Monday, February 18, 2008

Obama is the Dem's Ron Paul of 2008.

Some modern blacks have all bought into the sociological definition of racism as a system of group privilege; a process whereby one group has oppressed all those not in that group. Therefore, these blacks contend, black people can't be racist.

I call shenanigans. Black people, hispanic people, asian people, white people--they can all be racist.

Which is why I find it so troubling that because of our politically correct atmosphere in the press and politics that we're overlooking the gaffes and ties to racism and homophobia of Barack Obama; that the MSM is ignoring the blatant dirty trickery, negative ad campaigning and race cards that Obama has magically seemed to convince the MSM that he has not been using (and instead is successfully convincing voters
, however erroneously, that the Clinton Machine is using).

Let me take a look at the course of this insidious underhanded campaigning, starting with the "uproar in South Carolina" (before the voting).

Donnie McClurkin and the "Embrace the Change" Tour

Obama stirred the shit up with us gays when his campaign announced the "40 Days of Faith and Family" tour through South Carolina would be having a three-day gospel tour that included ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin who believes that you can be "delivered from homosexuality by God". Once the shit hit the fan with the GLBT community, Obama released a statement where he said he disagreed with McClurkin's views on homosexuality:

Statement on Rev. McClurkin

"I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin's views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division."

~ Barack Obama

You can see Obama parrot the same idea here in his MTV forum.

However, what these MSM--and even some gay media--missed in the whole controversy was that McClurkin wasn't the only anti-gay musical act in the gospel tour. Hezekiah Walker and Mary Mary have also toed the homophobic black church line (the best article written about it is within, and I came across it with much, much searching of blogs everywhere). Yet, not a peep from the MSM about them. Not a peep about how this was a collective effort to appeal to the churchgoing GLBT-hating blacks of South Carolina. It's been chalked up as "poor advance work"/oversight by the Obama campaign.

I, for one, believe that they knew exactly what they were doing. Obama and his campaign fed into the hatred of GLBTs by the churchgoing GLBT-hating blacks and it worked, just as the same type of appeal to racial demographics worked in the other southern states (see my first post). Any attempt to look at it from a distanced perspective is bad: If Obama really doesn't believe and disagrees with the anti-gay sentiment of these acts, then he was using them to get the vote of the anti-gay voters. If Obama actually does agree with the anti-gay sentiment of these acts, then he's doing a fantastic job of hiding that from his stalwart Obamaphiles (and the general public). If he really believes that he can change the mind of a 60-something-year-old Southern homophobic church goer, then I'd like to know his secret (or introduce him to my mother). In any case, by not publically denouncing all of the acts, he essentially gave them a pass.

His followers--so-called "progressives"--believe him to be their candidate. But to me, whether you're pandering to hate or just hating in secret, you're as far from progressive as you can get.

I Don't Hate White People, I Just Write About Hating White People

I sincerely doubt that any of those nouveau Obamaphiles--Obama supporters who jumped on the wagon in the fall of 2007--has actually read Dreams from my Father. Some blacks have read it, but not all; most black Obamaphiliacs are just glad to have a handsome, articulate man who might have a shot at getting into the White House on the Democratic ticket; and some just know that he made a good speech at the Democratic National Convention four years ago.

Those blacks who have read Dreams can identify with some of it (particularly the half n' halves, like me). They "get" the anger and resentment at having been born to one white parent and one black parent and only "showing" for one of them. Obama is black. Had he come out of his mother's womb the same color as she, he would've been classified as white and whoo-boy, he could've lived high and large just like Coleman Silk in The Human Stain. That is the problem; the resentment he has towards he race condemning him to a life built upon stereotypes and having to overcome them. Forcing Obama, in effect, to identify more with his African heritage than with a "safer" white heritage. White males in American society are much more privileged than a black male, duh.

But such struggle does not negate the fact that resentment does not equal hatred. Obama seethes hatred for his white heritage in Dreams. I'm not going to quote what has been so often quoted online. What I am going to do is tell you to read Dreams from my Father yourself and make up your own mind. Just know that you heard it from this anonymous black man online that he too believes the text to be racist/internalized racism, because as much as I struggled with the same issues, I never was of the same mind Barack Obama is about his white mother (though my mother is black/my father is white). Which leads me to my next point...

I Don't Agree with Wright's People, I Just Write About Disagreeing with Wright's People

Yeah, that whole damn Trinity thing again. I can't help it, it bothers me, even though Wright gave his last sermon before stepping down last week. His stepping down doesn't change the values system. It doesn't change the fact that instead of emphasizing an encompassing Christian value system, the church chose to self-segregate with words specific to one race.

Obama's complacency with the gay-hating churchgoers can be used to gauge his complacency with these issues, too. He wrote that he disagreed with McClurkin, and he wrote that he disagreed with Wright's Lifetime Achievement Award to Farrakhan, yet he stopped short of severing ties with either the "40 Days" tour or Wright/the chruch. He and his campaign has accused the Clinton campaign of using the race card, but it is he who has been wearing out his race card throughout, keeping that race-baiting numbskull Jesse Jackson Jr. on board as his campaign co-chair. Let's take a look at our fine Baby Mr. Hymietown's work so far:

-- After Iowa, he made this comment: "The natural reminder here is O.J.--how does an African-American candidate attack a white woman?"

-- After New Hampshire:

-- Before South Carolina, he helped spread the lie about Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment.

Former President Bill Clinton called into Al Sharpton’s nationally syndicated talk radio show to say that his “fairy tale” comment on Monday about Senator Barack Obama’s positioning on the war was being misconstrued and that he was talking only about the war, not Mr. Obama’s overarching message or his drive to be the first black president.

Of course, the damage by the Obamaphiliac MSM had already been done. See one of my previous posts for a video of the in-context "fairytale" comment of Bill's.

But again, instead of supporting a clean campaign based on facts, Obama and his campaign latched onto something that could be perceived as negative, twisted and ran with it. It's not wonder why Bill's so damn mad. But I'm digressing a bit, so let me get back on track, back to little baby Jesse.

-- Now, after the Potomac Primaries and upon the rhetoric that Obama and his campaign are dishing about the Super Delegates, he is pressuring black Super Delegates who've pledged to Hillary to rethink their votes based on race.

Say whaaaat?

Yes, here's the quote:
In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?"

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.

(If I'd been Mr. Cleaver, I would've kindly've told the brotha to get his face out of my office and never, ever come back. But then I don't respond kindly to threats.)

Where do we hear Obama on this? Nowhere. Again, just as complacent as he's always been when there is negativity or in this case, threats, his campaign is either silent or defensive. With all of his whining, it's as if Obama has never known what Super Delegates are, with all of his "will of the people" talk. He's afraid that the Super Delegates will actually do their jobs and vote to keep the party safe from extremists and "fads" that don't have a chance of winning in the General Election (like him). Obama's campaign point to large victories in the red states and the caucus states over Clinton, yet they refuse to see the difference between winning the primary "popular vote" and winning the election popular vote. There are states that will never go blue. There are peoples' voices who were not heard (in the caucus states). Trying to use the talk, talk talk to convince everyone that Super Delegates' votes should be bullied into representing the "voice of the people" seems to've worked on some of the lesser-brained people, but those smarter ones aren't buying it. Even the young Super Delegates aren't eating up the Obamaphilia as some of their non-"super" counterparts are.

S'Okay to Steal From a Brotha--We Friends!

Forgive my use of AAVE lite, but I couldn't resist. The news all over today was Obama's plagiarizing of his friend Deval Patrick's "Just Words?" gimmick in his speech in Wisconsin.

Patrick's come out to say that they're friends and they share stuff. Well how nice. However, when a candidate's entire campaign is built up upon the fact that he gives "great, inspiring" speeches and that he's the candidate to bring something new and fresh into Washington, the assumption is that those speeches and the gimmicks contained within are also new and fresh--not just recycled "It worked for me, it can work for you!" crap. Another "oversight" by the Obama campaign, like the "Embrace the Change" tour? No, this time it--like everything else that reeks of contention in his campaign (McClurkin, Wright, Rezko, Exelon/the lie to Iowa voters about legislation, the lack of Washington experience): It's all no big deal.

Maybe that's the real reason why Obama's too chicken to face Clinton in an other 1-on-1 debate*: All of those things that are "no big deal" are going to come at him head-first, and he won't have his Axelrod and Jackson Jr. on the spot to be able to twist them into the anti-Clinton propaganda that they've so successfully been able to make.

*And by the way, they haven't had 18 debates, they've had ONE 1-on-1 debate, and that is what the Clinton campaign is on about. The 1-on-1 debates are where we get to see them both up close on the issues.

Now, Imagine for a Moment That Obama Were White...

...given all of the above. You have this new candidate, an online phenomenon, who was able to raise exorbitant amounts of money over the internet for his campaign, a campaign that speaks to the progressive vote; the anti-Washington-politics-as-usual candidate who "tells it like it is". The candidate who is a media darling, his campaign a sort of "movement" amongst young people and who is described as a "breath of fresh air" by older voters and defended to its very fibers by the most rabid fans. But suddenly, he seems to have ties to racists. Suddenly, people have actually started to read his old racist writings, and begin to question their judgment. What do you end up with?

Ron Paul.

Some people figured out that Ron Paul + past racist writings + racist friends + racists in America = unredeemable = unelectable. But for some reason, and I suspect that reason is because Obama is black, no one has figured out that Barack Obama + past racist writings + racist friends + racists in America = unredeemable = unelectable. Believe me, I've felt that tension when white people who don't know me are carefully guarding their words around me when they don't want to offend, but I tell them straight up: Everyone has the propensity to be a little bit (or a lot) racist. As a black man, my head's not going to suddenly implode if you use "black" instead of "African American", or if you use "nigger" in an academic context instead of "the n-word". I'm just not going to outright lie to you and tell you that there aren't any black racists and that people like Obama can't be racist. To me, any denigration of a race that is not your own is racism, whether or not there is a power hierarchy. Ron Paul was not not held accountable for his history. Why is Obama not being held accountable for his past and current history?

I leave today with a couple of happy links: Men for Hillary and the Gay vote went to Clinton. I'm glad that some of the gays are thinkin' straight...for once.

No comments: