04/11/2008 - 3:26pm
As the good folks at Carnegie Mellon University prepared for a recent visit by Michelle Obama, the rock star energy was in the air. The gym was packed to the brim with the starry-eyed, educated elite from around Pittsburgh, excited that the next best thing to the Messiah Himself would soon be appearing.

In Barack Obama, much hope is placed. So much hope - for the future of the free world, for the future of America, and for mending the pain of slavery, a pain that lingers in the hearts of every white student of privilege attending our nation's best schools - is placed in his candidacy that what happened next must have been a shock to those in attendance. Some in the crowd must retain enough of their conscious minds to be upset.

For as the Obama advance team put the finishing touches on the media event - all events held by candidates are for the sake of the media first, with the people in attendance mere props in campaign theater - there was concern amongst event organizers over the faces in the crowd.

It seems that too many of those faces located behind the podium where Michelle would be speaking, in clear view of the TV cameras, were the faces of minorities.

“Get me more white people, we need more white people,” one campaign coordinator said to another.

Here's another quote from the story in the school newspaper, the Tartan: "To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, 'We’re moving you, sorry. It’s going to look so pretty, though.'"

Ah... racist and patronizing in one swift kick - how utterly liberal of them.

Just another reminder about the bold leadership on race that democrats in general, and the Obama campaign specifically, offer on moving toward a color-blind America.

But this attitude among democrats is nothing new.

In post-war America, Democrats have consistently failed to deliver for the black community. In our inner-cities and in our public schools, both of which are domains that democrats oversee with monopoly control, blacks suffer endlessly for their blind devotion to a party that makes no effort to deliver on its promises. As a result, urban life in the United States is marked by rampant violence, lack of economic opportunity, and schools that no liberal of means would allow their kids to visit for an hour, forget about attend.

Somehow, though, democrats aren't laughed at when they claim to be the party that cares about minorities.

What people haven't figured out is that the compassion of democrats is selfish - their caring extends only to what needs to be done to keep democrats winning elections.

Thus, caring about schools really means doing whatever the teachers unions want. And teachers unions don't care about education, they care about keeping teachers employed. Caring about working folks means doing things to strengthen unions, who in turn kickback a portion of their great financial and organizational prowess to the party. Caring about public employees means showering them with pay and benefits well beyond what the market would warrent in order to get their votes. And caring about minorities means offering alms, but never solutions, to their plight. This keeps them permanently dependent on the handouts, and thus beholden to the giver. The obsession that democrats have for the poor and downtrodden has become the worst thing that ever happened to the poor and downtrodden.

For this model to continue to work, minorities must think that the effort to help them is ongoing. Democrats work this trick by yelling and screaming about racism, attacking it at places where it isn't. That way, the minority base never realizes that they are the perpetrators of a system that guarantees permanent bad results for minorities. A system of institutional racism.

Money to help, but no way to get ahead. More money for schools, but never education. Rewarding people for being minority rather than for achieving great things. These are the tools that democrats use to lock up minority votes, while locking minorities in place.

So you can't blame a guy for smiling when the campaign of the first black candidate who will be the nominee of a major party cries out for more white people, for it is white democrats who have kept us focussed on, rather than moving beyond, skin color.

For it tells us the truth about the Obama campaign. That it is a traditional white, liberal, suburban campaign that is a status-quo movement that has no interest in change beyond the power of the brand.

The only change it will achieve is shifting more dollars into the policies that keep minorities in the bondage that democrats perpetuate - the bondage of drugs and violence and ignorance that is foundational to the business plan of the modern democratic party.

04/11/2008 - 3:56am
Let's see.

Jimmy Carter (and his entire family) are supporting Barack Obama.

And a new poll indicates that Obama has lost his ten point lead over McCain, with the two now locked in a tie.

Is there a connection between the Carter support and Barack's decline?
04/10/2008 - 4:24pm
Barack has outsmarted Hillary again. You'll remember that she called for a U.S. boycott of the Olympic opening ceremonies to help build pressure on the Chinese regarding Tibet. This was reasonable and presidential of Hillary - after all, she's not calling for a boycott of the games. Hill asked Barack and McCain to echo her sentiment.

But Barack said wait a sec lady, not so fast!

A boycott of the opening ceremonies should be "firmly on the table," Obama said, "but this decision should be made closer to the games."

How about that. He got her on nuance. Better not to play that card just yet says Barack. Better to wait. To think. To contemplate. To see how things develop. To be cautious. To move slowly. To see things in shades of gray, not black and white.

And while this may seem wise and even clever to the advisers who decided on this response - they've managed, it seems, to take the wind right out of Hillary's sails - it plays into a weakness of Barack's.

There is a lost opportunity in Barack's strategy, though. The U.S. decision to boycott the ceremonies would create a huge impetus for other, smaller players, to jump on board and create an avalanche. Protesters around the world could be emboldened. China might actually be forced to pull back on the abuse of Tibet. The U.S. could have a leadership role in affecting a longterm change in Chinese policy. But that would be an act of leadership.

This is not Barack's role, as Barack is a man who doesn't like decisions, who doesn't like action, who doesn't like leadership - its something he's entirely unfamiliar with. He didn't even decide to break with his racist spiritual adviser/political adviser until forced to do so, and even then the break was only a slight bend.

Barack is a thinker. And thinkers don't make leaders.

04/10/2008 - 2:34pm
John Cleese is offering his joke writing services to Barack.

"I'm going to offer my services to him as a speechwriter because I think he is a brilliant man," says the former Monty Python star.

I believe in England you would call Cleese a "twit" for saying such a thing.
04/09/2008 - 10:20pm
Michelle Obama speaks for Barack. This is clear, as she talks about what "we want," and what "we believe," and the campaign hasn't offered any statements to make us think that she's anything less than a full philosophical partner with Barack.

So when Michelle says "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more," there's no reason to doubt that this is what we'll get from President Obama.

Which is something we already knew, but not something you hear the campaign talking about.

Higher taxes.

Why are higher taxes necessary to accomplish health care reform? I thought we were going to save a ton of money from the efficiencies that universal health care will create. Why, I understand that we can save 25% on day one just moving to a single payer system. They should be able to send limos to pick us up and take us to the doctor, and still have enough money leftover in healthcare savings to "fix" education, which means to give billions more to the people who've already screwed it up.

Maybe its just me.
04/09/2008 - 1:11pm
Dick Morris is a brilliant guy who isn't the most dependable of pundits due to his desire to create buzz with every observation. His predictions surprises for their creativity, but not with their accuracy.

But his new column his different - one understands why political candidates need great political calculators working with them.

Morris makes the point that Barack's weakness as a candidate is that he's as weak as John Kerry. He likes to contemplate and evaluate and focus on nuance like Kerry did, he just does it all in a much more appealing package.

The Jeremiah Wright situation highlights this quality. Barack failed to act in a way that was obvious and satisfying - to walk out of the church when disgusting stuff was going on. He was weak. He was nuanced. He was John Kerry.

Morris further observes the dangers for Barack on Iraq. What is the alternative to John McCain's position that doesn't reek of weak?

"Obama’s opposition to the war begs a host of questions: Shall we retain any presence? What about al Qaeda? What happens if the government falls? Can we let Iran take over? Obama will dither and seem far from decisive as he answers each of these questions. They will make him look terrible, just as Kerry — in opposing the war after voting for it — looked like a flip-flopper."

Okay. Pay the consultant. And read him here.
04/08/2008 - 4:26pm
Barack continues to dig the hole deeper.

Today on Today, Meredith asked him if he was now willing to admit that he was distorting McCain's statement. He said no, just look at the video on Youtube. Okay, here's another shot at Barack's lies, sandwiched around today's lie on Today.



This is the good thing about long, tedious campaigns. They give you the time to pick away at the illusions that candidates create and learn a bit about what they're made of. Barack is showing ego weakness - all he had to do was say, "Ya, I was speaking extemporaneously a couple of times and slightly mischaracterized the McCain position. I regret that, because the truth is bad enough that no exaggeration is needed."

Please see the post below about Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick for insight into where these missteps can lead.
04/08/2008 - 12:42am
Barack's adviser says that Barack should leave 60 to 80,000 troops in Iraq until the end of 2010 (see the next post down). Here's what the New York Sun, the paper that broke the story, had to say about this revelation:

"WASHINGTON — A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office."

But wait a minute - this is not a contradiction to Barack's statements at all! He's so shifty on Iraq, its hard to tell exactly what he'll do, so let's break it down.

From the Obama website:
"He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

What does this mean? A brigade is a vague measure that seems to represent anywhere from 2000-5000 troops. If you take one or two brigades out a month for 16 months, what do you get at the end? Could be anywhere from 32,000 to 160,000 troops!

In other words, there is no disagreement between what Barack's advisers say and what he's telling us, since he's not really telling us much of anything. Despite the general claim that he is the candidate who will end the war, Barack is not making any sort of hard commitment to do so.

This is further complicated by the fact that Barack is referring to COMBAT troops. How many of those are there in Iraq? This is hard to figure out. In a story last May in the San Franciso Chronicle, it was estimated that there were 52,000 COMBAT troops there in January 2007, which would mean a rough ratio of about 35% combat troops.

If there are 130,000 troops in Iraq come inauguration day, President Barack has committed, it seems, to removing 50,000 or so during his first 16 months in office. Pretty much on track with what Colin Kahl is recommending.
04/08/2008 - 12:18am
By the way, does anyone doubt that 2 years into the Obama administration the war in Iraq would be any closer to over than if John McCain becomes president? Even Barack's advisers don't think getting all the combat troops out in 16 months is good policy. The latest of these is Iraq adviser Colin Kahl, who recommends leaving 60-80 thousand in until the end of 2010.
04/07/2008 - 11:34pm
By now perhaps everyone has heard Barack Obama claiming that John McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. Some have gleefully suggested that this line would become the McCain equivalent of Kerry's "I actually did vote for it before I voted against it."

There's one big difference, of course, that being that the video is there, plain as day, of Kerry making his catastrophic remark, while John McCain never said that he wants to keep the Iraq war going for 100 years. (What McCain did say was that we've had troops in Korea for 50 years, Germany for 60 years, and it could last 100 in Iraq - fine with him as long as the lives of American troops aren't being lost.) This has been a deliberate distortion perpetrated by the candidate who wants to lift us out of the politics of the past.

Instead of being a stinging reprieve of embarrassment for the McCain campaign, proof that McCain is, as Ed Schultz intones, a warmonger, Barack has turned this line into further proof that he's willing to introduce mud into the campaign when it suits his purposes.

If you're in the mood to see the Obama campaign conduct "business as usual," listen to Barack's chief strategist, David Axelrod, claim that Barack never misrepresented McCain's statement cut into Barack doing just that, courtesy of MSNBC.





And if you have another few minutes, this Fox report contains footage of Barack when he says McCain wants to keep the war going for as long as a hundred years, and his later flip-flopping.



And for those moonbats who are too head over heals in love with Barack to hear anything honest about him, consider what one of the more liberal of the New York Times' liberal op-ed columnists, Frank Rich, wrote yesterday on the topic:

"REALLY, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is “willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq” (as Mr. Obama said) or “willing to keep this war going for 100 years” (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong...

...The Democrats should also stop repeating their 100-years-war calumny against Mr. McCain. There’s too much at stake for America for them to add their own petty distortions to an epic tragedy that only a long-overdue national reckoning with hard truths can bring to an end."
Syndicate content