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.

He is also half white.

Unless the one-drop rule still applies, our president-elect is not black.

We call him that — he calls himself that — because we use dated language and logic. After more than 300 years and much difficult history, we hew to the old racist rule: Part-black is all black. Fifty percent equals a hundred. There’s no in-between.

That was my reaction when I read these words on the front page of this newspaper the day after the election: “Obama Makes History: U.S. Decisively Elects First Black President.”

The phrase was repeated in much the same form by one media organization after another. It’s as if we have one foot in the future and another still mired in the Old South. We are racially sophisticated enough to elect a non-white president, and we are so racially backward that we insist on calling him black. Progress has outpaced vocabulary.

To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president. He is more than the personification of African American achievement. He is a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go.

Well, this was originally what Barack Obama was supposed to be – a post-racial candidate. Ms. Arana indicates there is much racial mixing in our society and others so as to render old labeling out of date and useless. However, as fascinating as this article is, as she details her own rich cultural heritage among others, and it is certainly worth a read in its entirety, she seems to be placing the blame on the media and the American people for the labeling of Barack Obama as black.

While she is right that the media did push this narrative for all it was worth, Ms. Arano neglects to mention that a great deal of the responsibility for that label belongs with President-elect Obama himself. He did nothing to disabuse the media of this notion which he could have done at any time by continuing to trumpet his own mixed heritage.

Even Obama himself seems to have bought into the nomenclature. In his memoir “Dreams from My Father,” he writes, “I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and beyond the given of my appearance, no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant.” You can almost feel the youth struggling with his identity, reaching for the right words to describe it and finally accepting the label that others impose.

It was a label he imposed. In his run for the presidency, his first campaign narrative was that he was the post-racial candidate. How nice if he would have stuck with that. Instead, he very clearly brought race to the forefront of his campaign by playing the race card with impunity almost every day since January.

He was very clear to define himself as bi-racial, for instance, when he was campaigning in New Hampshire, very early in this years’ primary season. However, at the next primary, in South Carolina, he suddenly became “black” and there was absolutely no mention of his white Kansan mother. It was as if she did not exist. Is this not disrespectful to an equally important part of his heritage? It is easy to understand why he did this in a state with so large an African American population. I am sure I remember several articles before Super Duper Tuesday indicating that certain AA voters were not relating to him as being ‘AA enough.’ Was this a reason for his assuming an affectation once he got out on the campaign trail in these states?

Subsequently, his white grandmother who raised him and put him through private school only got a rather negative mention in his ‘monumentally important’ speech on race, and he soon after referred to her in a very insulting, limiting and quite frankly, inaccurate fashion as ‘a typical white person.’ So much for post-racial. His speech on race was a very well orchestrated diversion, since his candidacy was in much hot water after his close 20-year relationship with the racially divisive Reverend Wright was revealed just a few days earlier. Again, he played the race card rather than answering the question of what he was doing in that church in the first place, deflecting blame onto the ‘racial divide’ in this country rather than taking responsibility for his actions.

He claimed this ‘narrative’ of the black candidate for himself, as opposed to a bi-racial one, because he needed to pull the African American vote away from Hillary Clinton and aim a wrecking ball at the popularity the Clintons always enjoyed within the African American community. Professor Sean Wilentz’ brilliant article in The New Republic, “Race Man,” has often been referenced here, and details just how the Obama campaign played the race card to their advantage to accomplish this very mission.

Ms. Arana further states:

The explosion of “minorities” in the United States in the past half-century has guaranteed that ever more interracial mingling is inevitable. According to the 2000 Census, there were 1.5 million Hispanic-white marriages in the United States, half a million Asian-white marriages, and more than a quarter-million black-white marriages. The reality is probably closer to double or triple that number. And growing.

The evidence is everywhere. If not in our neighborhoods, in our culture. We see it in Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, Ben Kingsley, Nancy Kwan, Ne-Yo, Mariah Carey. Yet we insist on calling these hybrids by a reductive name: Berry is black. Kingsley is white. Kwan is yellow. Even they label themselves by the apparent color of their skin. With language like that, how can we claim to live in a post-racial society?

Interracial mingling is a very positive thing – showing that we are breaking down all sorts of barriers and just taking each person as we find them, without regard to labels or skin color.

Few who see Barack Obama, it seems, understand that he’s 50 percent white Kansan. Even fewer understand what it means to be second-generation Kenyan. It reminds me of something sociologist Troy Duster and bioethicist Pilar Ossorio once observed: Skin color is seldom what it seems. People who look white can have a significant majority of African ancestors. People who look black can have a majority of ancestors who are European.

In other words, the color of a president-elect’s skin doesn’t tell you much. It’s an unreliable marker, a deceptive form of packaging. Isn’t it time we stopped using labels that validate the separation of races? Isn’t it time for the language to move on?

How much more honest would Obama’s campaign have been if he had moved on from labels as well, being that he promised to do so. It is exhausting that those who choose to write articles about this subject turn a blind eye to his part in its current cause. Our ‘language’ isn’t the only thing that needs to move on.

The ‘unreliable marker’ of which Ms. Arano speaks is indeed a deceptive form of packaging. Contrary to what he would have you believe as being a detriment in his campaign, President elect Obama’s skin color was something he used to his advantage. He enjoyed a solid 90-95% voting bloc within the African American community, while doing basically nothing to earn their votes, apart from using his appearance as a victory in itself for those voters.

While many may understandably take his election as a great triumph and a huge leap beyond our painful past, he has set race relations back in this country with the insulting ‘labels’ he and his surrogates suggested in order to corner those who did not believe in him into voting for him. Politics is a bloody business, and obviously, President-elect Obama, his campaign manager, David Axelrod, and their surrogates used every trick to get to victory.

Earlier, Ms. Arano mentioned that “progress had outpaced vocabulary,” but it was the Obama campaign that pretended we had made less progress on racial issues than we actually have. When voters who chose not to embrace Obama’s candidacy were routinely referred to as racists, Archie Bunkers, and low information voters, so as to deny the fact that there were myriad excellent reasons for people not to support him, how can we as a society possibly have a real discussion about the issues Ms. Arana poses?

Clearly, since Obama received more “white” votes than any candidate since Carter, the ‘racist’ narrative he imposed is not an applicable one. He is a bi-racial President-elect. Why can’t this be celebrated as a way to move us forward just as much as him being the first black President?

It will be interesting to see if he now tries to mend the fences of the pain he caused. Somehow, I tend to doubt it will be addressed at all.

1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along - same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

From the original post:

Gatewaypundit has a video from Naked Emperor News with some comments from BO back in 1995. Yeah, it’s a few years ago. But he talks about the same thing he mentioned to “Joe the Plumber.” This sounds like the real BO to me - not the sanitized stump speech version. After all, there are no white people who willingly pay taxes for AA children to go to school, are there?

Here’s the audio:

All day yesterday, Memeorandum featured many, many articles about the second video, including one at the National Review.
Read the rest ->

First, the audio from 2001:

The National Review author provided a transcript of the audio and interspersed parts of it with interesting comments. I’m excerpting a few here, but it’s worth the time to read the entire article.

There is nothing vague or ambiguous about [Obama's comments]. Nothing. 

From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it. 

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Wow. “.. . redistribution of wealth. . . essentially is administrative.” Redistributing the wealth, then, is both a job for the President and is simply a matter for planning? And “not suitable for the courts” certainly suggests one would not have much chance for redress. Are you kidding?

Then he adds this:

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

To me, when Obama says “[the Warren Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” I get the distinct impression he means the court somehow failed in the “breaking free” part. That would mean Obama feels the constraints engineered by the Constitution should be removed or overcome somehow. This is what the NR had to say about that:

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population. 

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

So, the Civil Rights movement, by using the courts to address questions of equality missed out on creating “coalitions of power” that would bring about “redistributive change.” The reason the Civil Rights movement used the courts is because that is what the courts are for - to address such problems in a venue everyone believes has legitimacy and the force of government behind it. Why would community organizing have done any better? How in the world would “redistributive change” have occurred outside the courts? What does he MEAN?

In addition to the author’s comments about Obama’s statements, he notes as well that this video - by Naked Emperor News - was found and reported on by an individual. NOT THE MSM. The 1995 video is also from NEN.

I, do however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation. 

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them. 

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

I just did a story on the MSM, noting that it had lost all its integrity. This is just another reason to distrust those providing you “news” on tv and print and radio. At least on the ‘net you can look at multiple sources and are not limited to whatever some editor decides to give air time to.

CBSnews did give some cursory coverage to the story by reporting on a remark by John Boehner.

“As disturbing as Barack Obama’s comments about ‘redistribution of wealth’ are, what’s worse is that seven years later his rhetoric is the same,” Boehner said Monday in a statement.

“Obama still wants to ‘redistribute’ our tax dollars and ‘spread the wealth around,’ giving money to people who don’t pay taxes rather than growing our economy for everybody.”

The Obama campaign immediately pushed back, arguing that the Right is deliberately misinterpreting a narrow legal argument Obama was making about decades-old court cases.
————–
“In this seven year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all.

The Obama campaign is whacking away at a straw man here. I don’t think Obama was arguing the courts should redistribute wealth at all either. He plainly said that was an administrative function for the chief executive.

Of course, this audio also has other implications. By discussing the redistribution of wealth and justice within the context of the civil rights movement, Obama also makes this a racial discussion. His context is clearly about AAs and whites.

Obama has said he is all about trans-racial politics even while his past associations with the likes of Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger and other race salary-men suggest otherwise. To me, this audio is simply more of the same in that sense.

And what about the redistribution of wealth and justice? Obviously Obama feels redistribution needs to happen. That’s not even open to question for him. He also seems to think the President can accomplish such redistribution because it is an “administrative function.” And he says the Constitution, rather than define what government cannot do to citizens, should rather define what it HAS to do for citizens. That’s a very different way of approaching the fundamental outlines of how our country works.

And, the Civil Rights movement missed out by ONLY using the courts to work for justice. ONLY? What venues did the Civil Rights movement miss?

Fundamental questions for a candidate, one would think. Will anyone but the bloggers bother to ask? Given that Obama has provided so little about his beliefs (other than his strong Christian beliefs, but NOT at Trinity, no, that was a 20 year fluke) or about him personally (writings, personal information), something like this audio offers a window into what a President Obama would put on his agenda. Had he bothered to make more information available, this audio might be placed within some bigger context. But he hasn’t. So, this audio is as important as it gets.

Obama is remarkably consistent from at least 1995 to 2001 in how he views the ideas of who owes what to whom. I wonder. In the wake of these audio clips, will people try to convince us BO’s politics have changed or his attitudes? Given that he was at Trinity until last spring, I’d say the only viable thing to say is his (mis)representaitons of his politics and his positions have changed. After all, the BO campaign will do whatever they can get away with, not what is true or even passes the sniff test.

Gatewaypundit has a video today from Naked Emperor News with some comments from BO back in 1995. Yeah, it’s a few years ago. But he talks about the same thing he mentioned to “Joe the Plumber.” This sounds like the real BO to me - not the sanitized stump speech version. After all, there are no white people who willingly pay taxes for AA children to go to school, are there?

Here’s the video:

I wonder - will people try to convince us BO’s politics have changed or his attitudes? Given that he was at Trinity until last spring, I’d say the only viable thing to say is his politics have changed. But the BO campaign will do whatever they can get away with, not what is true or even passes the sniff test.

1)The NYPost talks about Joe the Plumber today. It calls Obama’s “economic plan” a wealth redistribution scheme.

Obama’s plan isn’t about sinking hooks into Wall Street CEOs and other fat cats, as he usually says. Fact is, there’s not enough of them to raise the cash necessary to finance his other grand plans.

No, to do that, he’ll have to go after ambitious working-class guys like Wurzelbacher - who’s been a plumber for 15 years and is looking to better himself and his family while just maybe creating a few jobs.
————–
Heretofore, Obama has sought to paint himself as a tax-cutter - claiming he’ll slash taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

As we noted yesterday, that’s a flat-out lie - not least because nearly half of all tax filers pay no income tax at all. So how can he “cut” their taxes if they don’t pay any to begin with?

Answer: tax “credits.”
To wit, in part:
* A $1,000 “make work pay” credit.
* A $4,000 college-tuition credit.
* A $6,000 child-care credit.
* A $1,100 bump in the earned-income tax credit.

These aren’t to be income-tax deductions - which would be worthless to those who pay no income taxes.

These are to be checks from Washington - with the subsidies expected to grow to more than $1 trillion in 10 years.

That’s a massive transfer of wealth.

How does Obama justify it?

“Fairness,” he says.

But that’s an absurdly radical view of what’s “fair.”

Read the rest ->

“Fair” has nothing to do with it. But, luckily or not, depending on how you look at it (gallows humor there), our economic situation may make this “plan” go the way of Obama’s principled stands on NAFTA, FISA, etc. etc.

2)Today’s IBD has an article about Iran and a potential natural gas cartel - featuring Iran and Russia - to function somewhat like OPEC. Except a forward thinking elected official is taking steps to nullify any effect of such a gas carte. Sarah Palin.

Energy: Iran resurrected its idea of a “gas cartel” to control gas markets like oil. But even if it succeeds, the U.S. won’t be vulnerable. If you wonder why, look to the governor of Alaska.

That’s right, Gov. Sarah Palin took a powerful preemptive step in August to shield the U.S. from a coming gas cartel. Palin’s effort to create the Trans-Canada Alaska gas line — which would provide a vast new trove of natural gas each day to the U.S. — effectively nullifies the emerging gas cartel’s potential impact on America.

If OPEC strikes you as a bad group, the new cartel for natural gas, led by Russia and Iran, will be even worse.

Russia has made standoffish statements about the plan, but won’t repudiate it. “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea,” then-President Vladimir Putin declared last year. Based on Russia’s moves since, the Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen believes it’s a stealth move from the Kremlin to keep buyers unperturbed as the cartel slowly forms.

He’s right. This week in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quietly drew up the organization’s charter and will take it to Moscow next week.
—————–
. . . The market is changing fast. Global trade in liquified natural gas, or LNG, which requires no pipelines, will grow sharply. The U.S. will see a 58% increase in LNG imports in just two years, according to the Energy Department.

As the U.S. uses more natural gas, Iran’s Gas Exporting Countries Forum is taking off. Instead of the tough task of controlling prices right away, the group will first gain control of reserves through state firms in 14 countries, including hostile states such as Venezuela and Bolivia.

The next step will be “cooperative” ventures to strengthen the network. The final goal is to control production.

It’s nothing but a scheme to carve up monopoly spheres of influence that can tell customers whom they can buy from. That will kill competition and create incentives for meddling. Russia, which readily cuts off gas to neighbors over political disputes, has signaled that it will keep using gas as a political weapon.
—————–
As for U.S., already fairly self-sufficient in natural gas, we will be in a more solid position to defy the coercion. Palin’s pre-emptive step to foil Ahmadinejad’s scheme is in the Alaska gas line. In an Amazonian move, Palin effectively beat back the ambitious petrotyrants 10 years early with her $40 billion, 1,715-mile gas pipeline across Canada that will bring 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas a day — nearly one-fifth projected needs — to the lower 48 within a decade.

Almost entirely off the news radar, Palin mowed down 30 years of legislative squabbling in the Alaska statehouse and then triumphantly signed off on the pipeline in August, stating her aim was energy independence.

“Alaska should be the leader of an energy policy that gets us there,” she told IBD over the summer.

————–

Her gas line shows . . . foresight, this time aimed at neutralizing enemies that will otherwise grow in strength. Palin’s pipeline will be a critical strike for energy security against petrotyrants intent on extending their influence. It will come online at precisely the moment the gas cartel could develop into a power.

This isn’t to say petrotyrants will go away, that the U.S. won’t be in the crossfire. U.S. self-sufficiency in natural gas will be roughly equivalent to Brazil’s in oil. The South American country which sees few problems from petrotyrants in the wake of its oil independence based on its willingness to drill. The U.S. likely will have the same strength in natural gas.

Energy security is a peculiar concept. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has too few resources to bother drilling. But a nation need not have massive oil reserves for independence; all it needs are competitive alternatives — such as natural gas. Heading off the gas cartel is an important move, and Palin deserves recognition.

Palin’s foresight is a major contribution to U.S. energy security that will reverberate well beyond the election, no matter how it turns out.

In a couple of years when it is clear how the economic mess will fall out and whether or not the US works to change its energy use patterns, this pipeline will probably be one of very few examples of foresight. And hopefully I’ll be around to remind MSM idiots this is the official they said couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. That’s our press - always fighting the last war.

3)The San Diego Union-Tribune has an op-ed saying Obama’s truthfulness should be questioned.

Any day now, I expect Barack Obama to call a news conference, wag his finger to the cameras, and announce with all the sincerity he can muster: “I did not have a substantive relationship with that Weatherman, Mr. Ayers.”

Of course, the way things are going, Obama may not have to lift a finger, let alone wag one. He might be able to run out the clock and avoid comment on continuing questions involving his involvement with a Hyde Park neighbor and unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayers.
————–

. . . here is what the voters should care about: Obama’s truthfulness, which is now in question. Over the last few months, we’ve learned that Obama and Ayers had more than just a “flimsy” relationship that included Ayers hosting a political gathering at his home for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and the two serving together on various panels and boards. Ayers was also a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group. Obama served as chairman of its board from 1995 to ‘99, using the position to launch his political career.

Recently, Obama pulled back the curtain an inch. He told reporters that, during his association with Ayers, he had heard about the English professor’s radical past but assumed Ayers had been rehabilitated. Ayers’ ghoulish comments about not setting enough bombs suggest otherwise.

I put no stock in the politics of guilt by association. And even associating with ghouls should not hurt someone’s bid for the presidency. But lying about it is another story. It could be a warning of things to come.

Yeah. Kinda late, dude. Wish you had been there earlier. Then your op-ed might have been meaningful.

4)At the Boston Globe, another op-ed saying something quite similar. It begins by talking about other public figures who have been “guilty by association” such as Ronald Reagan (using the phrase “states’ rights” in MS). Then he goes here:

In none of these cases was there anything like the long relationship that Barack Obama had for so many years with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the incendiary, America-damning pastor he described for years as his mentor, his sounding board, and his friend. In none of them was there anything comparable to Obama’s significant involvement with William Ayers, the domestic-terrorist-turned-extremist-professor with whom Obama worked closely at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, channeling more than $100 million into radical education projects.

Nor was anything in the Reagan, Bush, or Alito episodes akin to Obama’s highly profitable relationship with Tony Rezko, the crooked Chicago businessman and political fixer who was convicted in June on multiple counts of fraud, corrupt solicitation, and money laundering. In the course of their 17-year relationship, Rezko directed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama’s political war chests; he also facilitated the Obamas’ purchase of a $1.6 million mansion by agreeing to buy the adjoining lot from the same seller.
————

But it isn’t ridiculous to question the values of a candidate whose political career got its start in the Chicago living room of violent traitors like Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who have never expressed remorse for the brutal crimes they committed in the Weather Underground. There is nothing unfair about wondering how Obama could have worshipped for 20 years in Wright’s church, yet never objected to the fanatic pastor’s virulent messages: that AIDS was created by the US government as an instrument of genocide, that America is the “US of KKKA,” that the 9/11 slaughter was “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

Guilt by association? Not when the associations have such deep roots or raise such troubling questions about Obama’s character and judgment. It was only in the heat of a presidential campaign that Obama finally repudiated his alliances with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko. It isn’t irresponsible to ask what those associations tell us about a man poised to be the next president of the United States. It would be irresponsible not to.

What two of these editorials now? Think some MSM are issuing these “just in case” or what? Yeah, thanks for this insight dude. Should have been around, what, oh - months ago.

5)Fox had a roundtable on the John Lewis spew and how race-baiting has worked this election cycle. Charles Krauthammer explained how it works - just as we’ve been talking about here at NQ all along.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: When John McCain runs an ad with a white woman, Paris Hilton in it, he is accused of racism. He runs an ad with Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae in it, who is African-American, and that’s racist. And then he runs an ad with William Ayers, who is a white male in it, and that’s racist.

If it weren’t so comical, these promiscuous accusations of racism, it would be tragic.

The Obama campaign has been playing the race card over and over again. Look, this is a campaign that in the primaries succeeded in painting Bill Clinton as a racist.

Now, Clinton, with all of his flaws, this is a man who throughout his career from Governor of Arkansas to president of the United States and beyond, has been a great and sincere friend of African-Americans who shared and tried to advance their aspirations. So if you can pull off a trick like that on Bill Clinton, you can pull it off on Republicans.

And look what Obama has said. He’s the one who raised the Barack Hussein Obama a year or two ago in which he said the Hussein is actually an asset and would be an asset in dealing with Muslims abroad.

He’s the one who openly said that the Republicans will say I’m black, they will say he’s scary. They will say he’s different. They will say he doesn’t look like the guy on the dollar bill.

That is Obama preemptively accusing McCain of racism, which is a scurrilous charge. Racism is a serious charge in our country, and a false accusation is doubly serious. As we saw in the Duke lacrosse case, it can destroy lives. Given our history, it ought to be used with great care.

And to accuse preemptively McCain of racism even before there is any evidence of it, and there has not been any evidence of it before or since, is scurrilous.
They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Accusations of racism is the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel, and it has been used again and again on the part of the Obama campaign.

You’ve got to admit, it’s been a neat trick to race-bait an entire race from start to finish AND get away with it too. Of course, Jesse Jackson already warned that electing an “AA” president (Obama’s not REALLY AA - he’s white, African and Arab) won’t come close to shutting down the “race question.” So sorry if you think this will show that America has “come a long way.” I think the Obama campaign just naturally assumed race would be his “problem” because, you know, ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST and so they devised a way to make it “work for him.” Cynical and not at all hopey changey. Think this will continue into an Obama admin? Stay tuned. I kind of think not.

6)Commentary has an opinion piece that reminds us of what we used to say about “questionable associations” before it became a racist thing if used to question Obama. “If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas.”

Still, in our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. The odds are your parents wanted you to hang around with the “right” crowd instead of the wrong crowd because if you hung around with the latter it meant its members would be a bad influence on you, it would reflect poorly on you, and you’d probably end up getting into trouble.

What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates.
Over the years, Barack Obama hung around with some pretty disturbing characters, and what we’re talking about aren’t isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people on a range of issues. He has connected himself with domestic terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn), with an anti-American and racist minister (Jeremiah Wright), and with corrupt people (Antoin “Tony” Rezko) and organizations (ACORN). What we see, then, is a pattern.
—————-

For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.

This is the crux of the “associations” argument. Obama has, throughout his life, chosen to work with, pal around with and otherwise promote and be promoted by people whose background is unsavory at best. And this pattern of behavior is not apparently relevant to people. That says a lot about him as a person, but it says more about his supporters. The bar has been lowered for him.

7)And lastly today, don’t expect to see THIS story anywhere but here today.

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him.”

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
————
He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton

So, a reporter claims he heard someone in the crowd say this. The Secret Service, no slouches when it comes to protecting US Presidents and wanna-bes, conducts an investigation and finds nada, zip, zero and nothing at all.

But the reporter “stands by his story.” Yep. That’s our media these days. And don’t look for any retractions or revisions from the national lapdogs either. Think that “reporter” was Jayson Blair?

According to Taheri, Jackson said Obama:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Read the rest ->

Wow. I guess, for Jackson, “hymietown” is back. Didn’t Obama already get into trouble earlier this election season over remarks about Jerusalem? How about anti-Jewish material on his website? Regardless, such sweeping statements about Isreal, even using “Zionist” is telling about Jackson’s view of Jews. I bet he thinks all Jews are bankers who caused the mortgage meltdown (woooooo - I am being snarky, but would it really surprise anyone if this were the case?) And, just for the record, who is going to do all this “apologizing” Jackson talks about?

Buuuuuutt, you say, how can Jesse speak for Obama? Well, that’s also very interesting, and Jackson, of course, has a non-answer.

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

Look at that second paragraph again. Jackson sounds as if he not only feels Obama owes him but he also appropriates Obama himself into Jackson’s civil rights work. Looks like Jackson thinks he’s Obama’s daddy. Seriously, Jackson is trying to take credit for Obama’s political existence. Fair? I have no idea, but that statement reveals a real lack of finesse. Or maybe finesse isn’t the point.

Don’t forget, Jackson, the de facto “Black American leader,” also has Chicago roots; and his son JJ Jr, is an Obama campaign manager. While Jackson may be a loose cannon, I just can’t see him deliberately placing his son in a precarious position.

And for those of you who might think electing Obama will go a long way to healing the racial wounds of America, think again.

Will Obama’s election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

“No, that chapter won’t be closed,” he says. “However, Obama’s victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades.”

An Obama election will be a “huge step” but not enough. Never enough. Shelby Steele, a notable AA writer and thinker on “Black America” would say that Jackson is signaling that “white America” will never be off the hook. I read it the same way. That’s, well, astounding because Obama’s campaign has touted his ability to be “trans-racial” and “bring people together,” not letting the past rule the present kind of thing. And here is Jackson, promising otherwise. Hmmmmmm.

Jackson was asked about Obama’s potential policies on a variety of issues, and he carefully started with the “I’m only a supporter, not a policy maker” hedge. But his remarks sound more precise than vague wishes on Jackson’s part.

What does Jackson want an Obama economic program to include?

On the economic front, he hopes for “major changes in our trading policy.”

“We cannot continue with the open-door policy,” he says. “We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad.”

“Open door?” Is that relating to trade or immigration as it affects trade, or both?
And how is Jackson channeling Obama with regard to the Iraq war?

Taheri says:

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “an illegal and unjust act.” But he’s now sure that the United States “will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time.”

What of Obama’s promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting “realities on the ground.”

“We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there,” he says. “We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith.”

And on Iran - what does his non-connection with Obama tell him about that?

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama’s idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. “We’ve got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want,” Jackson says. “Nothing is gained by not talking to others.”

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran’s uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn’t start without preparations.

“Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy,” he says. “He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared,” he says.

Interestingly enough, Jackson doesn’t say WHO prepares the ground. Iran, for its part, thinks the US should abide by some preconditions. Newsbusters notes:

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.
——————————-
On Saturday, Kalhor said Tehran would accept ‘repentance’ on behalf of the US government toward the Iranian people.

“Negotiations would be rational if the US moves out of the Middle East and the US government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime,” he said.

Apologies? Zionists? Well, remember what Jackson said:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House

Is this a response to Obama’s statement about meeting Iran without preconditions? And Obama’s vision for Israel, via Jackson?

“Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss,” Jackson says. “Barack will change that,” because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will “remain a source of danger to us all.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”

Thanks to his BACKGROUND? Obama swears he’s not a muslim, so this must mean his years in Indonesia, right? Ecumenical approach? BLT is ecumenical? Since when? BLT at least excoriates whites, Jews and many other AAs. How ecumenical is that? Or is ecumenical a euphemism for humping the pulpit? (Want to see Rev Wright “riding dirty” again?)

Now, all this is verrrrrrry interesting. Is Jackson acting as a surrogate? His son, an Obama campaign manager, famously said the campaign had to figure out how to attack a white woman (Hillary) in a “post OJ world.” Jackson supposedly went off the reservation sometime later with his “cutting” remarks, accidentally or not, caught on camera and has remained relatively quiet since then. So why is he talking now?

If Jackson IS a surrogate of the easily denied variety, his remarks are worthy of comment although the campaign will surely disavow. The tone of his remarks as well as the substance are likely to offend many Americans. But since campaigns constantly toss out “trial balloons” via the easily denied surrogate, Jackson’s remarks will definitely present just such an opportunity, regardless.

But what if Jackson is lobbing spitballs? If his earlier remark about Obama’s dangles more accurately reflects the reality of the relationship, is this interview his “scissors?” Is Jackson trying to assert authority? Or is he trying to steer Obama’s choices by making public what he feels Obama cannot get away with and enable him to thus get “half a loaf?” And why THIS reporter and THIS paper?

The author, Amir Taheri, is the columnist who broke the story about Obama telling Iraqi leaders to “wait for the next administration.” Presumably, Taheri is no particular friend of the Obama campaign. Odd that Jackson would have consented to an interview with this particular journalist - even more so when you remember Jackson never met a microphone or podium he didn’t want to preen for. He could have talked to anyone. He talked to Taheri.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Is the NYPost the only paper covering the World Policy Forum? You know how Marshall McLuhan famously said “the medium IS the message?” In this case, I think it is as important to ask why Jackson chose this venue as it is to parse his words.

Of course, maybe the Post is the only paper covering this hugely important gathering on the French seaside.

Still, Jackson’s remarks are incendiary in terms of foreign policy and current US relationships. I doubt they’ll play well here at home - so why make them? Is it all a smoke screen? Or is it dead on? Either way, I don’t like the feelings these remarks give me.

There’s much not to like. Jackson’s vague status with Obama makes it difficult to infer from these remarks Obama’s positions. That’s on purpose. The remarks themselves signal some potentially huge shifts in US policy. I’m also not at all comfortable with the idea that such a shift could actually be signaled by Jackson before the US electorate votes.

And I don’t like the tone. The notable thing about his tone is Jackson is both accusatory and promising apologies. Jackson accuses his own country of gross misconduct and promises some form of repentance. Think Jackson will be the one Obama sends over to apologize? It would serve him right, but Jackson has always felt more sinned against than sinning and his remarks reflect that. Jackson may feel his country needs to apologize, but he probably feels he should be on the receiving end of that apology. Forever.

The recent, reluctantly released papers from Obama’s time as head at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) and his time on the board of the Woods Fund sheds new light on his relationship with Bill Ayers and the seamy milieu of Farrakhan’s Chicago.

The CAC and Woods Fund money paved the way for Obama’s political career:

the monies doled out through the Woods Fund to these groups, including [Bill] Ayers own Annenberg Challenge, helped cement Obama’s political relationships and bond with key players in Chicago.

Stanley Kurtz said that CAC money did not go directly to schools:

“Instead of giving money directly to schools, they gave to what they called external partners, and these external partners were often pretty radical community organizer groups.”

And Steve Diamond writes that Ayers was focused on what:

Ayers calls “social justice” approaches to teaching and “small schools” as well as race-based approaches to curriculum in the public schools.

Ayers and Obama funneled money intended for education to race-based curriculum. Matthew Weaver reports:

let’s also not forget organizations that received funding from Barack and Bill [Ayers], such as:

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founded by husband and wife Rashid and Mona Khalidi. Maoist Mike Klonsky, another terrorist member of the Weatherman Children and Family Justice Center, Bernardine’s organization. Trinity Unity Church and Rev. Wright.

Ayers is an important part of the Chicago racial Left, a loosely affiliated group of churches, academics, and activists who include Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger, Farrakhan, the group ACORN, and many others. The racial Left is not committed to fighting racism — a noble cause — but instead looking at the world through a racial lens. This means that issues of class — which affects whites, women, gays, etc. — is frequently dismissed. Instead, there are disquisitions on “white privilege,” without discussing the fact that poverty knows no color. The racial Left, of course, is a class struggle between those who have and those who do not, and many of it’s proponents have attended the best schools and hold the highest positions in the academy and in government. It’s no accident that Bill Ayers, the scion of a wealthy family, is a primary member of the racial Left. And it’s no accident that Obama, surrounded by millionaires in San Francisco, pointed out that his difficulties in Pennsylvania were due to skin color (identifying those resistant to him as white) and then ridiculing them as religious, intolerant of immigrants, and as the owners of guns, all cultural indicators to the racial Left of the despised lower-income whites. He could just have easily said those who are bitter cling to Jeff Foxworthy, shop at Wal-Mart, and hump their sister, or any other stereotype used against low-income whites.

The racial Left is about protecting status:

Not only is Ayers using Obama’s rapid ascent to celebrity in order to capitalize on his own unquenchable thirst for fame by having his memoir Fugitive Days reissued in January 2009, he is also working with Hollywood to have his memoir turned into a movie. As if that’s not enough, he and his wife, Bernardine Dorhn, have authored a book, soon to be released, entitled Race Course Against White Supremacy.

Belying it’s title, this book is NOT about white supremacists, such as the Aryan Brotherhood, but instead states that “white supremacy is the dominant political system” in American’. From Amazon’s Product Description:

Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days—and that it is still very much with us—the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors’ own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.

Stanley Kurtz has uncovered that Obama attended Farrakhan’s Million Man March, and Obama’s close friend, Michael Pfleger, is close to Farrakhan:

Although it’s been discussed before (because it confirms that Obama attended Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March), a 1995 background piece on Obama from the Chicago Reader has received far too little attention. Careful consideration of this important profile makes it clear that Obama’s long-standing ties to Chicago’s most rabidly radical preachers call into question far more than Obama’s judgment and character (although they certainly do that, as well). Obama’s two-decades at Trinity open a critically important window onto his radical-left political leanings. No mere change of church membership can erase that truth.

As Matthew Weaver posted, Rev. Farrakhan just pronounced Obama the Messiah (watch the video here):

“You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.” - Louis Farrakhan

In addition to being the leader of NOI, Farrakhan is first and foremost a politician, and one of the most powerful in Chicago. And Obama has at least one NOI member on his payroll.

In a June article from Reuters entitled “BREAKING NEWS: Nation of Islam Activists on Obama Camp Payroll” states that

“Sen. Barack Obama employed and continues to employ senior staffers who belong to the Nation of Islam, and the presidential candidate has some “worrying” ties to the controversial group headed by Louis Farrakhan, a former key Obama insider told AARON KLEIN… The former insider confirmed Obama is directly aware of the Nation of Islam members on his staff.”

“A key constituency for Obama was Hyde Park, where Farrakhan lives. To be successful politically in that area, you need to be involved with Farrakhan, since he’s a strong power in the district,” said the former insider.”

“The former insider identified former Obama worker Shakir Muhammad as a Nation of Islam activist. Muhammad was paid by Obama’s office as a photographer…According to a black supremacist source tied to Farrakhan, Muhammad previously worked as a bodyguard for the Nation of Islam chief.”

In fact, according to the article, Cynthia K. Miller, a known Nation of Islam activist who served Obama in his early state Senate days and was treasurer for his U.S. senatorial campaign, and a paid consultant in 2003 and 2004, was the beneficiary of help from Obama by another one of his Chicago friends, Tony Rezko.

“The former insider said Obama asked indicted Chicago businessman and Obama financier Tony Rezko to get his treasurer, Miller, a state government job with
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.”

While researching the source of Michelle Obama’s alleged “whitey” rant, we discovered direct connections between the Nation of Islam (NOI), Stokely Carmichael, Jeremiah Wright’s Black Liberation Theology and, most prominently, Louis Farrakhan.

According to Larry Johnson’s sources, the Michelle Obama tape captures her in sordid company:

The sources who have seen the tape report that Michelle says
disparaging things about “whites” and that Louis Farrakhan is visible.
There is no identifying information on the segment they have seen to
identify the location or time when this was recorded. [emphasis added]

Those who are following this matter will recall that Michelle Obama, when asked about these allegations, is reported to have said that “whitey” is not a word used by African Americans today. However, we documented that Mrs. Obama’s primary text for her Princeton thesis was Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s 1967 book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America, and we showed how Carmichael used the term “whitey” repeatedly, thereby establishing an epistemological connection between Carmichael and Mrs. Obama. In other words, Michelle Obama is the intellectual offspring of Stokely Carmichael.

Before going further, it should be noted that Reverend Jeremiah Wright was once a member of the Nation of Islam, though it’s not clear when he was involved with NOI. Ryan Lizza of the New Republic first reported that:

Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had
studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”[Emphasis added]

But back to Stokely Carmichael. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigations has released hundreds of pages from their files on Stokely Carmichael. It’s a treasure trove for those interested in the history of the civil rights movement. What we found most interesting, however, were the large number of documents connecting Carmichael with the NOI. For instance, the document below is an Airtel sent to Director Hoover on July 29, 1966, from Chicago. The subject is Stokely Carmichael and it concerns NOI leader Elijah Muhammed’s “CALL FOR SUMMIT MEETING, MAJOR CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS.”

There are three areas of interest for us: first, the Airtel came from the city of Chicago; second, the year 1966 (more on that later), and third, that the Nation of Islam — in the manner of the infamous mob meeting in Apalachin in 1957 — was organizing all of the major civil rights groups.

It has been widely reported, and documented here, that Carmichael was an “Honorary Prime Minister” of the Black Panther Party, and that he was the leader of the innocuous sounding Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). The following document, however, shows that Carmichael was open to violence as a political tool–see the highlighted sentence below–”This nonviolence bit is just a philanthropic hang-up,” and that he was indeed a founder of the Black Panther Party:

In the following document we initially noticed Carmichael’s willingness to use violence. He is paraphrased as saying that “in his opinion, the black man is justified in using any means at his command to obtain what he believes is due him,” indicating an acceptance of violence as seen through a racial frame. What’s more interesting, however, is the next paragraph. “Louis Walcott, Minister of the New York City Muslim Mosque, Nation of Islam, also participated in this conference.” See the second paragraph below:

The name Louis, of course, was glaring. Could it be he? A quick Google search linked to a 1996 Morning Edition transcription of a Bob Edwards piece on Farrakhan:

The early life of Louis Farrakhan, who grew up as Louis Eugene Walcott, was heavily influenced by his loving but demanding mother and his poor but safe neighborhood of Roxbury, Boston, in the late 1940s.

Over the last decade, Louis Farrakhan has emerged as one of the most visible and formidable black political leaders in America

Let’s add up what we have so far: Stokely Carmichael, Michelle Obama’s primary source and intellectual ancestor, shared the stage with Louis Farrakhan, the same man who she allegedly shared a stage with when she said “whitey.”

Carmichael and Farrakhan may have shared more than a stage. The document below indicates but doesn’t conclude that Carmichael may have been a Muslim himself. Although heavily redacted, the FBI’s source said that “Stokely Carmichael, [redacted] as ‘one of us’ which this source interpreted as meaning a member of the Muslims.”

Whether or not Carmichael was a Muslim is unclear. What is clear is that at sometime in the summer of 1966 there was a meeting of the minds between some civil rights groups, black radicals, and the Nation of Islam. These groups organized into a force promoting and preaching a racist form of black nationalism. The document below describes a meeting that clearly shows this union of forces: Carmichael and Minister Louis “made it clear they wanted to unite with all Negro groups regardless of philosophy.” Note the date of August 18, 1966:

This takes us back to Jeremiah Wright and the question of when Wright was a Muslim. According to Wright’s Wikipedia entry:

In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

“In 1966, as a U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman,” the Wikipeida entry continues, Wright assisted with the care of President Johnson. Extrapolating from these dates, it appears that Wright was in Maryland between 1964 and 1966, and this may have been the time when he was a member of NOI. Wright didn’t start at Trinity until 1972, and evidently received spiritual training after receiving a master’s degree in English in 1969.

Also in Maryland in 1964 was Stokely Carmichael, where he was arrested “as a result of demonstrations in that city.” This doesn’t mean that Wright knew Carmichael, but surely Wright was cognizant of Carmichael’s work and of NOI as well. This is likely the time when he was a “Muslim and black nationalist.”

However Wright was radicalized, it is clear that he consciously appropriated the language and tenor of the Nation of Islam.

Wright’s statement that 9/11 was deserved retribution (“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans…America’s chickens are coming home to roost”) is a perfect echo of Malcolm X’s statement that “The assassination of Kennedy is a result of that way of life and thinking. The chickens came home to roost.”

Although it appears that Wright began his focus on Black Liberation Theology sometime after 1966, his racial attitudes and rhetoric have imitated that of NOI since at least 1970. Wright’s blaming the United States for creating AIDS to kill minorities is but just one example of his thinking being in lockstep with NOI.

Black Liberation Theology was first formed in 1966. According to NPR:

Black liberation theology originated on July 31, 1966, when 51 black pastors bought a full page ad in the New York Times and demanded a more aggressive approach to eradicating racism. They echoed the demands of the black power movement, but the new crusade found its source of inspiration in the Bible.

Keep in mind that NOI’s Elijah Mohammad called for a summit of black leaders on July 11, 1966, only 20 days prior to the official formation of Black Liberation Theology. If the dates don’t convince you of a synergy between NOI and Black Liberation Theology, please note Wright’s mentor — and Black Liberation Theology founder — James Cone’s words about NOI’s Malcolm X:

Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’ The false Christianity of the white-devil oppressor must be replaced by an authentic Christianity fully identified with the poor and oppressed.

The black intellectual’s goal, says Cone, is to “aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.”

Couple these words with Wright’s own view that:

There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: ‘How can we become black?’

In 1998, Louis A. De-Caro, Jr. published a book titled Malcolm and the Cross: The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, and Christianity. De-Caro’s book underscores the racial nature and revolutionary intent of the NOI’s promotion of a black “Christianity”:

Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam based their religious orthodoxy more on the Bible than on the Qur’an. In part, this was because they sought to convert black Christians. More- over, Elijah Muhammad taught that the Bible, actually the story of “dark people,” had been distorted by the white man in order to enslave and oppress black people in the United States.

The Nation of Islam and Black Liberation Theology are two doors to the same room. Black Liberation Theology is a “palatable” form of “Christian” black nationalism. The fiery anti-American, race-baiting words of Wright, Ayers, Meeks, Pfleger, and Moss are from the same philosophical cauldron as the Nation of Islam. It’s obvious now why Wright’s Trumpet Magazine featured Farrakhan on the cover:

Some have said that Michelle Obama’s thesis proves nothing because it was written more than 20 years ago. We suggest that it was no accident that the Obamas sought out Wright a mere 2-3 years after she wrote her thesis and stayed with him for nearly 20 years, even while he preached the vilest and most hateful sermons that our nation has been forced to hear. TexasDarlin writes:

It’s no wonder that the Obamas joined Trinity United, grew close to Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, and actively defended the church. And there is no doubt in this alert reader’s mind that Michelle Obama clung to Trinity as long as possible politically and, unfortunately for her husband, perhaps many years too long for most voters’ palates.

But the Obamas’ connections to the Nation of Islam go deeper than Rev. Wright. Louis Farrakhan’s political connections extend to the Obamas directly through Chicago politics and Tony Rezko. Larry Johnson writes that:

Before Barack came on the scene, THE MAN in his political district was Louis Farrakhan. No one could take Alice Palmer’s seat without Farrakhan’s blessing. No one. I do not fault Barack Obama for seeking out the blessing of Farrakhan, but the story of what was done behind the scenes to get rid of Barack’s predecessor—Alice Palmer—has not been told. A knowledgeable source tells me that Tony Rezko played a direct role in this feat. And Rezko has been tight with Farrakhan.

At some point, probably between 1964-66, Jeremiah Wright was a member of the Nation of Islam and was indoctrinated into its odious brand of racist theology. And make no mistake, Wright’s race-baiting is not indicative of the vast majority of black churches. A pastor at LivePrayer writes:

Please hear me very clear. Black liberation theology is a perverse view of the Scriptures and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a radical view held by a very small minority of black pastors. This is NOT representative of the black church or the overwhelming majority of black pastors who preach and teach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ without looking at it thru the lens of color. Every black pastor I know condemns Dr. Wright and this perverse racist theology.

In 1966, a group of “Christian” ministers, at the behest of Elijah Mohammad, began to preach the same teachings as NOI. Stokely Carmichael and Louis Farrakhan actively worked to bridge the gap between these two groups, and Carmichael would soon publish a book espousing much the same separatist ideas. Carmichael’s book “guided” Michelle Obama’s thesis and soon she and Barack would join Trinity United Church of Christ.

The continuity of the teachings of Carmichael, Farrakhan, Cone, Pfleger, Wright, and Ayers is incontrovertible; it’s all about skin color.

Christopher Hitchens asks:

how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?

Obama’s targeted use of Malcolm X’s super-charged racial code words (”hoodwink, bamboozled”), and his followers’ continuous charges of racism against Obama’s opponents as a political tool has been well documented. It shows that Obama has a studied understanding of the racial radicalism of Malcolm X, Farrakhan, Wright, Pfleger, and Ayers coupled with the cold-blooded instincts of a heartless politician. The Obama campaign has already smeared as racists vast swaths of the Democratic Party, people who were drawn to the Party for its commitment to civil rights. Now he employs the same tactics against John McCain, a champion of immigrants who has never had a hint of racism associated with his name.

Sinclair Lewis is frequently quoted as saying: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

In today’s upside down world, racism has come to America embodied in a multi-racial politician and carrying the banner of the Democratic Party.

First up, we have ACORN. Yes, ACORN has been in the news a good bit recently. Seems the organization Obama has paid $800,000 to register voters has been, um, shall we say, enthusiastic in fulfilling its task? Apparently, this alleged non-partisan organization has been overly zealous in registering voters, so that areas like Indianapolis now have 105% voter registration! Whoopie! One guy registered 72 times! This is not new for ACORN - they have been under investigation before for voter registration fraud, but the SCOPE of it this year is mighty telling, as the 2-part video below highlights. And bear this in mind: ACORN receives YOUR tax paying dollars. AND they are one of three organizations to which the Democrats, led by Chris Dodd, tried to get 20% of the $700 billion dollar bailout repayment funneled. Again, YOUR tax paying dollars going to fund this organization. And if you believe for one second they are non-partisan, just watch these videos from their meeting this summer (h/t to Katy, alert NQ reader). Again, YOUR taxpaying dollars:

Thomas Jefferson said:

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Amen to that.

While we are on the subject of voter fraud, there is the wife of Chuck Hagel, Lilibet Hagel. Guess who she is endorsing? Uh, yeah - Barack Obama. Yes, the wife of the man who is an owner of the Company-Formerly-Known-As-Diebold is endorsing Barack Obama. See, in Nebraska, the electoral votes are actually split up between 5 areas. Obama’s plan is to win Omaha, so he is actually campaigning there. But hey - when the wife of the man who owns the voting machines telegraphs for all to see who she wants to win, don’t be too surprised when it comes to pass. I am sure ACORN can help with that if there are any doubts by registering some dead people or re-registering people who can send in absentee ballots AND vote in person.

Last night, the “bipartisan” panel (which included a prominent Obama supporter. Larry Johnson had a great post on the makeup of the Committee HERE.) investigating Governor Palin on “Troopergate” declared she had abused her power in wanting her former brother-in-law removed from the State Troopers. The media is playing this off as if it is just bad blood because he and her sister were getting divorced. Apparently, so is this commission, which is framing this whole thing as her pushing a personal agenda. Here’s why this is NUTS: Trooper Wooten (who still has his job, by the way) ADMITTED to tasering his 10 yr old stepson. He was found GUILTY of “judgment failures,” like drinking and driving in a STATE TROOPER patrol car. This doesn’t sound like a PERSONAL issue. It sounds like a PERSONNEL issue. That the board completely overlooked these documented issues is very telling. Oh, they didn’t find anything unlawful in her behavior, in case you are keeping score (and you should be). This is just pathetic. And pathetic the way the media is now trying to play up Trooper Wooten’s behavior. Is this the kind of person YOU would want as a state trooper? Yeah, me neither.

And to finish up, I give a big H/T to Matthew Weaver at No Quarter for finding this extremely disturbing video of Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (and if you don’t know about the Nation of Islam, I’ll give you some tips after you watch this), who is closely associated with Obama’s church, TUCC:

Yes, he did just call Barack Obama The MESSIAH. Now for some information regarding the Nation of Islam, and Minister Louis Farrakhan from Islam Today:

Racist ideology also at odds with universal Islam
A third area of non-compliance with Islam, and the one which receives by far the greatest attention in the secular media, is the issue of race. The present “Nation of Islam” leader, Louis Farrakhan, is on record as having made objectionable anti-Jewish (as distinct from anti-Zionist) remarks. Among other unfortunate utterances, he is alleged to have referred to Judaism as a “gutter religion”.

Moreover, the NOI is a segregationalist organization exclusively for black people descended from slaves. Proper Islam is a universal religion open to people of every race. Muslims are supposed to differentiate between people on the basis not of ethnic origin but of piety and upright behavior. As the Quran makes clear:

“And mankind is naught but a single nation.” Holy Quran 2:213

“O Mankind! Most certainly, it is We (God almighty) who have Created you all from a single (pair) of a male and a female, And it is We who have made you into nations and tribes, that ye may recognize each other. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you.” Holy Quran 49:13

And in his final sermon, Prophet Mohammed made clear that racism has no place in Islam:

“O people! Verily your Lord is one and your father is one. All of you belong to one ancestry of Adam and Adam was created out of clay. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a non-Arab over an Arab; nor for white over the black nor for the black over the white except in piety. Verily the noblest among you is he who is the most pious.”

In contrast, the NOI has a pronounced anti-white bias. They refer to blacks as God’s chosen people and Caucasians as white devils. They call for a separate homeland for American blacks, for racially segregated education and for a ban on interracial marriage. To quote again from their website:

* We believe we are the people of God’s choice.

* WE BELIEVE this is the time in history for the separation of the so-called Negroes and the so-called white Americans.

* We want our people in America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own–either on this continent or elsewhere.

* We want all black children educated, taught and trained by their own teachers.

* We believe that intermarriage or race mixing should be prohibited.

Uh, yeah. I guess they don’t know about Obama’s mixed heritage. No matter - he is The One - Minister Louis Farrakhan has spoken. So glad my friends and family have found their Messiah. If only he wasn’t so flawed, so propped up by the media, so enmeshed with nefarious characters like, oh, I dunno, FARRAKHAN! But hey - as long as they can go to their happy Kool Aide drinking place following The One, as far away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as we can get them, that’s their choice. I don’t have to understand it, but I’ll have to learn to accept it. I sure don’t want this “Messiah” in the White House myself. I am an adamant supporter of the Separation of Church and State, so someone a little less celestial is my choice for president, but that’s just me.

People go bankrupt all the time. Companies do, too. But countries?
Iceland was on the verge of doing exactly that on Thursday as the government shut down the stock market and seized control of its last major independent bank. That brought trading in the country’s currency to a halt, with foreign banks no longer willing to take Icelandic krona, even at fire-sale rates.

As the meltdown in the Icelandic financial system quickened, with the government seemingly powerless to do anything about it, analysts said there was probably only one realistic option left: for Iceland to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund.

“Iceland is bankrupt,” said Arsaell Valfells, a professor at the University of Iceland. “The Icelandic krona is history. The IMF has to come and rescue us.”

Read the rest ->
The Guardian (UK) had this to add:

Gordon Brown has told the Icelandic prime minister that he is considering legal action against the country over the collapse of its national banks.

The prime minister said tonight that Iceland’s decision not to recompense those with savings in the bank was “completely unacceptable” and the British government would do “whatever is necessary to recover the money”.

“I’ve spoken to the Icelandic prime minister, I have told him this is effectively an illegal action that they have taken. We are freezing the assets of Icelandic companies in the UK where we can. We will take further action against the Icelandic authorities where necessary to recover the money.

While Britain, like the US, insures individual depositors up to a point, large depositors don’t necessarily have the same protections.

But up to 20 UK councils who banked with Icesave could lose millions of pounds because wholesale deposits are not protected. The Tories have estimated that up to £1bn may be at stake.

I expect the recriminations are just starting to fly and as governments try to protect themselves and their citizens, it’s going to get a lot uglier. I hope we elect someone strong enough and pragmatic enough to do what needs be done.

2) The NYT has an article on the financial crisis, saying Bush and other European leaders will meet this weekend to look at a more coordinated response to the global crisis.

The British and American plans, though far from identical, have two common elements according to officials: injection of government money into banks in return for ownership stakes and guarantees of repayment for various types of loans.

Both remedies will be center stage on Saturday, when President Bush meets with finance ministers from the world’s richest countries at an unusual White House meeting to swap ideas.

Mr. Bush’s invitation to finance ministers from Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Canada and Japan came on a day of phone calls and letters between European leaders and with Washington.

Adding to the urgency, the Japanese stock market plunged more than 10 percent Friday morning, after having dropped 9 percent on Wednesday.

Unfortunately, the NYT must feel that flogging the “troopergate” story is critical for national attention. It still devoted 3 (online) pages to that. With the global financial crisis and people starting to use the “d” word, this manufactured “scandal” is an indefensible waste of time.

3) Also in the NYT today is an article about Russia and Iran. There is some thought that a Russian scientist has been helping Iran develop nuclear weapons.

International nuclear inspectors are investigating whether a Russian scientist helped Iran conduct complex experiments on how to detonate a nuclear weapon, according to European and American officials. As part of the investigation, inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency are seeking information from the scientist, who they believe acted on his own as an adviser on experiments described in a lengthy document obtained by the agency, the officials said.
————————-
Asked about the potential contribution of the Russian scientist in detonator experimentation, a senior Russian official who has long followed Iran’s nuclear program said, “It is difficult for me to add anything.”

Ah, global financial crisis and Iranian nukes. And you thought today was going to be dull?

4) Charles Krauthammer writes today about the character question and Obama.

Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.
Krauthammer faults McCain for not going after the character issue much earlier. However, given all the vitriol at even the hint that Obama’s character and pals are less than absolute sterling, I’m not sure McCain could have reasonably done otherwise.

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’ unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.
————-
Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Well, that IS the point some of us have been making for several months now. Before today’s news cycle is over, you’ll hear more screams of “racism.”

5) Today’s WSJ has a sarcasm-laced op-ed about the wonderful magic of Obama. Here’s a snippet:

We’re back now. And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut — all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he’ll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! Voila!

Now will I be called a racist if I say that’s an Obama fairy tale??

6) Even the NYT now has a “fake donors for Obama” story. Who’d a thunk it?

It appears that campaign finance records for Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, contain far fewer obviously false names, although he has taken in about $200 million in contributions, less than half Mr. Obama’s total. Mr. McCain did collect about $173,000 from donors who appear in campaign finance records with only a name and have no other identifying information. Mr. Obama collected about $314,000 from such donors.

Although campaigns have long wrestled with questionable donations, Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said the record-setting number of new donors Mr. Obama has drawn, many of them online, presents new challenges to a compliance system that remains stuck in the past.

Ms. Krumholz pointed out, however, that it would take an extraordinary amount of coordination to pull off widespread fraud.

Yeah, but isn’t ACORN in trouble in several states now? Couldn’t one reasonably call that “widespread?”

But even a contributor who used the name “Jgtj Jfggjjfgj,” and listed an address of “thjtrj” in “gjtjtjtjtjtjr, AP,” was able to contribute $370 in a series of $10 donations in August.

A pair of donors named “Derty West” and “Derty Poiiuy,” who listed “rewq, ME” as their addresses and “Qwertyyy” or “Qwerttyyu” as either their employer or occupation, contributed a combined $1,110 in July.

Hey!!! It’s Derty Poiiuy! I wrote about him in yesterday’s roundup. Didn’t know he had a brother, though. Derty West DEFINITELY sounds like a porn star. Maybe BO has the porn industry demographic locked up. Yeah, it’s part of Hollywood, so that makes sense.

The questionable donations to the Obama campaign, most of which appear to have been given in small increments online, are bolstering the contentions of some campaign finance groups that additional disclosure requirements are needed for contributions of $200 or less.

Federal candidates are not required to itemize such contributions to the F.E.C. unless the donor’s cumulative total adds up to more than $200. Roughly 70 percent of these contributions to Mr. Obama are not reported, compared with more than 75 percent of Mr. McCain’s.

“Mr. Obama” has an aversion to reporting and paperwork, as we know. And this is the third story I’ve done recently on fake donors.

Uh, remember what I snarked earlier about Obama potentially having the porn industry on his side? Well, ask and ye shall receive. . . .

From the NYPost:

ONE of the “bundlers” who has raised $50,000 to $100,000 for the Barack Obama presidential campaign is Terrence Bean, who once controlled the biggest producer of gay porn in America.

Bean, the first gay on Sen. Obama’s National Finance Committee, is the sole trustee of the Charles M. Holmes Foundation, which owned Falcon Studios, Jock Studios and Mustang Studios, the producers of about $10 million worth of all-male pornography a year

7) In “Your Daily Racism” Time has yet another version of the “it must be racism” theme.

Does that mean race doesn’t matter this year? Hardly. It just matters in a different way. In the past, Republicans often used race to make their opponents seem anti-white. In 2008, with their incessant talk about who loves their country and who doesn’t, McCain and Palin are doing something different: they’re using race to make Obama seem anti-American.

To grasp the difference, imagine if the Democrats had nominated Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Republicans would have slammed them as profligate, divisive and militant but not as foreign. Even racists couldn’t deny that Jackson and Sharpton are fully American. In fact, because slavery ruptured ancestral ties of language and culture, African Americans often have fewer transnational connections than Americans whose forebears traveled voluntarily to these shores. Our national vernacular is filled with antiblack euphemisms, but cosmopolitan isn’t one of them.

Yet when critics attack Obama, that’s the word that keeps popping up. Rudy Giuliani mentioned it in his convention speech. So has Rush Limbaugh, along with several national conservative columnists. Ever since the primaries, Obama’s detractors have tried to depict him less as threatening to white America than as distant from America itself.

You see, it’s a subtle thing. Making Obama seem “anti-American” is strictly about race and not a fairly typical political gambit. Nah. Politics has NEVER BEFORE had candidates accused of being anti-American. Well, except for Ronald Reagan’s race against Jimmy Carter. And except for some of the ‘92 Clinton references to GWHB. Oh yeah, and the JFK race where people wondered if the Pope would be giving the US President orders. Nah, I guess BO is the first politician to EVER be attacked as “distant from America.” MUST BE RACISM.

8 ) The Washington Times encapsulates some of the recent BO stories.

Something odd is going on. The Obama campaign boasts of a landslide in the making even as his polling lead slips a point or two, and there’s anger bordering on rage when John McCain and Sarah Palin raise questions about Barack Obama’s judgment in his unexplored past in Chicago.

An investigation of ACORN, a cabal of “political activists” hired to register voters in the neighborhoods where few friends of John McCain abide has now spread to 10 states. Investigators discovered that the entire offensive line of the Dallas Cowboys had signed up to vote in Las Vegas, unless it turns out that someone forged their signatures to make a quota. The rules for this game were written in Chicago.

The senator’s campaign only wants to talk about the economy, and who can blame him? Wall Street is tanking to uncharted depths, banking is at a standstill and fear stalks Main Street and all the avenues and boulevards running across it. But Sen. Obama wants certain questions about the economy, and how it got this way, declared off-limits. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate, declares questions about Franklin Raines, his stewardship of Fannie Mae and his relationship with the senator to be racist because both men “are African-American.”
————–
The unanswered questions are not about crimes, but about his judgment. Just as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have never repented for terrorism against their country, the senator has never expressed repentance for his association with them.

After all this time we still don’t know a lot about Sen. Obama’s murky Chicago past, and maybe we won’t until he’s in the White House for a while and the mainstream media looks to actual reporting for its orgasmic thrills.

Yep, yep, yep, and yep.

9) Also in the Times is another piece questioning what Obama said to Iraqi officials during his visit some months ago.

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn’t be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.
Mr. Obama’s conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate’s contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war.

Of course, the BO campaign says he was speaking strictly as a US Senator, while the Iraqi official (Mr. Zebari) with whom he spoke got a different impression. But it’s all “he said, he said.”

10) Now for your second helping of “Your Daily Racism.” The NY Post does a long piece on the race card. It claims Democrats have embraced using the race card as part of overall strategy.

It was bound to happen, and so it has: Democrats and their allies are playing the race card.

Big time.
—————-

As for the party itself, no less a luminary than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday lit into a radio host who had the temerity to note that former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines has been an adviser to Barack Obama’s campaign.

“The only connection that people could bring up about Raines and Barack Obama,” said Reid, “is that they both are African-American. Other than that there is nothing.”

Actually, The Washington Post has reported that the Obama campaign sought advice from Raines “on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

That may not be the end of the world, but it’s sure not “nothing.”

Then there’s Democratic luminary Barney Frank - a fellow most accomplished at diverting attention from his own sins by indulging in some old-fashioned demagogy.

Which is precisely what he did this week when he charged that GOP criticism of subprime mortgage loans being made to those who couldn’t afford them - a practice he most emphatically encouraged - is racially motivated.

Michelle Malkin(I know, I know) covers some of the same ground, listing some of the new definitions of racism. Here’s the first:

How many racial bogeymen have Obama operatives and sympathetic journalists discovered lurking in “coded language” and attire? Let us count the ways:

* During Tuesday’s presidential debate, John McCain referred to Obama as “that one.” Official Obama press agitator Bill Burton sent off an e-mail blast to reporters: “Did John McCain just refer to Obama as ‘that one’?” Horrors.

Taking their cue from Burton, spooked Obama supporters hyperventilated like teens on the film set of “The Blair Witch Project.” “The racial undertones were subtle but unmistakable,” declared Maya Wiley of the leftist Center for Social Inclusion. “McCain was tapping into a current of superiority among white voters. It was an attempt to ‘otherize’ Obama.”

“Otherize”? Sounds like something you do to your car tires to prepare for winter. UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff was also haunted by “That One”:

“The phrase was meant to say, ‘You and I are in the same area, but he’s the outsider.’ ”

Memo to McCain: Next time, call him “The One.”

Hey, watch your finances today and get an extra cup of coffee. You’re gonna need it.

As the McCain campaign ratchets up the intensity of its attacks on Barack Obama, some black elected officials are calling the tactics desperate, unseemly and racist.

“They are trying to throw out these codes,” said Representative Gregory Meeks, a Democrat from New York.

“He’s ‘not one of us?’” Mr. Meeks said, referring to a comment Sarah Palin made at a campaign rally on Oct. 6 in Florida. “That’s racial. That’s fear. They know they can’t win on the issues, so the last resort they have is race and fear.”

“Racism is alive and well in this country, and McCain and Palin are trying to appeal to that and it’s unfortunate,” said Representative Ed Towns, also from New York.
——————
“If McCain’s attacks don’t cross the line, they’re certainly teetering on it,” said Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois. “He is certainly appealing to people’s fears and not their hopes.”

Mr. Jackson took issue with the McCain campaign’s attack on Mr. Obama’s connection to Mr. Ayers, who committed acts of domestic terrorism when Mr. Obama was 8 years old, and contrasted that with Mr. McCain’s long relationships with erstwhile supporters of segregation in the Senate like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

———-
“Some may say their true colors are showing,” said Representative Yvette Clarke of New York. “Others may say they’re just not being thoughtful. But certainly a lot of the language I’ve heard I consider to be incendiary. I believe it is meant to generate a certain sentiment within their base that engenders fear and certainly appeals to a group of people within our society who would pursue this along racial lines.

“It’s very clear,” she said.

Ms. Clarke also found a racial subtext in Ms. Palin’s repeated appeals to “Joe Six-Pack” and “hockey moms.”

“Who exactly is Joe Six-Pack and who are these hockey moms? That’s what I’d like to know,” she said. “Is that supposed to be terminology that is of common ground to all Americans? I don’t find that. It leaves a lot of people out.”

I guess the term “metaphor” would also be lost on Ms. Clarke. Oh, unless someone uses the word “uppity.” So, now we can add “Joe Six-Pack and hockey moms” to the racist words list?? Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid and. . . oh, stupid. “Urban” and “hip” leave me out. Think Ms. Clarke gives a damn?

New York State Senator Bill Perkins, an early supporter of Mr. Obama, said, “They are obviously playing on people’s fears and prejudices in a desperate way. While not explicitly relating to race, they are clearly creating the opportunity for those inclined to come to those conclusions. I think it is going to become more explicit as we move forward. It’s subtle now, but not so subtle as to be mistaken.”

And Kevin Parker, a New York state senator from Brooklyn, said, “If you have to remind people that Barack Obama is African-American, you have reached the bottom.”

Where to begin? I think it’s BO who constantly reminds people he’s AA, and who cares anyway? Well, how about Palin’s comments that so enraged these fools?

“Our opponent,” Ms. Palin told donors in Englewood, Colo., “is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

She added, “This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America,” she said. “We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism.”

During any campaign, candidates try to portray the other as someone “not like” the voters, implying that the candidate “most like” voters should get the nod. That’s standard stuff - happens in EVERY race (oooooohhh, did I just make this racial)? That’s why candidates kiss babies, drink whiskey, eat at diners, etc, etc. trying to show how they are “like” the rest of us. The opponent tries to mute that by showing how But in this case, when Obama’s opponents go for the standard attack, he screams or has his surrogates scream racism. Those fools seem to be quite happy using sexism or ageism though.

Hopey / changey that is not. But one thing could happen. Obama could so ruthlessly play the race card that no politician will ever be able to do that again. That would be the most useful thing he has done in his entire life.

2) Ogdenonpolitics.com has an interesting observation. It looks like Indiana is approaching 105% of its population is registered to vote!

Vote Early & Often? — 105% of Indianapolis Residents Now Registered to Vote

It’s the elephant in the room that Indiana election officials don’t talk about. Voter registration numbers in the counties have been growing dramatically far above what is possible given the population. In today’s Indianapolis Star, Brendan O’Shaughnessy reports that as of Monday evening 677,401 people in Marion County have registered to vote.
—————

According to STATSIndiana, In 2007, Indianapolis/Marion County had an estimated population of 876,804. Of that number 232,607 were below 18 years of age, for a total of 644,197 people in Marion County/Indianapolis 18 or over and thus eligible to vote. (Indiana allows felons to vote as long as they are not incarcerated).

So we have 644,197 people eligible to be registered in Marion County/Indianapolis, and 677,401 people registered. Congratulations go to Indianapolis for having 105% of its residents registered!

3) CBSNews has a piece today about how the campaigns treat the press in terms of scheduling, etc. Guess who Dean Reynolds thinks runs the tighter ship and is more accommodating to journalists? Yep. Obama. McCain.

After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking.
———————-

The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” is broadcast. . .

The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who’ve been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.

The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama’s, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.
—————–
Maybe none of this means much. Maybe a front-running campaign like Obama’s that is focused solely on victory doesn’t have the time to do the mundane things like print up schedules or attend to the needs of reporters.

But in politics, everything that goes around comes around.

Ruh roh. I think this guy has a “racist” taunt coming his way. Can you guess why?

4) Today’s WSJ has a piece about news bias. The author notes that bias in favor of Obama is a trite notion now it is so pervasive.

The single constant in the eternal election remains the media, whose activist role no one will seriously dispute. To point out the prevailing (with honorable exceptions) double standard of reporting so favorable to Mr. Obama by now feels superfluous — much like talking about the weather. The same holds true for all those reports pointing to Mr. Obama’s heroic status outside the United States — not to mention the cascade of press analyses warning that if he fails to win election, the cause will surely be racism.
—————
Mr. Obama could not have said it better himself. He is the leading exponent of the idea that our lost nation requires rehabilitation in the eyes of the world — and it is the most telling difference between him and Mr. McCain. When asked, in one of the earliest debates of the primary, his first priority should he become president, his answer was clear. He would go abroad immediately to make amends, and assure allies and others in the world America had alienated, that we were prepared to do all necessary to gain back their respect.

There’s more than this. The author makes some thoughtful points. Alas, nothing we haven’t seen or written before.

5) Politico has an article about Democratic strategists thinking they will have a landslide in Nov. Apparently, the recent economic situation has bounced quite a bit in Obama’s favor.

Three weeks of historic economic upheaval has done more than just tilt a handful of once-reliably Republican states in Barack Obama’s direction. Democratic strategists are now optimistic that the ongoing crisis could lead to a landslide Obama victory.

Well, yeah, if Indiana’s voter registration is any indication. This could happen. Of course, you’ll have more voters than actual, live people living there, but who’s going to quibble about that? It’s all about the hope of those nonexistent voters, doncha know.

6) Also in the WSJ is an article about more questionable voter registration - in New Mexico.

One of the biggest instances of suspicious registrations is here in New Mexico, where the Federal Bureau of Investigation has opened a preliminary investigation into 1,400 potentially fraudulent voter registrations in the state’s most populous county.
—————-
The Republican National Committee is trumpeting registration problems on part of its Web site titled, “You can’t make this up.” Among the incidents: In Virginia, a third-party registration group fired three workers who it said falsified nearly 100 applications.

In Nevada on Tuesday, state election officials raided the offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as Acorn, after receiving information about falsified registration cards. “We have complaints every election that fraudulent registration forms are being turned in, and no one does anything about it. People have lost faith in the electoral process,” said Democrat Ross Miller, Nevada’s secretary of state.
——————–
Maggie Toulouse Oliver, the clerk of Bernalillo County, which includes Albuquerque, has turned over to law enforcement the 1,400 voter-registration cards that raised suspicions of fraud. Ms. Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat overseeing her first presidential vote, says her office’s review of cards works. “That’s 1,400 cards here sitting in a file; they’re not entered into the system,” she said.

A mile from Ms. Oliver’s office, Acorn operates a major New Mexico registration effort. Young workers there worked late one night this week preparing to submit registration forms. Acorn and other groups have registered nearly 80,000 new voters in a drive focused on the state’s Democratic-leaning urban areas.
Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia. All are having significant voter fraud problems.

1,400 strikes me as a large number. Although defenders say it’s not enough to sway an election, that’s a lot of false paper, filed knowingly by someone. Given that, I’d want to take a good look at the entire 80,000. But that’s probably racist.

7) Believe it or not, the NYT has a piece today that is NOT all gooey over the O. Talking about how Obama is using economic fear in his speeches, the author talks about how Obama still doesn’t offer specifics about how to make things better even after doing his best to scare the financial bejezus out of people. (Uh, hope RRRA doesn’t make it this far down. … )

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, told thousands of people at a rally here that America was “at a moment of great uncertainty.” He used the words “significant drop,” “anxiety,” “crisis” and “worse” all in his second sentence. He explained why the credit markets were frozen, and in plainspoken language described how automobile plants were closing because people could not get car loans, how savings for college and retirement were “disappearing.”
“Back in 1980, Ronald Reagan asked the electorate if you were better off than you were four years ago,” Mr. Obama told a grandstand full of voters in the swing state of Indiana. “At the pace things are going, you’re going to have to ask if you were better off than you were four weeks ago.”
—————-
n short, Mr. Obama continues to promise that everything will get better once he is president, but does not explain how his programs and governing philosophy will adjust to new economic realities. He said Wednesday that Americans needed to unite to avoid “a dark and painful recession,” even though many economists say that a recession has already begun, and that pain may be inevitable.
Mr. Obama also turned to placing blame for the economy on President Bush and charging that all Mr. McCain offers are personal attacks and “more of the same Bush economics that led us into this mess the first place.”

I thought fear mongering is a “big bad” in politics? Oh, only if you call it racial. If you fear monger about something as insignificant as people’s livelihoods, it doesn’t count.

8 ) The LATimes has a piece about questionable Obama donors.

The Democratic candidate’s donors also include “Derty Poiiuy,” an individual with a scatological sense of humor who has given $950. “Mong Kong” has contributed $1,065 and lists an address in a nonexistent city. “Fornari USA” gave $800 and listed the address of an apparel store of that name near San Francisco.

Obama’s contributions have also exposed a loophole in the law, which does not require disclosure of the identities of donors who give $200 or less, making it impossible to determine whether they are legitimate without a federal audit.

———————-
Exactly why a donor would use a name like Derty Poiiuy is not clear. “It’s part of phenomenon that we’ve never seen before,” FEC spokesman Bob Biersack said. People who make up names when donating to federal candidates violate laws against making false statements, but Biersack could not recall anyone being prosecuted for such a crime.
————-
Obama has returned money to Poiiuy, Fornari and many others. It will return Kong’s donation after The Times brought the name to the campaign’s attention.

Derty Poiiuy - isn’t he a porn star? Who knew Obama had the porn demographic locked up? An aside: How do you return real campaign funds to a person who may or may not exist?

Donna Skinner of Upper Marlboro, Md., communicates over Obama’s website via “O-mail.” “We have what we call money bombs. We make donations to each other’s fundraisers,”

“O-mail?” Is this a campaign or an amway convention?

9) The WaPo has another scary economic story. Holiday season approaches and retailers are scared.

“I don’t think anyone predicted a crisis of this magnitude that couldn’t be fixed quickly,” said Bob Carbonell, chief credit officer for Bernard Sands, a retail rating and credit services agency. “If the American housewife puts the money under the mattress, we’re in deep trouble.”

It’s an interesting early look at retailers’ concerns about the holiday season, which accounts for about 20% of sales. Why do I include it here? Because, if Obama is elected, look for him to switch gears from economic fear mongering and suggest Americans go shopping. Retailers need not worry, since Obama will begin to heal the economy, so buy that plasma tv, y’all or that latest Derty Pouiiy DVD.

10) The Australian has some comments about campaign rhetoric. Aside from saying American elections are less useful in terms of policy than Australian ones (an interesting point, that), the author talks about what the candidates actually said (something the American press doesn’t bother to do, sadly).

Obama is, formally at least, now terrifically hawkish on the use of force. Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. No military option will be taken off the table. The UN cannot have veto power over US action. He will support Israel, one of America’s closest allies in the world. He will attack in Pakistan if there is solid evidence of the presence of an important terrorist. Hunting down and destroying al-Qa’ida must be America’s No.1 national security priority. Every time genocide or ethnic cleansing occurs and the US doesn’t intervene militarily, it is diminished.

Good grief. If George W. Bush were still saying things like that there would be a warrant issued for his arrest at The Hague.

In response to Obama’s alpha-dog swagger on national security, McCain read him a little lecture on the limits of US power and the need to intervene only when it can clearly do some good. Presumably Obama wanted to look tougher and McCain less threatening.

The author also talks about the Biden / Palin debate.

The content of US debates is much less important than their style. The bias of the liberal press made it go crazy over the inevitable couple of factual mistakes in the things Sarah Palin said in the much more engrossing vice-presidential debate. But her opponent, Joe Biden, declared that the US had got Hezbollah out of Lebanon, which would be news to the Lebanese.

He also said NATO troops should have been sent to Lebanon, which means US troops, which would certainly be a revolutionary development. And he said three weeks of US expenditure in Iraq equalled seven years of US expenditure in Afghanistan, which turns out to be completely wrong. He implied McCain opposed US intervention in the Balkans, which McCain in fact supported.

But the media has decided Biden is a genius and Palin a dunce, so no significant attention, beyond The Wall Street Journal, was paid to Biden’s weird utterances.

11) The NYPost has a good piece about Ayers’ educational views. Since Obama worked with him on a program to affect education in Chicago, one might think it would be interesting to know what Ayers pushed there and Obama funded.

Yeah, right. Looking into whether a multimillion dollar grant actually did anything to help those children is NOT considered salient information. Neither is whether that “education” helped those kids get jobs. But I’m quibbling.

But, as Stanley Kurtz and Sol Stern have pointed out, Obama helped deliver thousands of dollars to fund Ayers’ education projects in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - whose purpose, says Kurtz, is to infuse students “with a radical political commitment.”

Ayers makes this very clear in all his writings. K-12 teachers, he has written, must teach “for social justice and liberation” - making classrooms into centers for creating revolutionary change.

Time has only hardened Ayers’ views. Consider an interview he gave two years ago to “Revolution,” a magazine published by The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, a self-described “Marxist, Leninist, Maoist” group.

There, Ayers argues that education can’t be separated from “the concept of politics and political change.” Urban schools are now merely preparing students “for prison, for unemployment and for war.”

So, to create a genuine “progressive” education for our children, teachers must work to overturn the repressive, racist and imperialist system that governs the United States; it is imperative to fight “the most reactionary cabal of ideologues” that control the federal government and the media.
—————

Consider also Ayers’ 1997 book on juvenile justice, which Obama praised in a review as a “searing and timely account” of the issue. Yet, Ayers argued against the very existence of prisons in the United States, compared our country and its incarceration system to apartheid in South Africa and called for drastically softer sentences for juveline murderers. In a panel on the book Obama later even agreed with Ayers that the system is an “industrial-prison complex.”

I DON’T want Ayers’ idea of quality educational content in my children’s schools. If he or Obama was a real educational reformer or even cared about the children, they would offer strong academic programs and materials to kids or at least address the property tax funding formula for schools. Rethinking how schools are funded would go much farther than any “radical political commitment” to helping all students. But that’s not really their point, is it??

BONUS:

AmericanThinker seems to think Ayers might have ghosted Obama’s book. . . .

I bought Bill Ayers’ 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, for reasons unrelated to this project. As I discovered, he writes surprisingly well and very much like “Obama.” In fact, my first thought was that the two may have shared the same ghostwriter. Unlike Dreams, however, where the high style is intermittent, Fugitive Days is infused with the authorial voice in every sentence. What is more, when Ayers speaks, even off the cuff, he uses a cadence and vocabulary consistent with his memoir. One does not hear any of Dreams in Obama’s casual speech.

Obama has a friend or associate that is questionable.

Video or articles surface of Obama thanking them, supporting them, writing a blurb for their book, organizing events for them, campaigning for them, campaigning with them, playing poker with them, serving on boards with them, buying homes with them, dining with them, praising them, using them to prove his christian faith, or hiring them.

Obama then denies their tight relationship - brushes the association off as *a guy in the ‘hood*, claims they are someone who doesn’t advise him, minimizes the actual number of times he attended church, says he can’t vet his vetters, or flat out lies.

Obama THEN completely denies any knowledge of who they really are, denies ever knowing who they were, what they said, what they did, how corrupt they were, any fraud they were up to, and what they were preaching.

People - this isn’t a coincidence. One or two nefarious associations can be examined and written off. But there is a looooooooong list of people that Obama is close to - whether they be family members, business partners, friends or co-workers who are either radicals, criminals, racist, or anti-American.

This list, compiled by The Daily Antikos, is great, but forgot a few people/organizations (that I added at the end):

Jeremiah Wright - Obama’s Pastor for 20 years. Obama did not distance himself until it was political.

Father Pflager - Speaks at Obama’s former Church (only after embarrassment) and Obama gave him money & here they are in 2000.

Bill Ayers - Terrorist. Member of the Weather Underground. Killed Americans. Launched Obama’s Political Career.

Tony Rezko - bought land and sold it to Obama at a discount. Oh yeah, and he is a convicted felon.

Raila Odinga - Defeated in his bid for the Kenyan Presidency. Led Supporters in a Violent Uprising. Obama Campaigned for him in 2006. (at tax payer expense)

Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour - I can’t even get started. This is Obama’s Political Grand-father, and his intentions do not seem to be too honorable.

Franklin Raines - Cooked the Books at Fannie Mae. Obama hired him as an advisor on Housing and Urban Affairs.

Frank Marshall David - Communist Obama Mentor.

Emil Jones, Jr. - Ugh… Just Read It.

Rev James Meeks - Spiritual Mentor

Rashid Khalidi - PLO Terrorist.

Here are a few more:

Larry Walsh is the Will County (IL) County Executive, good buddy, political confidante, and frequent poker player with Barack Obama. He is currently being investigated by the FBI.

Kwame Kilpatrick, former mayor of Detroit, convicted felon, has been charged with 10 felonies including perjury, obstruction of justice and assaulting a public safety officer. He will be sentenced October 28th. In June, Kwame Kilpatrick gave Barack Obama his endorsement as a Democratic Party Superdelegate.

Gov. Blagojevich, who is under investigation.

Marilyn Katz, a former member of the ’60’s anti-war group SDS, led protestors against the police outside the Democratic Convention in 1968. Protestors threw nails in the street to impede the police and clashed with police on this occasion and others. Katz has said of her activities that she wanted the U.S. to become a socialist paradise. She is a close friend of Barack Obama. Katz is a member of Obama’s national finance committee.

James Johnson, Former Fannie Mae executive who was vetting candidates for Obama for his VP but had to resign. Johnson is drawing fire over his jumbo home loans from Countrywide Financial, a major actor in the subprime mortgage mess, that may have been below market rates.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the NOI. Obama helped to organize his Million Man March in ‘95, and he is tight with Reverend Wright and Phleger.

Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac - Obama has recieved the most donations, second only to Dodd, from these companies, and also was thanked, in part with the Congressional Black Caucus, for *being like family* with Fannie and Freddi.

ACORN - Obama is the former Director of Illinois Project Vote, and they have been raided and charged for fraudulent voter registration practices. They are also linked to some of the above associations of Obama’s.

Michelle Obama. *First time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.* Nuff said.

How does someone hang out with that many people, who are, as I said, criminals, radicals, racists or just plain anti-American, and not share some of those characteristics?

And the best excuse Obama can ever come up with is *they aren’t the person I thought I knew* or *I never heard them say those things* or *I did not know they were a domestic terrorist when I was having my first fundraiser in their living room*.

Are we to believe that he truly didn’t know, that he is that uninformed, that naive, that, dare I say, stupid? Or is he just lying?

Why would someone who associates with all those people WANT to be President? And more importantly, why would anyone WANT him to be President?

I just don’t get it.

“The Associated Press is wrong,” Palin said. “The comments are about an association that has been known but hasn’t been talked about, and I think it’s fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy’s living room.”

========================================

Douglass K. Daniel of the Associated Press is not a journalist; he is a venal operative who serves as mindless stenographer of the Obama campaign. Let us read the article he filed today at 10:43 am EST in full, beginning with its slanderous title. A revised version is available at this URL.

I quote paid pamphleteer Douglass K. Daniel with embedded commentary:

Analysis: Palin’s words carry racial tinge

[This is not "analysis;" this is a tendentious misinterpretation of Palin's words. And besides, what is a "racial tinge?" Does everything have a racial tinge? Should we brace ourselves for another Bob Herbert moment? ]

WASHINGTON (AP) - By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.
And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

[Sarah Palin's discussion of Obama's deep and controversial ties to Bill Ayers is not "unsubstantiated," and it is certainly not an "attack." Indeed, she offers a factual analysis of the available data, data Steve Diamond and others have made available to readers of No Quarter. And nothing about Sarah Palin's words contain a "racially tinged subtext," unless, of course, you are a compromised journalist who must project racism on everything you encounter in order to repress the racist impulses you compulsively disavow in your vain attempt to conceal your racism. I challenge Douglass K. Daniel to cite one sentence Sarah Palin utters that mentions or even alludes to race. Too bad he will fail, as she does not mention Obama's race at all.]

First, Palin’s attack shows that her energetic debate with rival Joe Biden may be just the beginning, not the end, of a sharpened role in the battle to win the presidency.

[Yes, this is just the beginning. Besides, she is a Vice Presidential candidate, and O'Biden, to be sure, has been waging a very negative campaign against John McCain.]

“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,” Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain’s ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.

Her reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

[I refer Obamabot Douglass K. Daniel again to the work of Steve Diamond and others at No Quarter on Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. And yes, Douglass, friends tend to hold political fundraisers for friends, especially when those friends were engaged in philanthropic projects since 1988. And no, Douglass, a discussion of the facts is not a "smear." Go "fight the smears" at an Obama campaign office and not in the office of the Associated Press.]

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers’ radical views and actions.

[Thank you for repeating the prevarication Obama uttered during the Philadelphia debate when questioned about his relationship with Ayers by ABC News, Douglass.

Did the Obama campaign send you this statement in a memo you read before typing the article? ]

With her criticism, Palin is taking on the running mate’s traditional role of attacker, said Rich Galen, a Republican strategist.

[Yes, she is, and that is perfectly acceptable.]

“There appears to be a newfound sense of confidence in Sarah Palin as a candidate, given her performance the other night,” Galen said. “I think that they are comfortable enough with her now that she’s got the standing with the electorate to take off after Obama.”

Second, Palin’s incendiary charge draws media and voter attention away from the worsening economy. It also comes after McCain supported a pork-laden Wall Street bailout plan in spite of conservative anger and his own misgivings.

[Nothing about her charge is "incendiary." Incendiary are the acts of Bill Ayers. Incendiary, properly speaking, is bill Ayers. Incendiary is a person who commits arson or a person who incites sedition. And an incendiary agent is usually a bomb. Bill Ayers is the one who incited sedition with his bombs. Read the reports, and learn the English language. And no, this is not a distraction, unless, of course, you are an Obamabot who only views discussions of the economy as tried and true manners whereby voters in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota can be terrorized into voting for candidates who refer to them as bitter and xenophobic. And by the way, Obama also voted for the bill you characterize as a "pork-laden Wall Street bailout." But thank you for reiterating all the claims made in the memo you received from the Obama campaign.]

“It’s a giant changing of the subject,” said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. “The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don’t send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don’t take Sarah Palin seriously.”

[Thank you for revealing that all Democratic operatives must resort to sexism and misogyny when referring to Sarah Palin, Jenny Backus. Perhaps you are jealous of Sarah. Or perhaps you are just another mindless Obamabot. And by the way, it was Ayers who threw "fire bombs," not Sarah Palin.]

The larger purpose behind Palin’s broadside is to reintroduce the question of Obama’s associations. Millions of voters, many of them open to being swayed to one side or the other, are starting to pay attention to an election a month away.

For the McCain campaign, that makes Obama’s ties to Ayers as well as convicted felon Antoin “Tony” Rezko and the controversial minister Jeremiah Wright ripe for renewed criticism. And Palin brings a fresh voice to the argument.

[Yes, she does. And why is it that you and your colleagues refuse to discuss any of this, Douglass? Why must we repeat this again and again? Are you simply derelict in your duties as journalist, or do we have to send you memos you can simply reproduce in Sunday news articles in order for us to finally convince the traditional media to discuss Obama's problematic affiliations? You have time to accuse Sarah Palin of racism, but somehow you do not have time to investigate Obama's ties to Rezko. I guess you have priorities.]

Effective character attacks have come earlier in campaigns. In June 1988, Republican George H.W. Bush criticized Democrat Michael Dukakis over the furlough granted to Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who then raped a woman and stabbed her companion. Related TV ads followed in September and October.

“The four weeks that are left are an eternity. There’s plenty of time in the campaign,” said Republican strategist Joe Gaylord. “I think it is a legitimate strategy to talk about Obama and to talk about his background and who he pals around with.”

[Because Obama's deep and controversial ties to Ayers are demonstrable, Palin's discussion of that relationship will be effective. To try to compare Palin's desire to analyze the record with the advertisements of the Swift Boat veterans reveals once again that you are simply regurgitating the bilge submitted to you by the Obama campaign. Those ads were false, while Palin's discussion of Obama is based on rigorous research. And no, these are not "attacks;" these are facts to be considered. Or is any attempt to vet Barack Obama a "smear" and an "attack?"]

Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?

[And what evidence do you have that "Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism?" Quote someone who attended Palin's event, please. Or cite a specific passage from Palin's speech in which overt racism is couched in metaphorical terms. Because you lack evidence for this slanderous claim, I recommend you strike it from the article. And no, a predominantly white audience does not serve as evidence for racism.]

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

[While Americans may or may not visualize terrorists as swarthy, this has no bearing on Sarah Palin' words. Besides, she is not responsible for Obama's Muslim problem. And regarding Obama's status as a "Hawaiian-born Christian," I refer you to this document. And by the way, Palin stated Obama does not share the audience's version of patriotism; nowhere did she state that he "is not like us" as a result of his appearance. I recommend you read and reread the transcript of her speech until its full import and significance is comprehended. And no, I will not hold my breath.]

Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain’s purpose so well. As the fallout from Wright’s sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America’s promise to treat all people equally.

[Obama and his wife Michelle Obama are largely responsible for inserting the politics of race into the Presidential campaign. Just read these articles, Douglass K. Daniel. And no, Americans did not react adversely to Wright and Father Pfleger as a result of "unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally;" they recoiled when they discovered that Obama aided and abetted the activities of a man who damned America, claimed America deserved to experience 911 and claimed white politicians could never empathize with African-Americans. Exacerbating racial tensions in order to benefit Barack Obama, Reverend Wright alienated white voters who would have otherwise embraced Barack Obama. And please do not tell me that Father Pfleger helped us resolve America's legacy of race with these statement he made in the God Damn AmeriKKKa church in inner city Chicago:

And please explain how Obama's use of the phrase "typical white person" helped heal racial divides.]

John McCain occasionally looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s Capitol.

[And what relevance does this have to Sarah Palin's discussion of Obama's ties to Bill Ayers? Or did the Obama campaign ask you to cite this in the article? We know Obamabot Jonathan Alter mentioned everything you cite in this paragraph on Charlie Rose's 11 SEPT 2008 television program. Will the Obama campaign issue a memo accusing McCain of racism that rivals the one they issued about the Clintons during the South Carolina primary? Will anyone mention how that exacerbated racial tensions, or will we excuse it as a result of Obama's putative racial status?]

When the 2008 campaign is over McCain might regret appeals such as Palin’s perhaps more so if he wins.

[In other words, McCain will only win as a result of racism. Thank you once again for repeating what you and many other news organizations have been repeating in their vain attempt to coerce voters with allegations of racism. And yes, your latest article is just another installment of this endless series of racial blackmail you and other journalists are deploying on behalf of the flawed candidate you shamelessly support.]

==============================

Contact the AP, and ask them to retract the article and to issue an apology to Sarah Palin. Also ask them to fire Douglass K. Daniel immediately. One may write Douglass K. Daniel at ddaniel@ap.org, and one may contact his editors at info@ap.org

==============================

Reaction to Douglass K. Daniel’s yellow journalism can be tracked at Memeorandum.

Thanks to reader catsrclean for the link.

In May, I wrote a piece entitled, Obama Snubs Black Media. Well it’s finally all caught up to the Democratic Party and Barack Obama— and they are reaping what they has sown.

Black Agenda Report has recently covered this problem as well, and you can hear a blockbuster audio commentary about this subject. Don’t miss it! Click here.

”Never in the history of commercial Black media has a candidate for national office gotten as much free publicity of all kinds, as Barack Obama has reaped from Black-owned media.” But he still shorted them on campaign advertising.

From the Orlando Sentinel:

Black-Owned media seeking more advertising dollars from Democrats

Jeff Kunerth
Orlando Sentinel(September 23, 2008) A black-owned radio station in Daytona Beach began running ads Monday criticizing the Democratic Party for ignoring black voters in the first salvo of a long-simmering dispute between the black press and Barack Obama’s campaign.

Black-owned radio stations and newspapers have complained to the Florida Democratic Party about the dearth of political ads placed in black-owned media. A lack of response prompted the radio ads on 1590 AM (WPUL), said Charles W. Cherry II, publisher of The Florida Courier, a statewide black newspaper.

“If you want to win by getting black people to vote in the state of Florida, you must actively engage the black community’s political culture. A large part of this culture is black-owned media,” said Cherry, whose family owns 11 radio stations and two newspapers, including The Daytona Times.

Cherry said black media owners will meet today to discuss when to start running the ads statewide.

Leonard Joseph, executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, said the party and the campaign have advertised in black media in recent weeks and plan to do more.

“We will continue to advertise in minority-owned outlets between now and the end of the election,” he said.

Newspaper ads planned for next week take the national Democratic Party to task for spending $20 million on Hispanic-voter outreach nationally and $6.5 million in Florida political ads but putting very little money into black media in Florida.

The black press’ frustration with the Obama campaign is the continuation of hard feelings that date to previous Democratic presidential candidates who failed to funnel media dollars into black-owned media, said Keith Longmore, publisher of the Pine Hills-based West Orlando News.

“The Florida Democratic Party has a history of neglecting the black folks in how it spends its marketing dollars,” Longmore said.

Democrats are content to draw 85 percent to 92 percent of the black vote, Cherry said, but for Obama to win Florida, he needs to significantly raise the number of black voters. To do that, he said, Democrats must engage not only the black media, but also black community-based organizations.

The Obama campaign said it has worked extensively in black communities to register voters. It opened campaign offices in black neighborhoods, visited black barbershops and beauty salons, held neighborhood barbecues and sent voter-information press kits to black media outlets.

“The Obama campaign has an extensive outreach effort throughout the state of Florida, including the African-American community, which we will continue to drive through Election Day,” said Adora Andy, Obama’s Florida regional communications director.

Joseph said the party has spent a great deal of manpower registering black voters and urging them to vote early or by absentee ballot.

As this campaign begins its way-too-slow descent to November, I’m seeing more and more “it must be racism” op-eds and articles. If Obama loses - an unbelievable thought to supporters - then the ONLY explanation is white racism. Since Obama is so clearly the best candidate, the theory goes, everyone must realize this and only those offended by his race(s?) would not vote for him. An article at realclearpolitics provides a helpful list of some pundit-speak on this theme.

And it could become a rage the likes of which America has not seen in a long time, if ever. It will first and foremost come from within black America. The deep emotional connection that nearly every black American has to an Obama victory is difficult for even empathetic non-blacks to measure. A major evangelical pastor told me that even evangelical black pastors who share every conservative value with white evangelical pastors, including pro-life views on abortion, will vote for Obama. They feel their very dignity is on the line.

That is why the growing chorus — already nearing unanimity — of liberal commentators and politicians ascribing an Obama loss to American racism is so dangerous.

Read the rest ->

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic: “White racism means that Obama needs more than a small but clear lead to win.”

Jack Cafferty of CNN: “The polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense … unless it’s race.”

Jacob Weisberg of Newsweek and Slate: “The reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is … the color of his skin. … If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth.”

Nicholas D. Kristof of New York Times: “Religious prejudice (against Obama) is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.”

Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in a speech to union workers: “Are you going to give up your house and your job and your children’s futures because he’s black?”

Similar comments have been made by Kansas’s Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, and by writers in Time magazine. And according to The Associated Press: “A poll conducted by The Associated Press and Yahoo News, in conjunction with Stanford University, revealed that a fairly significant percentage of Democrats and independents may not vote for Sen. Barack Obama because of his race.” If you read the poll, it does not in fact suggest this conclusion. The pollsters assert that any person with any negative view of black life means that the person is racist and means that he would not vote for Obama. Both conclusions are unwarranted. But “Obama will lose because of racism” is how the poll takers and the media spin it.

Better add Clarence Page to that list. Realclearpolitics has an article on Sept. 24 from him saying the “Bubba vote” will be the problem. Page hides behind a quote from Dick Armey:

What is Barack Obama’s biggest remaining obstacle on his road to the White House? A nationally prominent Republican sums it up in a word: “Bubba.”

“The Bubba vote is there, and it’s very real, and it is everywhere,” former House Majority Leader Dick Armey recently said. “There’s an awful lot of people in America, bless their heart, who simply are not emotionally prepared to vote for a black man.”

Then Page goes here:

Anyway, as Armey implies, Obama fared worse in the primaries with white working-class males and their wives than he did with other identifiable groups of voters.
———–

Yet even Bubba knows something about political correctness these days, so he won’t always tell the truth to pollsters.

Could this have been a class issue, where these “bubbas” see Obama as out of touch with them? Of course not. These people are white, presumably Democrat and therefore racist. Although I’m sure white Republicans will be faulted as well, the blame won’t really fall there because no one would expect a Republican to vote for Obama anyway. But the Democratic party and media pundits expect all white Democrats to fall in line with the party nominee and those who don’t are labeled racist. (It’s an intra-party thing.)

If Obama loses, it will be said it is due to too many whites who leave the party and vote “against their interests” because they will not vote for a black man. “Against their interests” implies against their economic interests - meaning had these people voted for Obama, they would do better economically. That they would vote “against their interests” means they are so racist they would vote against their own economic needs just to see that Obama does not obtain office.

The theory goes that these people are terribly stupid (low-information) or terribly racist and low class, without any valid reason for opposing The One. That doesn’t hold up though. Typically, Democrats with a beef against Obama can easily point to the issue they have a problem with: sexism, flip-flopping on NAFTA, FISA or other issues, experience, Obama’s history with distasteful people, or simply a perception of dishonesty. Whatever it is, those Democrats opposing him are usually quite clear about why.

But, pundits and party elders are framing those objections into racism, the former because they are simply too lazy to figure out what’s really going on or don’t have the skills to and the latter because it’s political strategy. Once in a while an article appears that sort of refutes this theme, but not because the author expected it. Salon had an article earlier this month where the author “toured small town America” looking for racists. This is what he found:

With less than two months until voting day, there are doubts hanging over Barack Obama’s campaign — and they aren’t just due to Alaska’s top moose-hunting hockey mom jolting the race and electrifying the Republican faithful. Although Obama has touted himself as a post-racial candidate, whether America is ready to elect a black man for president remains a vexing question for his supporters. In a tight national race, Obama continues struggling to gain wider support, particularly among white working-class voters and independents in battleground states.
————-

For three months during this summer and early fall, I’ve been traveling across America, exploring the nation’s small towns and rural areas and meeting the people there. From Michigan to New Mexico to North Carolina, I’ve conducted dozens of interviews with white working-class voters across 18 states, gauging, among other things, their thoughts and feelings about the first black man to have a serious shot at winning the White House. Beyond Obama’s race, what I found was a more complicated set of concerns — whether accurately informed or not — about his religious faith, values and cultural and educational background. That is, many of these white rural voters expressed a discomfort that may have more to do with unfamiliarity about the type of person Barack Obama is, rather than with direct concerns about his race.

Democrats cannot express their concerns about their nominee without being accused of covert racism. Although racism was first attributed to “low-information” voters in states like West Virginia, it now includes “high-information” defecting Hillary supporters such as Lynn de Rothschild. The LA Times said:

Maybe Milady, who was born in New Jersey, has spent too much time in England. She probably meant to say that Obama is uppity, not elitist. That’s got to be it.

I guess when you’re looking for racists, any Democrat not supporting Obama will do. I suppose it is also understood that all Republicans are racists under these circumstances. But is that a viable theme?

ABCNews and Columbia University conducted a poll about race and social issues recently. The data shows, in some respects, what you might expect. Different races respond to issues differently; with AAs responding differently from other AAs based on whether they identify themselves as victims of specific instances of racism.

Regarding Barack Obama and his run for the White House, the study briefly noted this:

Regardless of their candidate preference, 61 percent of American - 70 percent of blacks, and about six in 10 whites and Hispanics alike - think Obama’s candidacy will change the way blacks think about themselves, and nearly all who feel this way say it’ll be for the better.

Seven in 10 Americans, similarly, think his candidacy represents broader progress for all blacks and not a single case of individual advancement.

So, in this poll, people in general are favorably predisposed to Obama, even if they don’t support him politically. The author has this a little later:

At the same time, in a finding with broad potential ramifications, class identity trumps racial identity: Sixty percent of blacks, and about as many Hispanics as well, say they have more in common with members of their social class (e.g., working-class or middle-class) than with members of their race.

Ane even with their enthusiasm for Obama, blacks by a wide margin, 60-23 percent, say it’s more important for African-Americans to build economic rahter than political p woer.

Another key finding, perhaps surprising given personal experience, is that blacks do not broadly blame racism as the chief barrier African-Americans face in improving their situation.

While 37 percent say racism is the more important factor, slightly more, 44 percent, say it’s lack of initiative among blacks themselves. (Half of HIspanics, and 56 percent of whites, share that view.)

This suggests that AAs don’t necessarily see racism opposing them at every turn. I wonder how it plays in the AA community that Obama and his surrogates are doing this despite the many gifts - upbringing, education and relative wealth - that he enjoys?

Well, some AAs don’t support Obama. You can read many here at NQ and listen to Sugar and Patsy every Thursday night at NQ radio to hear their opinions about Obama. But many AAs do support him. Some support him because they think his positions are correct, and some simply because he’s AA.

I don’t have any problem with that. Given the history of our country and the way AAs have been marginalized, I don’t begrudge AAs voting for Obama on that basis. One of the reasons I supported Hillary Clinton was because I so wanted to see a woman as President, but that was not the only reason. I hope AAs don’t mainly vote for Obama because he’s perceived as AA, but if so, then that’s the way it goes. I don’t see that as racist; I just see it as “voting for the home team.” But it’s important to remember not all AAs will vote this way. Not by a long shot. And those AAs not supporting Obama? They’re feeling the heat too, but not usually in the press. They’re feeling it from friends, family and in their social circles.

Also, as many exasperated AAs will tell you, Obama is not really AA at all. His racial mix includes African / Arab / Caucasion. It’s only fair to note that his campaign and he himself are somewhat trading on a fundamental misunderstanding of who he is. While it is true Obama had an African father and a white American mother, he did not grow up within the AA community and only entered it as an adult and did so through what many AAs consider a fringe church. I think his books clearly show he did not feel “at home” in any particular community for a long time.

Bill Clinton had some very intelligent things to say about why people vote the way they do. When asked about women who voted for Hillary then switched to Sarah Palin, Clinton responded that voting is a complex act and people do not use only one measure for decision making.

People vote or, as Bill said, “give their allegiances to” people for many reasons. Reducing all those reasons to one ugly one is dishonest, anti-intellectual (!), unfair and, in the case of trying to drive a wedge between people, immoral.

Are there racist people who will vote in this election. Yes. Will they make the difference in winning or losing? NO. Obama’s fate has always been in his own hands. His popularity and ability to defeat, by any means necessary, his rivals show he can prevail. He could not have done either without white people voting for him.

Maybe those white Obama voters better wear an Obama or t-shirt, flash the Obama hand sign, display the Obama compilation CD jewel case in their windows, call each other to sound the Obama cell phone ringtone, drink from an Obama water bottle / coffee mug, model Obama jewelry or use Obama coins in the vending machines, because otherwise they’ll just be plain vanilla racists.

———————–

Want to see the article Bill refers to? NQ has it here. And you can visit the author’s site here.

Go ahead. It’s worth your time.

The WaPo says if BO does not win in November, it will be in large part due to racism. We’re starting to see more of these “post-election” stories. Why? Well, it might be honest concern ahead of time, or it could just be more manipulation to guilt people into voting for Obama. I’m not sure which I believe yet.

At any rate, here’s what the WaPo said on the 12th:

I anticipate that most black Americans will believe that an Obama defeat will have stemmed in substantial part from a prejudice that robbed 40 million Americans of the chance to become president on the day they were born black. They will of course understand that race wasn’t the only significant variable — that party affiliation, ideological proclivities, strategic choices and dumb luck also mattered. But deep in their bones, they will believe — and probably rightly — that race was a key element, that had the racial shoe been on the other foot — had John McCain been black and Obama white — the result would have been different.
———–

Read the rest ->

If Obama loses, I personally will feel disappointed, frustrated, hurt. I’ll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I’ll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I’ll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice — not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.

If Obama is defeated, I will, for a brief time, be stunned by feelings of dejection, anger and resentment. These will only be the stronger because the climate of this election year so clearly favors the Democrats, because this was supposed to be an election the Republicans couldn’t win, and because in my view, the Obama ticket is obviously superior to McCain’s.

The writer goes on to say he thinks he would eventually “get over” an Obama defeat and find some satisfaction in the nomination and what that represents.

Well, bully for him. Glad he is philosophical about it at some level. I can certainly understand the disappointment part (I’m a Hillary supporter), and I’ve felt that sexism certainly played a role in her defeat, so I can understand he would feel racism played a role.

But this part completely boxes me in:

And I’ll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice — not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.

So a racist doesn’t even have to know he’s a racist? He can hide it from himself and unconsciously come up with fake reasons not to vote for Obama? So anyone not voting for Obama will have to spend the rest of whatever time is devoted to hashing out this part of American history trying to prove a negative.

Trying to prove you aren’t a racist? Just for not voting for BO? Aaaauuuuugggghhh!!!

Well, that’s rot. If you remember Hillary’s candidacy, the sexism was hardly hidden by superior dissemblers who had a “chameleonlike . . .ability to adapt [their sexism] to new surroundings and to hide [it] even from those firmly in its grip.” No, THAT was pretty much right out there. No hiding. Smoothies like Keith Olbermann, Jesse Jackson, III, Obama himself and too many politicians and media people to name here seemed unable to hide sexist comments. Yet the type of people the Obama campaign has slurred as likely racists are those very people not assumed smart enough to “vote their own interests.” And these people are Academy Award winning racists able to fake out themselves and others as to their real feelings?

Or are these so-super-sneaky-they-may-not-even-know-they’re-racist racists really Obama’s demographic: educated, “high-information,” socially conscious, etc. people who are just bamboozling us all? Surely Obama’s surrogates are not necessarily attacking Republicans, since they won’t get their vote anyway. So, are the racists those “low-information” voters or Obama’s erstwhile voters??

Good grief, do THEY even know who they are? (Is there a pee test for this?)

There seems to be an assumption that Americans, in general, are racist. What else explains all the concern about Obama not being electable ONLY because he’s AA? (And don’t get me started on THAT. In all fairness, as many AA will tell you, Obama is many things, but not really African-American.) There have been many articles saying that Obama will suffer at the ballot box because of some nameless racism inherent in [mainly] white voters.

Saying racism is the ONLY reason Obama might not win assumes both that Obama is completely unassailable as a candidate and that a majority of whites are unassailably racist in their hearts. Neither is true.

There ARE white racists out there; and there are AAs who hate Hispanics; and Hispanics who hate Asians and Asians who loathe whites. There are also millions of people of good will in all racial groups. Most people really do try to get along and there are no guarantees about who would try to save you from drowning and who would toss you a cement block.

Saying a national election can be lost due to (white) racism indicts a majority of that population before any vote is cast, particularly since no one can legitimately point to exactly WHICH whites would be responsible. So, they’re all potentially guilty. That’s simply prejudice.

I can’t prove a negative. If I don’t cast a vote for Obama and someone calls me a racist for it, how will I prove I had other concerns about the candidate that swayed me? I can’t, really. I guess I could offer some proof if I voted for Cynthia McKinney, but that would get shut down because someone would then claim I voted for her simply because I know she won’t win.

So, if asked, I may simply say I voted for Obama. Why? So I don’t have to try and prove a negative.

There’s a Bradley effect for you.

Here are some NQ articles with solid reasons NOT to vote for Obama

The Real Reason Obama Is Faltering

Obama Learning the Limits of His Advisers’ Class Warfare Strategy

Obama’s New Bill Ayers Lie

Ball of Confusion

A Historic Candidacy, Based on a Lie