March 17, 2008

Obama to give speech -- not press conference -- about Wright

Sen. Obama has scheduled a major address on race for Tuesday in Philadelphia:

“This is why I’m giving a speech about this tomorrow, that will be a lot more wholesome than a press conference. Does that make sense?” Obama asked.

Yeah, sure it makes sense -- you don't want to have to answer tough questions.

It ought to be a good speech. Obama has had years to prepare for this moment that inevitably had to arrive.

It might even be a great speech, if Obama can summon up the courage to overcome his fear that he's not "black enough." If he explains to blacks that he used to subscribe to what Wright says, but he's learned over the years that blaming everything on the white man is just self-defeating for blacks, that it's been a generation-and-a-half since the Civil Rights years, that blacks have to grow up.

But, I expect it will instead just be more of the Will.i.am-quality soft soap he's been ladling out for years.

Keep in mind that the Wright-Obama connection has two interrelated but distinguishable aspects: the black racial angle and leftist ideological angle. My guess is that Obama will play up the black angle of his past (as being both more understandable -- seeing as how Obama, kind of like Jesus, was a poor black child raised by a single mother in the ghetto of Honolulu -- and more untouchable by the press) and totally ignore the leftist angle.

It would be more fun if Obama reversed the polarity and snarled, "Yeah, yeah, for the last 12 years, I forced myself to nod in seeming agreement when all those smug Friedmanite economists at my University of Chicago would ramble on about the magic of the market. But, in my heart, I knew this glorious day would someday come when the capitalist system crumbles in ruins! Nyah-hah-hah-hah!"

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

iSteve:

The MSM have already written their reviews. It's racist and/or guilt-by-association (I notice they keep using that instead of McCarthy - esque -ism) to keep covering this. BHO has passed the test blah- blah-blah.

My secret fantasy ... BHO launches into a Farrakhanesque numerology groove. Oh well, maybe his 1st inaugural.

Born Again Democrat said...

What do you mean exactly by Obama's leftest angle? That he cares about social justice? Does that make your concern about the left and side of the bell curve leftism, too? Or do you mean that Obama harbors secret plans for class war? That he doesn't appreciate the virtues of a market economy? Granted Wright verges on being a militant leftist, but I don't see it in Obama. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are.

RKU said...

I personally have a lot of doubts about this "economic leftist" angle...

Remember, Obama lives in a big mansion partly provided by Rezko and his wife gets $300K/year as a "community liaison". Doesn't quite sound like a hard-core leftist to me.

For example, in post-Apartheid South Africa there's been a huge political divide between the "leftist" black leaders and the "corporatist" black leaders, with the latter mostly just wanting a huge fraction of the national economic pie. I'd say that Obama strikes me as falling very much on the "corporatist" side of the divide...

RKU

William said...

Whatever he says, one hopes (or doesn't?) that he realizes that he can't do his ordinary toe-tapping in this case.

No, saying "I've come to realize" doesn't work, because that certainly wouldn't explain his evolution from a $600 donor in 1998 to a $22,500 donor in 2006.

In fact I'm not real sure there's anything he can say that will rescue him from this. I'm not sure there's anything he can say - short of "yes, I'm a black racist radical andthis is what I believe and who you'll be electing" that won't lead to more questions.

He'll probably talk about Trinity's social gospel, but that's just not gunna cut it.

Anonymous said...

If only Steve covered the Ron Paul newsletter fiasco with such journalistic rigor!

Anonymous said...

From Rod Dreher’s blog here is an explanation contained in article on Cone, who inspired the “theology” that is taught at Obama’s church and by his pastor.


http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/03/the-insanity-of-black-liberati.html



Here is an excerpt about Cone and his influence on Trinity UCC, Obama's church, from a sympathetic profile in The Christian Century:

There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity. James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he's asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Cone's groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: "The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . .

Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'. . . Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement." Contending that the structures of a still-racist society need to be dismantled, Cone is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved. In a 2004 essay he wrote, "Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison" (in Living Stones in the Household of God).

Wright agrees. When I asked him whether white Americans are right to maintain that the racial situation has improved since the days when Africentric Christianity was born, Wright pointed to the racist remarks by radio host Don Imus: "And you say things have improved?"

Anonymous said...

You're wrong Born Again. Obama specifically says he wants to transfer tax money from working and middle class people (mostly but not all white) to rich kleptocrats in Africa (his Global Tax on America bill, and no I'm not kidding). He wants a massive expansion of the state, multiculturalism victimology in the schools, and weakness on every defense issue you can think of. Including basic military research, equipping the troops, and missile defense (so we're defenseless against NK, Pakistan, etc.)

And yes his very WEALTH makes him LEFTIST. You can't get more leftist than Che or Fidel. Fidel is worth, what, a couple of billion? Kim Jong-Il worth five or six billion? Mugabe about the same. Wealthy people the world over are hard-core leftists. Working people and middle class are conservative.

Obama is a middling-wealth figure and local pol. Only hugely leftist politics and massive shakedowns can give him (and his Lady McBeth wife) the amount of money, power, and prestige he craves.

Guy is going to Mau-Mau the Dem Party into giving him the nomination, crying racism! all the way. And go down in flames, taking most Blue Dogs with him.

How well do you think "God Damn America will play among white voters in TN, GA, TX, VA, OH, PA, SC, NC, AL, LA, MS, KS, etc.? My guess not very and McCain-Feingold means un-linkable 527's will be running those every day. Likely on talk radio and cable TV. Slumping ad markets means radio and TV can't be as picky as they'd like. They'll have to run them.

It's not just Obama. It's Heath Schuler in TN. Or guys like him in VA. They're toast.

"God Damn America" says it all. And of course there will be more video of worse stuff drip drip drip with Obama nodding his head.

Ninja Pirate said...

""""
What do you mean exactly by Obama's leftest angle? That he cares about social justice?
""""
What do you BELIEVE?

""""
Remember, Obama lives in a big mansion partly provided by Rezko and his wife gets $300K/year as a "community liaison". Doesn't quite sound like a hard-core leftist to me.
""""
LOL

DissidentMan said...

The MSM have already written their reviews. It's racist and/or guilt-by-association (I notice they keep using that instead of McCarthy - esque -ism) to keep covering this. BHO has passed the test blah- blah-blah.

Doubtless true, but it occurs to me that, since the MSM nowadays basically functions as judge, jury and executioner on matters of morality, they've also got the magnanimous forgiveness option. Stalin occasionally forgave political enemies fully in order to cement his image as all-powerful. Yes Obama had had dealings with Wright but we *forgive* could be tommorrow's headline. Not that I think there would be anything wrong with that per se except that I perceive an enourmous double standard, seeing as forgiveness for right-leaning thought-criminals is out of the question.

For what it's worth I find it hard to despise Obama nearly as much as I despise Amnesty McWarfare. I'd far prefer a vapid affirmative action canditate to a rabid neocon with Short Man syndrome.

jbday said...

If only Ron Paul had a shot of getting his party's nomination.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is indeed curious why Steve didn't cover the Ron Paul newsletter fiasco with the same rigor.

TH said...

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Wright kept asking if Hannity had read black liberation theologian James Cone's books, as if just reading him would make one agree with him. Unfortunately, Hannity had not read Cone's works. Spengler has a juicy quote (or paraphrase?) from Cone in his otherwise insipid column:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

If Wright really believes that, isn't his church a Christian Nation of Islam?

As to Steve's lack of coverage of Paul's newsletter fiasco, he has written very little about Paul in general, whereas he has been obsessing about Obama for a long time. Perhaps he's just not interested in Paul? And, of course, Paul never had realistic chances of being nominated.

headache said...

"For example, in post-Apartheid South Africa there's been a huge political divide between the "leftist" black leaders and the "corporatist" black leaders, with the latter mostly just wanting a huge fraction of the national economic pie. I'd say that Obama strikes me as falling very much on the "corporatist" side of the divide..."

Yea, but the corporatists blacks (Mandela, Mbeki, Zuma) are also responsible for causing 1/3 of the Afrikaners to now live in poverty, rampant crime, corrupt public services, corrupt police/army, education which is worthless, infested public hospitals and radical job and educatiion discrimination against whites. So what gives?

Anonymous said...

Anon 3/17 -- re the Ron Paul newsletter...there was too much truth in it for Steve to cover it with as much "journalistic rigor."

rku -- There are plenty of wealthy individuals who are economic leftists. I can think of several in the Senate, and George Soros also comes to mind. Can you say "hypocrite?"

William said...

The MSM have already written their reviews. It's racist and/or guilt-by-association.

There's no relying on the MSM to distribute the truth of Barack's racism. They weren't even talking baout it at all until Barack had "denounced" it. So move along people, there's nothing to see here.

I just don't think that as many people are paying attention as we'd like to hope. Look at the YouTube numbers for the worst Jeremiah Wright videos and the highest is around 200,000, and I'd bet alot of those folks were already decided on Obama either way - mostly against.

I think the only way this will get around is if more people start emailing their friends with links to the clips.

I like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc

RobertHume said...

Liberation theology and the crafty evil of whites is a rational explanation of what blacks see ... if their lower average IQ is not admitted as the likely explanation.

This is why PC is leading us into ever more devastating (not only to whites, but also to blacks) counter-productive policies. Readers can supply their own extensive list of such policies.

mq said...

So according to right-wingers, it's hypocritical for a leftist to have any wealth, influence, or power. That would be really convenient for the right, wouldn't it? It's even more hypocritical for anti-government right wingers to have political careers and make all their money off the taxpayer.

I love Steve's little fantasy at the end of the post...if only Obama would tear off his moderate mask and reveal himself as an evil Stalinist Communist, just like the straw men that inhabit the conservative imagination! That would just be awesome!

Just for the sake of fairness, though, McCain should give a speech next week confessing that he's actually an evil fascist militarist who wants to exterminate the entire Middle East using nuclear weapons. Then the American people could have a fair debate between the *true* sides in this election.

Anonymous said...

Well,it is crumbling in ruins, isn't it?

David said...

mq, you forgot about the real Hillary.

All 3 candidates are unimaginably bad.

We get what we want, and what the media masters tell us to want. And they/we didn't and don't want Ron Paul.

Paul? Ain't he a nutbag? (Unlike McInsane) Paul? He gonna cut off my govt. check - I would lose my access to the sugar teat that I so deeply deserve! Paul? Ain't he fur them middle east terrace? Paul? Who he?

So we'll "get what we deserve, good and hard," as H.L. Mencken or someone put it. Not the land of Jefferson, but more like the land of Hitler (or Weimar).

Thanks, media masters!

Truth said...

"And, of course, Paul never had realistic chances of being nominated."

Yes, and why, because people like you continually say that he "never had realistic chances of being nominated."

Presidents are nominated when people vote for them.