Roger L. Simon: Dems in Panic: Obama Attacked From Two Directions

This is a bad morning for Barack Obama on the internet. I doubt he's a fan of Charles Krauthammer, but the former psychiatrist fairly eviscerates the Illinois senator here, posing a series of questions the senator will doubtless never answer. Then, from the left, he is undercut by none other than Mr. Valerie Plame, who, of course, toots his own horn as a man of the Three O'Clock Hour.

And the worst news of all is this: According to a new poll, Democrats look ready to desert for McCain. Will this happen? Will the Democrats, in panic, now work to join together? Ironically, it is McCain's advanced age that militates against this. Odds on, he's a one-term president. Probably both Clinton and Obama camps are keeping their options open for 2012. That, more than anything, could keep them from sharing a ticket.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Then, from the left, he is undercut by none other than Mrs. Valerie Plame, who, of course, toots his own horn as a man of the Three O'Clock Hour...

I almost felt like voting for Mrs. (!) Plame myself once I had digested just how close she had been to the action during those trying, action-packed moments of her career!

Krauthammer does tear Obama up. BTW, shouldn't that be "Joe Wilson, the husband of Mrs. Valerie Plame", or something such?

I strongly suspect that at least five percent of the hard core Democratic Party's base will not vote for their nominee in November. This alone will assure John McCain's election. It is quite interesting that what I was saying a relatively short time ago---is now perceived to be the conventional wisdom. Oh well, I may only be the broken clock that is right twice within a twenty-four period. Better enjoy this moment while I can. I will likely soon enough make a prediction that will turn out to be wrong.

Obama's campaign (like Hillary's) has always been a push for more socialism. But the controversy over Wright has given Obama a chance to give it a new twist. Obama now wants to push the notion that the alternative we face is this: racism or socialism.

Obama points to Wright and says his statements stem from the fact that we are still a racist nation; and although we've improved -- says Obama -- the only way to eliminate the racism is to move farther toward socialism, by enacting huge new government programs and taxes, for purposes of further looting the taxpayers and punishing American businesses.

The implication of this argument, of course, is that anyone who opposes Obama's election and his socialistic plans is thus inherently in favor of maintaining the current racist set-up -- that is, anyone who opposes Obama is a racist themselves. Obama is hoping that the fear of being labeled a racist will intimidate anyone who seriously opposes him -- intimidate them into not asking the serious questions he needs to be asked.

And you can see that this strategy is working -- at least with the main stream media, who give Obama a pass on everything. For instance, just a few days ago, before the Wright story hit, Obama claimed that his pastor was not controversial. Now Obama’s admitted he heard lots of controversial stuff from Wright. That makes Obama’s earlier statement a flat-out lie intended to hide Wright’s beliefs from the public. So why the hell isn’t the MSM all over Obama about this lie?

"That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination."

Zing! Chris Matthews and co. beclowned themselves even further than usual in response to the speech from on high. The thrill up his leg shows no sign of abating.

Thankfully, the MSM cannot get away with its previous nonsense in the long run. Slowly, but most assuredly, the American people are learning the truth about "Barry" Obama. His dropping poll numbers show this to be the case.

I will now predict that Obama's campaign will become more overtly left-wing. On a gut level, he realizes that he is doomed in November. He will therefore reveal his true self---someone who is only slightly to the right of the radical left-wing crazies. Obama is essentially a Daily Kos fellow with a warm smile on his face. He will get in touch with his inner George McGovern.

david may be wright -- oops i mean right -- Bill Richardson, wearing cool revolutionary Viva Zapata whiskers, just endorsed him (BHO) from the left.

Obama gave a speech today on the heels of Richardson's endorsement that employed a repeating refrain that he has used in other speeches. I can't remember the exact words that surrounded it, but it was in the context of Obama feeling good about the large crowds he has been drawing throughout the campaign. The bolded phrase from the Feb 23 speech in Austin is exactly the same as the one that Obama used today.

He used that phrase today, in the context of the crowds he was drawing. It is so obviously smarmy and self-aggrandizing, whereby he sets himself up as the standard by which to measure one's "goodness". I.E. if they support him then they are doing the right thing.

Absolutely sickening. I haven't witnessed this type of moralizing from a Democratic candidate ever. The manner of the delivery is extremely preachy, and not unlike the pulpitizing bullshit that plays on the regiious channels.

Meanwhile, get a load of the "I believe" quote at the top of the Obama web page. Jesus H. CHRIST. Believe THIS, Obama! Go back under the rock you crawled out from. What a sickening SOB.

The lack of critical thinking in the MSM and the population at large is frightening.

I think I've made it clear from past posts that I'm not a Democrat and I plan to vote for McCain.

However, I really think it fair to hold Obama to his pastors words if we do the same for anyone who tunes into Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. After all, Reverend "Jackass" Wright wasn't really damning All of America, he was damning the the America that doesn't agree with his personal worldview. He rejoiced in the deaths of 9/11, in that he saw it as a vindication of his twisted beliefs.

""The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

...or is it different when Pat Robertson stated immediately after that he agreed?

Some religious leaders teach hate. They teach hatred of whatever it is that they don't agree with. Be it the White Man, the Gay Man, the Pagan Man or any other. If we hold Obama responsible for his pastors trash (which I think we should), can we give a pass to those that tune in daily for the same kind of hatred?

There exists a choice in American religion. We can choose to practice our religion in a loving manner, or a hateful manner (be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan etc.), if we take nothing more away from this farce of a primary, perhaps intolerance of intolerance would not be a bad thing.

dclydew, name me the Presidential candidate who has come close to securing their party's nomination with a Falwell as their spiritual leader? Who has a 20-year relationship with such a spiritual leader and absolutely no record of distancing himself or herself from that kind of inflammatory preaching in the pulpit?

Sorry, friend, but you can't do that. In this regard, Obama is an original and no amount of rationalized links to odd comments from Moral Majority types changes that fact.

"However, I really think it fair to hold Obama to his pastor's words if we do the same for anyone who tunes into Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell."

Surely, you're not making that comparison seriously. As has been pointed out early and often by others before me in all kinds of venues, it's an apples and oranges comparison.

Obama didn't flip through TV channels and decide to spend a few minutes watching Reverend Wright. He chose the man as his personal minister, attended his church for 20 years, was married by him, took his children to that church, called him his spiritual counselor and has stated that he consults him before making any "bold political decisions". You're not seriously drawing an equivalence between that and someone who merely "tunes into" Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, are you?

You are also making a mistake, in my mind, in comparing a presidential candidate to a hypothetical anonymous "anyone". The implications of a certain behavior in a hypothetical anyone are completely different than the implications of the same behavior in a man who could be president of the United States, with all the power that office allows one to exercise. If you compare Obama to a specific political candidate who you can prove has an initimate relationship with Pat Robertson, then you might be on to something. As it is, your comparison is severely lacking.

If my argument was that Obama was no more blameworthy that some idiot flipping channels, your arguments would have some merit. However, I said nothing of the sort.

Obama should have his feet held to the fire on this. He should have to answer why he chose to sit in a church where hate was fed to the congregation like a Eucharist. Rev. Wright gets no free pass simply because other, hate mongering pastors exist. That isn't what I'm saying at all. In my opinion, 20 years of listening to that sort of hate would make someone unfit to serve as President of the United States.

However, that HATE is a problem, not simply for those seeking office, but for all Americans. Do you think Rev. Wright's sermons don't encourage hatred of some Americans by others? Do you think his congregation goes home, laughs at Crazy Rev. Wright and then tries to co-exist with his fellows? I highly doubt that is the case.

And, do you think that the same sort of hate mongering, be it from Falwell, Robertson or ANY other supposed Leader will be any less harmful to those that listen?

I chose the Rev. Falwell's comment because of its obvious and striking parallels to Rev. Wright's putrid sermon blaming Some Americans for the actions of our enemies.

Besides, I might argue that both Pastors Falwell and Robertson have a far wider congregation and far more influence in the lives of many Americans than does Rev Wright. So while we may justly be outraged at such a display of hate on the part of Wright, we should be equally incensed at that same hate being spewed on National television by other Pastors.

No amount of hatred justifies hatred. No amount of Bullshit under the guise of religion, makes other bullshit less repugnant. My statements were not to excuse Rev. Wright, nor to excuse Obama. My point was that hatred, hatred against our fellow citizens is being preached by Black Preachers, Imams and Christian Conservatives alike... and in all they are worthy only of condemnation.

There is no comparison here. Now if Phelps were McCain's spiritual adviser there might be, but he is not.

My great grandmother thought that her daughter Opal died at the age of 3 because my great grandfather had not been saved. That was about 90 years ago. Literally. She felt she was being punished. It was absurd and the notion that God would punish or abandon us is of course wrong.

But that is not what Wright is talking about. He is not talking about God abandoning us to our enemies because we left the faith. He is talking about the moral rightness in our enemies. They have a right to kill us because we deserve to die for our political sins.

Now I am not defending Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, and neither did anyone else. No one running for President pretended those remarks were acceptable.

And most ministers and priests would never say such things. The people who do are usually activists looking for attention.

And btw, I live in a rural area where many people are church goers and most would consider themselves Christian and I have never ever heard one single religious person I know say that we deserved 9/11. Not one.

Not to sound like an egotistical blowhard, but there's two points that people seem to missing.

1. America was founded by White people. White people have always been in power, and they've always been the majority. So whatever hatred or resentment that Black people feel towards White people in modern day America, that hatred and resentment cannot help but translate into anti-Americanism. Their attitude is that White people are bad, and therefore, America is bad.

If Black people look at George Washington, and the only thing that they can say about him is that he was a slave owner, and they can't appreciate all the great things he did, and are incapable of taking pride in the fact that he's the father of our country, then we're simply not ready for a Black president.

Black people have to do more than just appreciate the effort that White America has made over the past 40 years to remedy its racist past. They have to figure out a way to truly love this country if they want one of their own to run this country. They clearly have a long way to go.

2. If Obama's campaign had been crippled by either a sex scandal or a financial scandal, the superdelegates could hand Hillary the nomination and there would only be a minimal amount of backlash from Black people.

However, there is no way that the superdelegates can throw Obama under the bus over a controversy that centers on a Black preacher making anti-White, anti-American statements. People like Jeremiah Wright have performed an invaluable service to the Democratic party for many years. They have helped the Black community maintain their victim mentality, and sheapherded their flock to the voting booth to pull the lever for the Democrats, as the Democrats come closest to echoing their belief that America is a deeply flawed country that needs a near complete overhaul.

The Democratic party can survive without Barack Obama. It cannot survive without the likes of Jeremiah Wright. The alternative to Jeremiah Wright is the Republican mantra of pulling oneself up from ones own bootstraps. That sure isn't going to help the Democrats maintain their vice grip on the Black vote.

So the Democrats are stuck with Obama, who is dead in the water. Look for the media to start focusing on the narrative that if Obama loses, it's because we're still a racist country. Considering the supreme hatred they feel towards Bush, and the high hopes they had of recapturing the White House, being on the losing end of another election and chalking it up to racism is really gonna sting.

Well, a feller could, if was of a mind to, get in Falwell's or Robertson's good graces by changing whatever behavior they're criticizing. But he can't ever get in the good graces of someone who hates his skin color.

"Besides, I might argue that both Pastors Falwell and Robertson have a far wider congregation and far more influence in the lives of many Americans than does Rev Wright."

Here's the distinction you're entirely missing. We're not being asked to elect any of those people to high national office - or any office. Whether Rev. Falwell has a bad influence on any particular person who listens to him is totally outside our control. Whether Rev. Wright has a bad influence on Barack Obama is totally outside our control. What is totally within our control is the decision of whether to vote for him or not. That's what this all about - determining the significance of Barack Obama's long association with Rev. Wright and what it means about him as a person and what values he would bring to the White House.

" So while we may justly be outraged at such a display of hate on the part of Wright, we should be equally incensed at that same hate being spewed on National television by other Pastors."

It's simply not about being incensed at this or that particular wrong committed by this or that person, although that might well be justified. The situation at hand is about something much more specific - should we elect Barack Obama or not? That's the thing we have an actual, concrete say about. And in that decision, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are irrelevant.

And the Fop has a point. Wright does not just hate the likes of George Bush, he has nothing good to say about FDR, Truman, the Founding Fathers or just about anyone else who is white. That is the problem.

I mean My God, if he thinks FDR lied us into a war and that we like nuking Japanese, well what is there to say to such a person? I don't really want to be in the same room with this guy, much less have a "debate" about race with him. Screw him I say.

And I doubt if getting someone like Bill Richardson to endorse him is going to help either. Hispanics are not a bit certain about him and Richardson has not shown the ability to sway them thus far.

There is rumored to be a file that was found in Stasi headquarters concerning a meeting of CDU bigwigs in 1948 discussing candidates to be the first Chancellor of Germany since the end of the war. According to the Stasi snoops the group couldn't come up with a candidate that they agreed on so put forward the name of Konrad Adenauer as a compromise candidate. One of the politicos argued that after all Adenauer was 73 and couldn't possibly last more than a year or two.

March 21, 2008: Dems in Panic: Obama Attacked From Two Directions

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post