Posted by
FeargalX on Friday, April 18, 2008 10:48:16 PM
From a review of Obama's biological background, we can see who Obama really is. On the one hand, he is very smart. I give him credit for this because he became Editor of Harvard's law review. It is not clear whether or not he was admitted to Harvard as an affirmative action (lesser) candidate. I would submit that Clarence Thomas' with honors degree from Holy Cross (a university certainly within the top 10%) should make people think that maybe he deserved to get in to Yale law school (but as Thomas himself says, affirmative action tarnished his Yale degree). Obama -- being editor of Harvard's law review -- shows that he has an incredible ability with people. Though Harvard is a liberal institution, nobody who is really underserving could become Editor of the Law Review.
Obama's ability with people makes him very dangerous. For whatever reason, at a very young age he gravitated towards extreme leftists as his mentors. He chose many of those people AFTER he went to Harvard (Wright and Ayers). His San Francisco statement about "bitter" America shows who he really is -- a very cunning leftist elitist.
I have said this countless times on this blog, but it bears repeating. It might make sense for someone with Clarence Thomas' background to gravitate in the direction of a Jeremiah Wright (just like I understand why Robeson went in the Communist direction). Civil Rights in Thomas' home state of Georgia was problematic (at least) until Thomas was about 30 years old. I could understand how someone might become a radical if they were exposed to segregated accomodations until they were in their 20s. Obama is just so totally different than this.
Because of basic prejudice (and historical ignorance) Obama gets linked with black Americans. It really is no different than calling all East Asians "Chinese" -- people do it -- but than is borne of ignorance. After all, someone from Japan, Vietnam or the Philappines would rightfully be somewhat offended by being simply called "Chinese."
First, Obama is biracial -- which people from Franco Harris to Tiger Woods for years have been emphasising this point when they are simply called "black."
More importantly, his father was Kenyan. The people of Kenya have a real history -- a good example of this unique aspect of them is they are probably the best long distant runners in world history. Indeed, athletic history tells us that West Africans have been great sprinters -- East Africans (particularly Kenyans) are great at running long distances. The point with that stark difference is that they are not the same thing -- nor is Japan the same thing as Vietnam -- different people with different cultures.
Kenyans do not even really look like West Africans -- Does someone from Turkey look the same as a Swede? Turks and Swedes are "white" from a very general race example as all Sub-Saharan Africans are black -- but they are different in many ways.
So, while Americans may generally be ignorant to history Obama is certainly not. He knows that his fathers "people" were not slaves in America and even dealt with Jim Crow issues. He also knows that not only was his mom white, but two separate families in her background owned slaves.
So, given this background why gravitate towards a Jeremiah Wright? It is really the same reason that you might gravitate towards a white radical like Bill Ayers -- an attraction to American radicals. Obama is smart enough to know how ignorant most people are -- so he knew that Wright could benefit him with a type of "street cred." The funny thing is that even though Obama is a smart guy he still is not any better at doing a "black voice" than a comedian like Howard Stern. Of course, Obama would not naturally have any reason for "talking black" given that he grew up with no black American close influences. If a white person in politics tried doing this for black audiances this would be attacked.
Anyway, we also see in Obama's choice for a wife more about his calculated choices. It would be a bit of a culture shock for anyone to marry someone with a different religious and/or racial background. He chose a black radical -- no surprise from the standpoint of him being calculated -- but it is surprising for someone with his actual background. Though Hawaii has few blacks -- many people are multiracial so being part white and part Kenyan would really not be that big a deal for Hawaii (lots of Somoans live in Hawaii -- they are as "black" as Obama).
His wife being proud for the first time (very sad really) with her husband -- wasn't she a little bit proud with Mosely Braun's election to the senate (first and only black woman)? Remember, this is the same state Obama is from (Illinois) -- and she ALSO ran for POTS (though she did not do too well in primaries). Also, this crazy attitude that as a black man Obama could get shot going to the gas station -- what is up with that? Why would something like that happen to him (as opposed to someone white)? It is true that blacks do sometimes get hassled by the police (and it is a legitimate gripe that people have) -- but just getting shot for being black? What is she talking about? Certainly, there is a documented high amount of black on white, and black on black crimes, but not random black killings due to being black.
Though Obama is much more intelligent and personable than the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of this world his view points are every bit (if not more) as radical.
The quick summary for me (1) Ayers, (2) Wright, (3) Bitter, (4) Grandma, (5) typical white person, (6) Candidate questionaire in 1996 -- outlaw handguns (7) his wife. The only one of these things that he could ever explain away to me would be #6 -- he could tell me it was a political necessity based upon the people in the district to take such a position (and he would be maybe telling the trutth). Any of these other things are totally inexcusable.
I do not have a lot of confidence in America because I can tell how popular Obama is with many segments of society (including my own parents). People really appear not to care a whole lot about these things.
Will these things prevent Obama from winning West Virginia, Arkasas and Tennessee in the general election? I don't know. Could Obama win a state with a high number of black Americans because so many will vote because he is on the ticket -- maybe that could happen -- but maybe he would have a shot of winning Lousiana or Georgia states that sometimes go Democratic that have 25%+ of their electorate who are black.
I think Hillary Clinton would maybe have been a better candidate to win those low percent black rural states like Iowa or West Virginia -- but I do not really know how it will impact things.
I would consider myself pretty conservative -- but given the choice of many conservative policies that have been adopted over the past 10 years versus liberatarian and even liberal positions -- I have voted and supported many Democrats (like Kerry and Jim Webb). There is no way I could support an Obama -- but I am not the kind of voter people have to worry about.
The suburbs like Obama, blacks really like Obama, urban areas really like Obama, young people like him -- winning these groups can get you elected president without worrying about losing the other areas. Obama also have a lot more money than McCain -- and probably will have a lot more than him in the fall -- making things potentially pretty tough.
If McCain and Obama have close to equal amount of money come September -- I would give McCain the edge. As it is, I do not think that this will happen.
In 2008, I think that it is likely that the Red State/Blue State dynamic might play out close to where things played out in 2000 and 2004 (where things were almost the same). So, that makes the swing states that much more important.