Don't ever doubt me. I spotted the indications that the Obama campaign was about to "play the race card" (try to intimidate people into voting for Obama because of his race). From Obama's campaign against Hillary Clinton, it was always obvious that this was likely (even as Obama himself cravenly lets surrogates do the "dirty" work).
There were always "straws" in the wind" that the Obama media was trying to suggest that the only reason Obama (who is "like Jesus" to these people, remember) was not running away with this election is his race (forget his lack of objective qualifications, his lying about his "accomplishments", and the fact that his campaign has been all about high sounding words than about any actions of Obama that show he is capable of "walking the waK" as well as "talking the talk").
But the mainstream media first tried to play Obama as a "post-racial" candidate who would not stoop to try to USE his race, and the media did not want to undermine that idea. However, the mainstream media, with the selection of Sarah Palin, and the resulting, despicable, sustained smear campaign by the mainstream media and left (redundancy) against her, the gloves have come off. The mainstream media on longer believes that Obama can win as a "uniter"--as a "post-racial" candidate whose race is irrelevant. The mainstream media has decided the gloves are off, and that this is about division. The mainstream media, and the Obama campaign have decided that it is time to pit race against race, ethnicity against ethnicity, religion against religion: in short to embark full bore on the politics of personal destruction. Obama was not winning the other way. To leftists in the media and elsewhere, this was unacceptable, since it is obvious to them that their opponents are racist and/or hicks--usual racist hicks.
The mainstream media decided it was time to intimidate anyone not firmly committed by labeling them as potentially in a class with committed conservatives like myself--it being a given that people like me are evil, racist hicks--along with all other conservatives.
I saw it first with Jack Cafferty (of the pro-Obama, "liar" network, CNN) . Now Cafferty is an obnoxious Obama partisan. I could see the handwriting on the wall (see entry around the beginning of this week), when Cafferty suddenly suggested that race is "THE" issue in this campaign. In other words, he was suggesting that people against Obama are against him because of his race--racists. You can take my word for it: Cafferty would not have said that unless the left (including the Obama campaign) were not wildly signaling that it was time to really start trying to USE Obama's race--time to forget this "post-racial" stuff except tor the racist version of that. The racist version of "post-racial" (always lurking in the leftist formulation) is that you can only prove you have gotten beyond race by voting for Obama because of his race. In other words, nominating an African-American is not enough (even though no Jew or woman, for example, has been nominated for President). This view of "post-racial" is that all of America has to vote an African-American into office to prove America is not a racist country.
You will note that all of this has nothing to do with whether Obama is qualified to be President, or should be President, unless you agree with the left that his race is the only "qualification" that matters. As I have repeatedly said, it is leftists who are the primary racists in this country. Yes, just like all of CCN is sexist, I have no hesitancy is labeling Jack Cafferty a racist. By definition, that is a person who looks at things, like who should be President, in terms of race.
You may have though I exaggerated in my interpretation of what Cafferty said. You should have learned by now. As with the evil people at Politico.com (see yesterday's entry), I immediately understood what was about to happen. It did.
Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas, came out this week and basically said what Cafferty was saying. And she was clearly acting with the approval of the Obama campaign, as an Obama surrogate. She said that the only reason this race is close is because of Obama's race. Again, you are racist hicks if yo don't vote for Obama. Then, today, we get this story from that "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use official name in first reference) abut an AP/Yahoo poll with the following lead:
"Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles."
Yep. Do you see the intended intimidation here. One-third of you "white Democrats" out there (which means you are basically good guys and gals--not lost to evil like Republicans) are in danger of becoming lost to the dark side--of becoming full fledged white racists, or failing to evolve out of that previous state of evil.
You might think this would not work, since it basically tries to label white Democrats as being "unenlightened" on race--racist hicks, in other words. However, you need to understand the not so subtle pressure here. Most people like to feel good about themselves. Not too many people, other than leftists and out and out redneck bigots (not that many are that, in my experience), are comfortable with thinking that they judge a person based largely on that person's race. They don't want to be lumped in with real bigots like conservative Republicans. Obama is never going to get the votes of those few who are virulently racist, no matter what anybody says. But he may be able to intimidate those who are in some doubt or concern about "residual" or "repressed" racism into proving their "enlightenment" by voting for Obama. Never mind that the person is then voting for Obama because of his race. Let me pause here to rip the poll, which is as meaningless and evil as all polls.
Where are these questions:
1. How many people are more disposed to vote for Obama because he is African-American? How can you say that "racial misgivings" may be hurthing Obama, when the overall effect of his "race" may be to give him more votes. The poll is aimed at pitting race against race, and intimidatiing voters, just as I said. It is not interested in some sort of neutral examination of the net effect of race in this campaign (which is an evil thing to concentrate on anyway, because--as stated--it stokes racial hatred and division).
2. How many people have misgivings about a woman Vice President who may become President?
3. How many people have misgivings about a mother of minor children becoming Vice President, and perhaps President?
That is all apart from the fact that the way the poll measures "misgivings" is suspect, and the whole idea of really determining racial attitudes with a poll is ridiculous. Have I told you that polls are necessarily evil? I know I have. That includes straight polls on how people are going to vote, and definitely includes polls concentrating on a "racial" breakdown of people polled. I now return to the main point.
As I said in the previous entry: I ACCUSE. I accuse the Obama campaign of deliberately trying to use his race to try to intimidate people into voting for him because of his race. Obama is deliberately stoking racial hatred, and attempting to stoke, and provoke, "guilt" in people voting against him, in a cynical play for votes.
It is disgraceful. It cannot help but incite further racial hatred and division in this country. This is Reverend Wright hate stuff. It goes a long way toward explaining why Obama supported the hate ministry of Reverend Wright for all of those years.
Obama is not a post-racial candidate. He is a candidate willing to cynically try to use his race to get elected President.
P.S. A person commented recently that I should not use ALL CAPS to show emphasis, because that is done only by 13 year olds. I don't agree with that, but I have tried a different approach in this entry. Except for "I ACCUSE" (a reference to Emile ola's "letter" to the Republic in the Dreyfus affair in historical France), I have used italics (unless I missed one) above instead of ALL CAPS to show emphasis. I refuse to give up on emphasis, because I think it helps the reader to know how I expect a sentence to be read, and where I think the emphasis deserves to be. I don''t, obviously, do it every sentence. But I do it more than most. I will not stop that. But I invite comment about using italics instead of ALL CAPS.
P.S. 2. Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate will be officially awarded to Barack "World" Obama, Ben Bernake, and Henry Paulson in tomorrow's entry. No time tonight.
No comments:
Post a Comment