compelling pieces of evidence suggest that the New Hampshire estimation errors were probably not caused by the “Bradley effect” – or the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent. A meta-analysis by Hopkins (2008) indicates that while the Bradley effect did undermine some state-level polls in previous decades, there is no evidence for such an effect in recent years. In the 2008 general election, the very accurate final poll estimates of Barack Obama’s fairly decisive victory over John McCain dispelled suspicion that the Bradley effect was at play during the final weeks of the fall contest. There is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for a Bradley effect in the primary contests outside of New Hampshire. Of the 81 polls conducted during the final 30 days of the Iowa, South Carolina, California, and Wisconsin contests, the vast majority (86%) over-estimated Clinton’s relative vote share, while just 14% over-estimated Obama’s relative vote share. This finding is based on the signed direction of A for each survey.26 Furthermore, as reported in Table 3, poll estimates of Obama’s vote share in New Hampshire were quite accurate – it was only Clinton’s share that was consistently underestimated.

Here is Table 3 (page 14):

In poll after poll Hillary Cinton’s support was undersampled while Obama’s support was correctly sampled. It was not that her supporters lied to pollsters; they were simply not contacted.

Pollster.com offers this summary of the report:

• Given the compressed caucus and primary calendar, polls conducted before the New Hampshire primary may have ended too early to capture late shifts in the electorate’s preferences there.
• Most commercial polling firms conducted interviews on the first or second call, but respondents who required more effort to contact were more likely to support Senator Clinton. Instead of continuing to call their initial samples to reach these hard‐to‐contact people, pollsters typically added new households to the sample, skewing the results toward the opinions of those who were easy to reach on the phone, and who more typically supported Senator Obama.
• Non‐response patterns, identified by comparing characteristics of the pre‐election samples with the exit poll samples, suggest that some groups who supported Senator Clinton–such as union members and those with less education–were under‐ represented in pre‐election polls, possibly because they were more difficult to reach.
• Variations in likely voter models could explain some of the estimation problems in individual polls. Application of the Gallup likely larger error than was present in the unadjusted data. The influx of first-time voters may have had adverse effects on likely voter models.

Hillary’s base of women, blue collar workers, union members, single mothers and the elderly were simply too difficult to contact, while young Obama supporters were always available by telephone. It was not racism or the Bradley Effect that enabled Hillary to win New Hampshire; it was that the pollsters never spoke to her base.

But the media and the Obama campaign had to accuse New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters of racism in order to minimize Hillary’s victory and racialize the race before the South Carolina primary, where the majority of Democratic voters are African-American.

Here is Mickey Kaus of Slate on January 9, 2008:

1. Bradley Effect: It seemed like a nice wonky little point when Polipundit speculated on the Reverse Bradley Effect–the idea that Iowa’s public caucuses led Dem voters to demonstrate their lack of prejudice by caucusing for Obama. Now this is the CW of the hour. Polipundit wrote:

I suspect that Obama may have scored better than he would have in a secret-ballot election, and benefited from a Reverse Bradley Effect.

New Hampshire, of course, is a secret ballot election. Voters might have told pollsters one thing but done another in private.** New Hampshirites I ran into Tuesday night mentioned that the state was very late ratifying the MLK Holiday.

Here is Andrew Kohut in the New York Times on January 10, 2008:

To my mind all these factors deserve further study. But another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.…

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews….

In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause for the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology.

Here is David Kuo of the Huffington Post as votes were counted during the New Hampshire Primary:

Tonight, despite all the talk of how little race matters in this campaign, it is clear that race is still a big deal in bi-racial campaigns. And it has showed up for the first time, in a measurable way, in the 2008 presidential race.

It means that every poll — from exit polls to tracking polls — are absolutely suspect from here on out.

Here are excerpts from MSNBC on the night of the New Hampshire Primary:

ROBINSON: Well, I‘ll tell you what some people will suspect. Here you have polls, you know, the day before the primary showing Obama way ahead. And he finishes, you know, 15 points lower than that. A lot of people will suspect a “Bradley effect.”

You know, Tom Bradley…

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, Tom Bradley. You‘re…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: Not the Bill Bradley effect. We were talking about Bill Bradley‘s endorsement being, you know, not necessarily the greatest thing. I‘m talking about Tom Bradley, the mayor—African-American mayor of Los Angeles years ago, ran for governor of California. Polls showed him on election eve that he was going to cruise to victory and he lost. And Doug Wilder of—the first…

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait, but are you really saying right now that the people of New Hampshire may have—I won‘t say, be racist, but are you saying that they did not want to go in that booth and vote for a black man? …

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC ANCHOR: I was just going to say, I‘ve been listening to the panel. Number one, the “Bradley effect,” whether people are going to decide it was in effect in this case is very real and talked about among people in the political business. Let‘s not forget the Gantt race in North Carolina few years ago.…

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, look, you can only go back—you know, and I go back in recent history and you try to find races where you had these gigantic poll shifts, where the final pre-election polls differed so dramatically from the actual result.

And the one thing they all have in common is something that Eugene Robinson brought up earlier, and that is race.

It was Tom Bradley in California governor‘s race in 1982. The polls had him ahead—ahead by a fairly healthy margin over George Deukmejian. He ended up losing.

And Virginia governor, 1989, Doug Wilder had a double digit lead going into the final—in the final weekend. He won by a very narrow 1 point margin.

Harvey Gant, the 1990 Senate race with Jesse Helms—one of the most divisive races, frankly, that this country had on race. That was, again, pre-election polls had Gant ahead, Helms wins.

So you can‘t help but look at that—and particularly you‘ve got to wonder what this sends—the message that this could send to African-American Democrats, who may look at this and say, well, of course, that‘s what happened. You know, a lot of times when I‘ve noticed this and when you talk to African-American Democrats, they sat here and they‘ll see this race stuff a lot quicker than us in white America. And I think that this is—it‘s at least, you‘ve got to explore it. You‘ve got to look at it. History has taught us this—recent history—when it‘s come to dealing with African-American candidates.

Here is Carol Costello, Andrew Kohut and Professor Charles Ogletree on CNN’s Situation Room on January 11, 2008:

I’m Wolf Blitzer.

You’re in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Is the U.S. ready for an African-American president?

Senator Barack Obama’s strong showing so far in this campaign has many saying absolutely, yes. Others, though, say it’s too soon to tell.

Carol Costello has been looking into this story for us — you’ve been talking to a lot of people supposedly knowledgeable on this very sensitive subject.

What are they telling you?

COSTELLO: Well, it is a sensitive subject, isn’t it?

You know, most I talked with today say it is too soon to tell.

Obama seems to have transcended race, but can he in the long run?

Already, critics say Obama’s opponents are trying to create this subtle narrative of racial division. They deny it, but it illustrates how hard it is in this country to take race out of the equation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): The Iowa caucus created all kinds of excitement surrounding Barack Obama. His win in a predominantly white state and a strong showing in another seemingly proves it — Obama can transcend race. It’s something Obama has always believed could happen.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I am here to tell you yes, we can in ’08.

COSTELLO: Maybe. But there are those who feel while Iowa and New Hampshire prove Obama can certainly get white votes, it doesn’t mean he can continue the trend — that Obama’s second place finish in New Hampshire, despite polls that had him coming in first, illustrates the undercurrent about race that exists in this country.

Andrew Kohut, in charge of Pew Research, has a theory. He says many of those inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire were poor, uneducated whites who don’t participate in polls and who often don’t vote for blacks.

ANDREW KOHUT, PRES., PEW RESEARCH CTR.: At least race should be considered because we know that the kinds of people drawn to Mrs. Clinton are always the kinds of people who turn down surveys at pretty high rates. We don’t know much about whether the people who we don’t get are like the people that we do get.

COSTELLO: Polls about race are notoriously difficult to analyze. Take this ABC/Washington Post poll conducted before the Iowa caucus. A whopping 88 percent of Americans said race would not matter in choosing a president. But pollsters say you have to take this result with a grain of salt. Few people are willing to tell a pollster they’re racist. It reflects the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, a black man who ran for governor in California in 1982. Most polls showed him leading but he lost to a white male candidate.

PROF. CHARLES OGLETREE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Ask Tom Bradley when he ran for governor in California. Black man, thought he could win, he didn’t. Ask Harvey Gant in North Carolina. Ask Harold Ford, Jr.

COSTELLO: Look at the stats. There is one black governor in the United States. They are nine women governors. They are 16 senators who are women. And one black man, Barack Obama.

Still, Barack Obama got plenty of votes in New Hampshire and in Iowa, which are both 95 percent white.

You could say that trumps the poll, but there are many more people yet to vote and racial under currents that are so hard to predict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And here is the Obama campaign as discussed in an article by Ryan Lizza in the January 21, 2008, edition of the New Yorker:

Did Obama experience a similar fate in New Hampshire? The evidence is murky, but his campaign believes the question is important enough to warrant study. When I asked a senior Obama adviser whether the Bradley effect was a possible explanation for the gap between the final poll numbers, which showed Obama leading by an average of eight points, and the ultimate outcome, he replied, “Definitely.” He added, “If so, then the question is: what’s different between Iowa and New Hampshire? It could be that the socially acceptable thing in front of your neighbor at a caucus could be different than what you do in a secret ballot. Obviously, that’s something we’re going to be trying to figure out as we go forward, primarily through polling. I know people are working on ways of asking questions about getting at people’s attitudes about race. We’re working on this.”

In other words, the Obama campaign cited the Bradley Effect in order to explain a loss, and the sycophantic media repeated the notion again and again and again. Apparently they received the memo from David Axelrod as votes were counted in New Hampshire. Too bad real analysis reveals that the Bradley Effect had no impact on the New Hampshire Primary.

Will CNN apologize? Will MSNBC apologize? Will the New York Times apologize? Will Slate apologize? And is it not a coincidence that after the Obama campaign decided race was the reason he lost the NH primary that the Clintons were accused of racism by the Obama campaign during the South Carolina primary? All of it was debunked in the report released today by the AAPOR. Will Obama and Axelrod apologize to Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I doubt anyone will apologize, for no one in the Obama administration or in the Obamamedia cares about facts. But at least all of us know that those of us who voted for Hillary during the New Hampshire primary and during the other primaries are not racist. Will they apologize to us?

Ironic that on Inauguration Day, when President Barack Obama told Americans it was time to take personal responsibility and “grow up” as a country, some of his supporters behaved like spoiled children in booing George W. Bush.

And, sadly, neither Obama nor any leader in the public spotlight that day seized the moment to admonish the boorish behavior.

It would have been nice had Obama had the presence of mind in his inaugural speech to not only allude to scripture in saying it’s time to put away “childish things” but to also have told the boo-birds that their behavior was inappropriate and the embodiment of those “childish things.”

He might have said: “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me? When you boo the former president, you fail to understand what this solemn event is all about — the peaceful transition of power. This is not a football game. Nor is it a Third World bloodless coup. This is American democracy at work. If you can’t respect that, then leave. Now.”

Like I said, why the hell would Obama start now? He hasn’t bothered to say anything to any one of his minions at any point during the entire primary or election season, so why would he speak out for Mr. Bush?

And here is another little problem I have – him saying Obama should have said, “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me?” Um, what? Yes, we should all be happy for The Boy Who Would Be Dictator because this has nothing to do with our actual country. Wowie.

Mr. Frederick’s shock continues:

But no one mustered the courage to say that. While I thought Obama’s speech was otherwise thought-provoking and worthy, he missed an opportunity to call out these boors and chastise their behavior. By not doing so, I am afraid that Obama essentially condoned this kind of mob intolerance. There is already a hateful mean streak among some Obamamaniacs. Left unchecked, it can fester into something quite un-American and un-democratic.

In case you missed it, when President George W. Bush was announced to the crowd, some booed loudly, shocking even the commentators on the official Obama network, MSNBC. One section of onlookers sang, “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.” And, finally, as Bush left the White House, one deep thinker took the opportunity to give the “one-finger salute,” thus saying more about himself than anything else.

This from a movement that fancies itself all about peace, love and global karma.

Where in the HELL Has this man been? Clearly, he cannot distinguish between the mantras of the Obama Party and the REALITY of the Obama Party. How many, many times have we written about this, the cruel, aggressive, demeaning, sexist, even misogynistic behavior of Obama’s followers, and that is just toward Secretary of State Hillary Clinton!! It would seem Mr. Frederick’s blindfold and earplugs served him well if he was unaware of these, um, “shenanigans.” The “one-finger salute? Like the one Obama gave to Clinton detailed in THIS article?

He continues:

Now look, it would be a mistake to paint all Democrats and Obama supporters with the actions of these few on Inauguration Day. And, according to news reports, some in the crowd tried hard to shush the boo-birds. That is a hopeful sign.

But let’s also not ignore the obvious. There is a growing faction of the American left that seeks revenge more than righteousness.

Intolerant of dissenting views, this faction thinks as comedian Janeane Garofalo does that some members of the opposing political party should be “jailed.” Terrorist acts (such as mailing envelopes of white power to Mormon temples because the gay marriage vote in California went the church’s way) are seen by this faction as understandable and acts of legitimate political expression.

But of course. Target the Mormons, thus the Senate Majority Leader (why does everyone always forget that Harry Reid is a MORMON, and ANTI-Choice? I just don’t get that.) So, yes, Janeane, let us completely deny that even before the election, the NY Times was predicting that it would be OBAMA’S supporters that would vote IN Prop. 8. That, in fact, was the reality. It was the African American community coming out in droves that tipped the scales, as detailed HERE and HERE.

Mr. Frederick does touch on the issue of race, too:

There is also an ugly racial component to it. We first saw it with Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said, among other things, that white America had deliberately inflicted black Africa with AIDS.

When the Rev. Wright first hit the national stage, we hardly knew what to make of his irrational and separatist statements. Consequently, we pretty much ignored the substance of Wright’s racially divisive rhetoric and focused on it as a day-to-day political story. It made us more comfortable, I think.

But in light of the things we saw at the inauguration, it may be time to revisit the dangers of intolerance and hate — no matter the color of the person who makes them — and nip this ugly mean streak in the bud.

As our president said, it is time to grow up. (Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

Well, that is just laughable – to expect the most juvenile, petulant, arrogant, immature, empty-suit to tell his minions to grow up. HAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah, maybe when he does.

Beside that, though, is the convenient amnesia of Mr. Frederick regarding what the Rev. Lowery said at the inauguration (h/t to LisaB), highlighted in Pat Racimora’s article, “A Profound Prayer Until..>Wrong Turn!.” To recap, he said this:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Holy cow. Yeah, I think that qualifies as having a racial component.

But it also begs the question WHY Rev. Wright’s incendiary, separatist comments were not addressed more fully? And why his connection, as well as Louis Farrakhan’s, to Obama was continually glossed over by the majority of those in the MSM? Because they were afraid of being called racists? Or because they knew it would be real trouble for Obama if they actually did their job and exposed the belief system in which Obama was a willing participant? Some of us were paying attention, though. Do a “search at: NoQuarter on Rev. Wright, and you will get page after page after page of articles that at least have some mention of him, if not dealing with him directly (far too many to link to here), beginning with this one in March.

Same goes for the “boorish” behavior of Obama’s supporters. The Palin (and Clinton) t-shirts? The intimidation/bullying at the caucuses? “Iron My Shirt” buffoons? Obama turning away from Clinton without greeting her at the SOTU? Obviously, I could go on and on with examples, all of which have been well documented at NQ and other sites. Which raises this question: where in the hell has this guy been, expecting Obama to change his stripes NOW? Just because it was Bush being booed? Because at no time has Obama acted like a “grown up” when his crowds have gone off on his competition – not once. He has been their role model for boorish behavior from debates to rallies. So for anyone to expect anything different now just because he was sworn in a few times is nothing short of delusional.

So to recap, it is way past time to take off the blindfold and take out the earplugs. The booing? Typical. Comments like Garofalo’s? Typical. Intimidation of dissenters? Typical. (Don’t believe me? Just ask the Justice Department since they are suing the Black Panthers.) Racial division by clergy? Typical.

This is who Obama is. To expect him to challenge behavior in which he himself engages is nuts.

The “affordable” tickets reportedly sold-out in a matter of minutes.

Only the highest online bidders will have the chance to see the hip-hop superstar honor the new president-elect. The cheapest seats for the show, located in the balcony of Washington’s Warner Theatre, cost between $195 and $375 depending on the view. Those disappeared from Ticketmaster in less than five minutes after going on sale at 10 a.m. Friday. (CNN)

In light of LisaB’s great article earlier today, “The ‘racist’ angle, going forward,” I have to ask how this disgusting, utterly vulgar trash talking by “Young Jeezy” and “Jay-Z” at one of the Tuesday night inaugural balls (!) — featured in a segment on The O’Reilly Factor — is not also racist. Racism, contrary to the high-minded assumptions of the elite mainstream media and academia, is not a one-way street.

As I researched this story, I found more and more must-read items, and this story goes clear back to Obama’s behavior during the Democratic primaries. So, let me distill all below into a few succinct key points:

     1) During the Democratic primaries, candidate Barack Obama evoked the motions and style of Jay-Z in order to mock and demean Hillary Clinton. Obama’s gestures — unfamiliar to us who aren’t into hip-hop but instantly understood by all who are into that “music” — were summed up in a great article published at No Quarter, “Obama Invokes Jay-Z: ‘Stab the Ladies…Middle Finga To The Law’.”

     2) Jay-Z is regarded as an “A-list” celebrity, even by the so-called MSM.

     3) Not only that, Jay-Z was awarded the privilege and protection of an official police escort this week in Washington, D.C. (although we don’t know who picked up the tab for that).

     4) Jay-Z attends the Neighborhood Inaugural Ball — which means he was invited (!) — with his pal Young Jeezy, and the two tear up the place with a racist rant that essentially flaunts black power because they have a black president.

     5) During the Neighborhood Ball, Jay-Z and Young Jeezy pitch a nasty, foul-mouthed fit that they’re not asked to perform at the Ball.

     6) We learn that Jay-Z, along with Arcade Fire, has been chosen by the top administrators of the Obama campaign staff to headline a special concert for the hardest-working Obama campaign staff in D.C.

     7) We therefore conclude that, while on Inaugural Day, the Obamas danced to the more elegant Beyonce, they are still promoting the filth and misogyny of Jay-Z and other “performers” of his ilk, just as they did during the campaign.
Above all else, what Jay-Z and Young Jeezy sell is misogyny, sexism, and the objectification of women, as well as dangerous hatred of all other races except blacks. Ironically, sadly, those sales are made to a lot of white, Asian and Hispanic kids.

Here are some sample lyrics from Jay-Z and Young Jeezy are below (brace yourselves). There are more lyrics like this:

How We Ball In The Club, I Know You Hate It
Mommy Dancing On The Floor, All Like She Naked
When She Lay Down With You, I Know She Fake It
All The Girls Give It To Me, I Ain’t Gotta Take It …

Then there are these “lyrics” from Jay-Z’s song that inspired Obama’s gesture, captured on YouTube (seen at the end of this story), towards Hillary Clinton:

If you feelin’ like a pimp nigga, go and brush your shoulders off
Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off
Niggaz is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you
Get, that, dirt off your shoulder

Now for all the details of the above summary. First, this segment was aired on Bill O’Reilly’s show Wednesday night:

Bill O’Reilly didn’t have the whole story. Not by a long shot. First, there are these remarks by YouTube channel owner (Mark1 Williams, a black man) whose video is below:

and jayz had the nerve to act like his feelings were hurt when he wasn’t asked to perform. these are grown men for god’s sake. *shaking my head*

So Mark Williams believes that Jay-Z behaved like this at the ball Tuesday night. You’ve now seen our update above. We just aren’t sure which night it was. But the point that Williams made was that Jay-Z was acting out furiously because he wasn’t invited to perform at the inaugural ball? Jay-Z is an arrogant racist and a misogynistic blowhard afflicted with stunted emotional growth.

BELOW is the un-censored video of Jay-Z’s antics at the inaugural ball Tuesday night, posted by YouTube channel owner Mark1 Williams. STRONG WARNING: The language is very raw, so prepare yourself before you click and, if you’re sensitive to such vulgarity, skip it:

Not that you’re likely to want to see more, but if you do, here’s a link to more such videos from Tuesday night and from those two, uh, performers.

NOW GET THIS. While researching this story, I discovered that Jay-Z has no reason to pout for not getting to perform at the inaugural balls since he is performing, along with Arcade Fire, at an exclusive private party for key Obama campaign staffers as a “thank you” from the campaign. Bill O’Reilly didn’t have this either, even though it’s published by the NYT reporter who spewed bile on Hillary Clinton, Adam Nagourney, at the New York Times Caucus blog as well as at PitchforkMedia and other media outlets. PitchforkMedia praises “Jay and the Arcade Fire [who] both campaigned hard for Obama. … [T]his should be an incredible show, and it seems a fair bet those staffers will hear that “My President is Black” remix at some point.

Oh wow. Don’t we hope. That “My President is Black” remix? It features not only Jay-Z but his partner in filth, “Young Jeezy.”

Isn’t it great that our new president is treating his hardest-working campaign staffers to these sleazeballs?

Do you recall the great article we posted on Jay-Z by Laluchasigue? It’s this article: “Obama Invokes Jay-Z: ‘Stab the Ladies…Middle Finga To The Law’.”

Here’s the history behind Jay-Z that O’Reilly left out of his program Wednesday night:

Obama mimicked Jay-Z during the campaign to connect with hip young black voters and — and! — to denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, along with, let’s face it, all women since these two are clearly misogynistic. Shockingly, Obama was willing to stoop to Jay-Z’s level to get votes. So, actually, what took place at the Tuesday inaugural ball is in part Obama’s own fault because he legitimized these foul-mouthed lousy performers by mimicking them, especially in rallies dominated by black voters. Wrote Laluchasigue:

Obama’s invocation of Jay-Z’s defiant “Dirt Off Your Shoulder” battle anthem during the same speech adds evidence to the claim that he gave Hillary the finger.

Obama’s gesture prompted a mash-up video that made the Jay-Z/Obama connection explicit. Ari Melber, the other Obamabot named Ari at The Nation, posted the video on The Nation’s website, noting, “Obama really is a Jay-Z fan, too. When asked which hip hop artists he likes in a recent interview, he said, ‘lately I’ve been listening to a lot of Jay-Z — this new American Gangster album.’”

Sigh. Yeah. That American Gangster album is da bomb. Great taste, Mr. President. Just great. And what a fine example to the nation’s youth.

Dennis Miller is correct, in the O’Reilly segment, about the two young men being unable to “ratchet down the hate.”

But let’s face it. If those two didn’t have white people to hate, and women to trash, what in the hell would they have left to rap about?

And I LOVE what Miller says about the term “ho’s” versus “hose.” (That’s another strong theme in this kind of “music” [I use the term reluctantly] in that it is also misogynistic and constantly regards women as objects whose sole function is for the gratification of male sexual pleasure.)

Quite frankly, their “music” is nothing more than crudely dysfunctional emotional ejaculation and has nothing to do with the deepest needs of all psychologically healthy human beings, which are to connect emotionally as well as physically.

This kind of language, and what it conveys, has no place in our society. Racism can, and does, affect ALL races.. And the speech of Jay-Z and Young Jeezy is racist against whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian Americans.

It makes me sick to my stomach that young people are spending money — most likely their parents’ hard-earned money — to make rich brats out of these thugs. It repulses me that young people are reveling in the music put out by disgusting hate-filled people like these two. Bill O’Reilly’s minimization of their impact is woefully wrong. The truth is that far too many young people are listening to music like this.

Can we have a little class, please. Is that too much to ask? A little more Beyonce and no more Jay-Z?

Naturally, the vast majority of blacks yesterday rejoiced in the inauguration of the nation’s first black president. But there were a few who used the occasion to preach hate and racism against anyone who’s not black like them.

President Obama must do all he can to set these young thugs straight, and to discourage young people from imitating their behavior and adopting their sickening attitudes.

Perhaps President Obama can begin by not emulating them in order to win a presidential election.

I finished the above story but it kept bugging me. So I searched the news for more reports.

This is by an LA Times reporter for its arts section, “The Culture Monster,” who spotted Jay-Z in the morning:

I walked to the southeastern edge of the Capitol this morning with my sister and a friend. They held blue tickets for the swearing-in ceremony; mine was green. We parted at the corner of Independence Avenue and South Capitol Street. And while I progressed rather quickly through a battery of security checkpoints and found my seat around 9 a.m. — well before a parade of celebrities including Jay-Z (wearing a gigantic, Yeltsin-esque fur hat), Beyonce and Maria Shriver swept past me toward their seats nearby — they stood motionless in a massive block of people that went nowhere. They ultimately gave up after standing in line for four hours.

Here’s another not-too-deep report, “Leonardo DiCaprio Joins Beyonce, Jay-Z, and More at Neighborhood Inaugural Ball.”

And last, this from the San Francisco Examiner:

How the mighty have fallen – Jennifer Lopez locked out of Jay-Z show at Obama Inaugural

[...]

Real A-listers like Jay-Z, who was getting around town with a police escort, and Alicia Keys had been warned to make it to balls and other celebrations up to four hours early to make it past the snarled traffic and tight security. Even Leonardo DiCaprio and Toby “Spiderman” Maquire were there early. …

Got that? Jay-Z is a “real A-lister” who gets a “police escort” — and who’s paying for that? The taxpayers of Washington, D.C.? And who ordered that he merited a police escort? I’d like to know who arranged that. Was it an Obama staffer? And why?

My jaw has dropped so many times while writing this article that I can’t find it anymore.

So a misogynistic, foul-mouthed creep like Jay-Z gets A-list treatment, a police escort, and a lead in the entertainment for Obama’s most prized campaign staffers? And he served as a role model for Obama to capture the black vote?

What world am I living in?

The one thing I do know is that it’s not my world or my country. It’s not my family’s world. It’s not my mother’s world (she’d be shocked beyond belief by this article if she were alive to read it).

Down is up.

Class is trash.

And I’m glad that I chose to stay away from that campaign and that candidate, if those are the celebrities and the “talent” he chooses to reward.

I’ll stick with the one who should be president.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Now there’s real class.

But remember this video. That crowd got exactly what Obama was doing:

That gesture comes from these lyrics:

[Chorus: Jay-Z]
If you feelin’ like a pimp nigga, go and brush your shoulders off
Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off
Niggaz is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you
Get, that, dirt off your shoulder

[Verse One]
I probably owe it to y’all, probably to be locked by the force
Tryin to hustle some things, that go with the Porsche
Feelin no remorse, feelin like my hand was forced
Middle finger to the law, nigga grippin ma balls
Stab the ladies they love me, from the bleachers they screamin
All the ballers is bouncin, they like the way I be leanin
All the rappers be hatin, off the track that I’m makin
But all the hustlers they love it just to see one of us make it
Came from the bottom the bottom, to the Top of the Pops
Nigga London, Japan and I’m straight off the block
Like a running back, get it man, I’m straight off the block
I can run it back nigga cause I’m straight with the Roc
=

Just remember, as if I have to repeat it, from above:

“Obama really is a Jay-Z fan, too. When asked which hip hop artists he likes in a recent interview, he said, ‘lately I’ve been listening to a lot of Jay-Z — this new American Gangster album.’”

What an example to the nation’s children our new president is.

UPDATE on “Jay-Z’s ‘Concert On The Eve Of Change’.” (H/T to LDP, who did some more digging, and found out that Jay-Z probably performed those antics at the Monday night concert he held. See photos. Lovely. (He performed his apparently revered new hit song, “History,” which I’ve added at the end of this post.) See sohh.com for more background on the concert.

NOW HERE ARE SOME of the lyrics to his lauded song, “History” — I note that “defeat” is a woman, but of course:

Known for his clever usage of metaphors, Jay compares Obama’s victory to his yearning and frustration over a woman.

“Until she visit me/I’ll be stuck with her sister her name is defeat/she gives me agony/I‘m
stuck in this routine/whole new different day/same old thing/all I got
is dreams/nobody else could see/nobody else believes/nobody else but
me/Where are you victory/I need you desperately/not just for the
moment, to make history.”

The song, which debuted on Angie Martinez‘s Hot 97 radio show in New York City, comes after months of Jay’s personal endorsement of Obama at concerts, rallies with fans throughout the nation and exclusive Obama benefit shows. 

Read all here, including more on songs by others on Obama’s victory.

UPDATE/CORRECTION?: Thanks to reader LDP doing some more digging, we now believe that Jay-Z and Young Jeezy exhibited their crude behavior at a concert Monday night called “Jay-Z’s ‘Concert On The Eve Of Change’.” See photos. Lovely. (He performed his apparently revered new hit song, “History,” which I’ve added at the end of this post.) Get this: He charged big bucks for tickets, which scalpers quickly scooped up. Via sohh.com:

The “affordable” tickets reportedly sold-out in a matter of minutes.

Only the highest online bidders will have the chance to see the hip-hop superstar honor the new president-elect. The cheapest seats for the show, located in the balcony of Washington’s Warner Theatre, cost between $195 and $375 depending on the view. Those disappeared from Ticketmaster in less than five minutes after going on sale at 10 a.m. Friday. (CNN)

In light of LisaB’s great article earlier today, “The ‘racist’ angle, going forward,” I have to ask how this disgusting, utterly vulgar trash talking by “Young Jeezy” and “Jay-Z” at one of the Tuesday night inaugural balls (!) — featured in a segment on The O’Reilly Factor — is not also racist. Racism, contrary to the high-minded assumptions of the elite mainstream media and academia, is not a one-way street.

As I researched this story, I found more and more must-read items, and this story goes clear back to Obama’s behavior during the Democratic primaries. So, let me distill all below into a few succinct key points:

     1) During the Democratic primaries, candidate Barack Obama evoked the motions and style of Jay-Z in order to mock and demean Hillary Clinton. Obama’s gestures — unfamiliar to us who aren’t into hip-hop but instantly understood by all who are into that “music” — were summed up in a great article published at No Quarter, “Obama Invokes Jay-Z: ‘Stab the Ladies…Middle Finga To The Law’.”

     2) Jay-Z is regarded as an “A-list” celebrity, even by the so-called MSM.

     3) Not only that, Jay-Z was awarded the privilege and protection of an official police escort this week in Washington, D.C. (although we don’t know who picked up the tab for that).

     4) Jay-Z attends the Neighborhood Inaugural Ball — which means he was invited (!) — with his pal Young Jeezy, and the two tear up the place with a racist rant that essentially flaunts black power because they have a black president.

     5) During the Neighborhood Ball, Jay-Z and Young Jeezy pitch a nasty, foul-mouthed fit that they’re not asked to perform at the Ball.

     6) We learn that Jay-Z, along with Arcade Fire, has been chosen by the top administrators of the Obama campaign staff to headline a special concert for the hardest-working Obama campaign staff in D.C.

     7) We therefore conclude that, while on Inaugural Day, the Obamas danced to the more elegant Beyonce, they are still promoting the filth and misogyny of Jay-Z and other “performers” of his ilk, just as they did during the campaign.
Above all else, what Jay-Z and Young Jeezy sell is misogyny, sexism, and the objectification of women, as well as dangerous hatred of all other races except blacks. Ironically, sadly, those sales are made to a lot of white, Asian and Hispanic kids.

Here are some sample lyrics from Jay-Z and Young Jeezy are below (brace yourselves). There are more lyrics like this:

How We Ball In The Club, I Know You Hate It
Mommy Dancing On The Floor, All Like She Naked
When She Lay Down With You, I Know She Fake It
All The Girls Give It To Me, I Ain’t Gotta Take It …

Then there are these “lyrics” from Jay-Z’s song that inspired Obama’s gesture, captured on YouTube (seen at the end of this story), towards Hillary Clinton:

If you feelin’ like a pimp nigga, go and brush your shoulders off
Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off
Niggaz is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you
Get, that, dirt off your shoulder

Now for all the details of the above summary. First, this segment was aired on Bill O’Reilly’s show Wednesday night:

Bill O’Reilly didn’t have the whole story. Not by a long shot. First, there are these remarks by YouTube channel owner (Mark1 Williams, a black man) whose video is below:

and jayz had the nerve to act like his feelings were hurt when he wasn’t asked to perform. these are grown men for god’s sake. *shaking my head*

So Mark Williams believes that Jay-Z behaved like this at the ball Tuesday night. You’ve now seen our update above. We just aren’t sure which night it was. But the point that Williams made was that Jay-Z was acting out furiously because he wasn’t invited to perform at the inaugural ball? Jay-Z is an arrogant racist and a misogynistic blowhard afflicted with stunted emotional growth.

BELOW is the un-censored video of Jay-Z’s antics at the inaugural ball Tuesday night, posted by YouTube channel owner Mark1 Williams. STRONG WARNING: The language is very raw, so prepare yourself before you click and, if you’re sensitive to such vulgarity, skip it:

Not that you’re likely to want to see more, but if you do, here’s a link to more such videos from Tuesday night and from those two, uh, performers.

NOW GET THIS. While researching this story, I discovered that Jay-Z has no reason to pout for not getting to perform at the inaugural balls since he is performing, along with Arcade Fire, at an exclusive private party for key Obama campaign staffers as a “thank you” from the campaign. Bill O’Reilly didn’t have this either, even though it’s published by the NYT reporter who spewed bile on Hillary Clinton, Adam Nagourney, at the New York Times Caucus blog as well as at PitchforkMedia and other media outlets. PitchforkMedia praises “Jay and the Arcade Fire [who] both campaigned hard for Obama. … [T]his should be an incredible show, and it seems a fair bet those staffers will hear that “My President is Black” remix at some point.

Oh wow. Don’t we hope. That “My President is Black” remix? It features not only Jay-Z but his partner in filth, “Young Jeezy.”

Isn’t it great that our new president is treating his hardest-working campaign staffers to these sleazeballs?

Do you recall the great article we posted on Jay-Z by Laluchasigue? It’s this article: “Obama Invokes Jay-Z: ‘Stab the Ladies…Middle Finga To The Law’.”

Here’s the history behind Jay-Z that O’Reilly left out of his program Wednesday night:

Obama mimicked Jay-Z during the campaign to connect with hip young black voters and — and! — to denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, along with, let’s face it, all women since these two are clearly misogynistic. Shockingly, Obama was willing to stoop to Jay-Z’s level to get votes. So, actually, what took place at the Tuesday inaugural ball is in part Obama’s own fault because he legitimized these foul-mouthed lousy performers by mimicking them, especially in rallies dominated by black voters. Wrote Laluchasigue:

Obama’s invocation of Jay-Z’s defiant “Dirt Off Your Shoulder” battle anthem during the same speech adds evidence to the claim that he gave Hillary the finger.

Obama’s gesture prompted a mash-up video that made the Jay-Z/Obama connection explicit. Ari Melber, the other Obamabot named Ari at The Nation, posted the video on The Nation’s website, noting, “Obama really is a Jay-Z fan, too. When asked which hip hop artists he likes in a recent interview, he said, ‘lately I’ve been listening to a lot of Jay-Z — this new American Gangster album.’”

Sigh. Yeah. That American Gangster album is da bomb. Great taste, Mr. President. Just great. And what a fine example to the nation’s youth.

Dennis Miller is correct, in the O’Reilly segment, about the two young men being unable to “ratchet down the hate.”

But let’s face it. If those two didn’t have white people to hate, and women to trash, what in the hell would they have left to rap about?

And I LOVE what Miller says about the term “ho’s” versus “hose.” (That’s another strong theme in this kind of “music” [I use the term reluctantly] in that it is also misogynistic and constantly regards women as objects whose sole function is for the gratification of male sexual pleasure.)

Quite frankly, their “music” is nothing more than crudely dysfunctional emotional ejaculation and has nothing to do with the deepest needs of all psychologically healthy human beings, which are to connect emotionally as well as physically.

This kind of language, and what it conveys, has no place in our society. Racism can, and does, affect ALL races.. And the speech of Jay-Z and Young Jeezy is racist against whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian Americans.

It makes me sick to my stomach that young people are spending money — most likely their parents’ hard-earned money — to make rich brats out of these thugs. It repulses me that young people are reveling in the music put out by disgusting hate-filled people like these two. Bill O’Reilly’s minimization of their impact is woefully wrong. The truth is that far too many young people are listening to music like this.

Can we have a little class, please. Is that too much to ask? A little more Beyonce and no more Jay-Z?

Naturally, the vast majority of blacks yesterday rejoiced in the inauguration of the nation’s first black president. But there were a few who used the occasion to preach hate and racism against anyone who’s not black like them.

President Obama must do all he can to set these young thugs straight, and to discourage young people from imitating their behavior and adopting their sickening attitudes.

Perhaps President Obama can begin by not emulating them in order to win a presidential election.

I finished the above story but it kept bugging me. So I searched the news for more reports.

This is by an LA Times reporter for its arts section, “The Culture Monster,” who spotted Jay-Z in the morning:

I walked to the southeastern edge of the Capitol this morning with my sister and a friend. They held blue tickets for the swearing-in ceremony; mine was green. We parted at the corner of Independence Avenue and South Capitol Street. And while I progressed rather quickly through a battery of security checkpoints and found my seat around 9 a.m. — well before a parade of celebrities including Jay-Z (wearing a gigantic, Yeltsin-esque fur hat), Beyonce and Maria Shriver swept past me toward their seats nearby — they stood motionless in a massive block of people that went nowhere. They ultimately gave up after standing in line for four hours.

Here’s another not-too-deep report, “Leonardo DiCaprio Joins Beyonce, Jay-Z, and More at Neighborhood Inaugural Ball.”

And last, this from the San Francisco Examiner:

How the mighty have fallen – Jennifer Lopez locked out of Jay-Z show at Obama Inaugural

[...]

Real A-listers like Jay-Z, who was getting around town with a police escort, and Alicia Keys had been warned to make it to balls and other celebrations up to four hours early to make it past the snarled traffic and tight security. Even Leonardo DiCaprio and Toby “Spiderman” Maquire were there early. …

Got that? Jay-Z is a “real A-lister” who gets a “police escort” — and who’s paying for that? The taxpayers of Washington, D.C.? And who ordered that he merited a police escort? I’d like to know who arranged that. Was it an Obama staffer? And why?

My jaw has dropped so many times while writing this article that I can’t find it anymore.

So a misogynistic, foul-mouthed creep like Jay-Z gets A-list treatment, a police escort, and a lead in the entertainment for Obama’s most prized campaign staffers? And he served as a role model for Obama to capture the black vote?

What world am I living in?

The one thing I do know is that it’s not my world or my country. It’s not my family’s world. It’s not my mother’s world (she’d be shocked beyond belief by this article if she were alive to read it).

Down is up.

Class is trash.

And I’m glad that I chose to stay away from that campaign and that candidate, if those are the celebrities and the “talent” he chooses to reward.

I’ll stick with the one who should be president.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Now there’s real class.

But remember this video. That crowd got exactly what Obama was doing:

That gesture comes from these lyrics:

[Chorus: Jay-Z]
If you feelin’ like a pimp nigga, go and brush your shoulders off
Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off
Niggaz is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you
Get, that, dirt off your shoulder

[Verse One]
I probably owe it to y’all, probably to be locked by the force
Tryin to hustle some things, that go with the Porsche
Feelin no remorse, feelin like my hand was forced
Middle finger to the law, nigga grippin ma balls
Stab the ladies they love me, from the bleachers they screamin
All the ballers is bouncin, they like the way I be leanin
All the rappers be hatin, off the track that I’m makin
But all the hustlers they love it just to see one of us make it
Came from the bottom the bottom, to the Top of the Pops
Nigga London, Japan and I’m straight off the block
Like a running back, get it man, I’m straight off the block
I can run it back nigga cause I’m straight with the Roc
=

Just remember, as if I have to repeat it, from above:

“Obama really is a Jay-Z fan, too. When asked which hip hop artists he likes in a recent interview, he said, ‘lately I’ve been listening to a lot of Jay-Z — this new American Gangster album.’”

What an example to the nation’s children our new president is.

UPDATE on “Jay-Z’s ‘Concert On The Eve Of Change’.” (H/T to LDP, who did some more digging, and found out that Jay-Z probably performed those antics at the Monday night concert he held. See photos. Lovely. (He performed his apparently revered new hit song, “History,” which I’ve added at the end of this post.) See sohh.com for more background on the concert.

NOW HERE ARE SOME of the lyrics to his lauded song, “History” — I note that “defeat” is a woman, but of course:

Known for his clever usage of metaphors, Jay compares Obama’s victory to his yearning and frustration over a woman.

“Until she visit me/I’ll be stuck with her sister her name is defeat/she gives me agony/I‘m
stuck in this routine/whole new different day/same old thing/all I got
is dreams/nobody else could see/nobody else believes/nobody else but
me/Where are you victory/I need you desperately/not just for the
moment, to make history.”

The song, which debuted on Angie Martinez‘s Hot 97 radio show in New York City, comes after months of Jay’s personal endorsement of Obama at concerts, rallies with fans throughout the nation and exclusive Obama benefit shows. 

Read all here, including more on songs by others on Obama’s victory.