"Negro Magic"?

One must wonder if the following montage of headlines is worth it to Barack Obama to become Hillary Clinton's vice president:

Obama's kin owned slaves - A genealogical report finds two slave owners among the candidate's U.S. ancestors (on his white mother's side of the family, natch)

Is Obama the new 'black'? - Barack Obama is a rising star. He's a powerful speaker and a gifted writer. He is the only African American serving in the U.S. Senate. But is he black?

That's what New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch asked last month, and his answer was decidedly "no." No, Crouch wasn't just employing the old "blacker than thou" canard. Nor was he concerned with the fact that Obama was raised by his white mother. Rather, he was treating blackness not just as a racial (shared biology) identity but as an ethnic (shared historical experience) one. And isn't that what the switch of terms from "black" to "African American" was all about?...

What Crouch is arguing is that what the majority of black Americans share is their ancestors' experience as human chattel, brought to these shores in the grips of chains. Slavery and segregation not only forged a rigid racial line between black and white but created a shared ethnic experience. For Crouch, the fact that Obama's father — whom Obama met only once — was a black Kenyan who came to the U.S. to study at Harvard and the University of Hawaii removes him from the traditional black American narrative.

Author and essayist Debra Dickerson agrees. She believes that much of Obama's popularity among whites stems from the fact that his family wasn't part of the slave experience and therefore elicits no feelings of historical guilt. "The swooning from white people is a paroxysm of self-congratulation," she said.

Come on, folks. Slavery ended almost 145 years ago. We stopped the whole stupidity of segregation 43 years ago. Unfortunately, the oppression of black Americans continues even today, in the form of self-imposed (leftist) racist pathology that can't be let go of or left in the rear view mirror and is about as relevant to today's black Americans as the Norman conquest of England is to their white countrymen. As the old saying goes: "You can't go forward unless you first stop looking back." In terms of race, this is akin to advocating for the holocaust to the political left. After all, if Donks starting doing that, we might actually become a colorblind society in which the content of one's character matters more than the color of one's skin, and black voters might start thinking for themselves instead of believing most of those tasteless anti-Republican/anti-conservative lies, and the Democrats might lose their iron clad grip hold on Afro-Americans and the national political viability that goes with it. And we certainly can't have THAT.

Historical guilt". Would be better described as "collective guilt." No, worse than that - racial guilt. Whites "swoon" over Barack Obama because all whites are racists because some whites inflicted slavery on some blacks in centuries past. But Obama isn't "really black" because his ancestors were genuinely "African" and not "African-American," never slaves but rather....well, never slaves, anyway. At least not in the sense of being owned by white people. And because he's, you know, an "Oreo". Or "zebra". His blood done be pluted by honky cracker genes.

Come on, folks. Don't look at me like that. I'm just trying to amplify the spirit of how the political left, which we all know, could never be racist, is talking about Obama. The dialogue is cluttered with mindless chit chat over the not so subtle but consistent theme:

TIME: Is Obama Black Enough?

LA Times: Some wonder: Is Obama black enough?

Maybe it's me, but I don't think I could possibly think of a more blatantly and perhaps more patently and blanket racist question than these. Imagine the furor over a conservative asking such a question!

How, aside from being bi-racial, is Barack Obama "not black enough"? One would have to figure that it had to do with something more than not being the decedent of a slave right? Is it because, he's well, eloquent, highly charismatic and uh, educated? Do black men forfeit their supposed 'blackness' when they drop their victim hood and do something with their lives?

Stop it! Stop looking at me like I'm a royal jerk-face. I'm not the guy saying Obama isn't 'black enough'. To me, it's just the usual overtly racist crap that flies from the left, but to them, it's a real 'test of faith' so to speak. And since libs can get away with saying ANYthing, that would explain this next quote, in which David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times gives this crypto-Klan rhetoric an astonishing and appalling label:

As ever carbon-based life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

WAIT WHAT!? "Magic Negro"!? "Magic Negro". If Ann Coulter ever used that phrase we'd be picking her off the bottom of the Connecticut River. I can't think of a GOP member who would touch it with ten feet long tongs? It's too nuclear. It would end his or her political career in a heartbeat. The very same Left that has impunity to toss off such racial epithets would fall upon that hapless pachyderm and strip every last speck of PR meat from his/her bones in a self-righteous feeding frenzy of hyper-moralistic indignation. Anyone on the right using the term would have 'revealed their inherent racism' but a liberal doing that kind of stuff is, well, who cares.

Me, I figure Barack Obama is "black enough" based on his hyper-NeoBolshevik voting record. The Left will like him because he's good at doing what he's told. That's sort of what the left likes out of their minority "constituents"). However, he's really brought nothing to national politics and the only reason he's running for the Oval Office so early in his career is because he has some incredibly unique political traits all rolled up into a nice Afro-American package. Oddly enough, even that isn't enough to even the folks who should support him more than anyone.

But it will be enough to get him on the '08 Donk ticket with Mrs. Clinton, who will need all the "Negro magic" she can get.

Presidential Election Musings

With the weekend being fairly slow, I figured I'd take some time to take a look at the Presidential Race thus far and try to make some sense of where all this has been and is heading in the next couple of months.

The Republican Candidates

Rudy Giuliani-- Rudy has run an extremely solid campaign thus far. His 80-20 message seemed to sit OK with Conservatives at CPAC a week or two ago and generally speaking, he seems to be the moderate candidate, as John McCain has more or less fallen on his face out of the gate. Giuliani is trying to keep this debate as much about National Security as humanly possible, which is what has more or less put him on the map to begin with. However, he's still got a lot of questions to answer, especially about some seedy female-related activity in the past, however I think concerns over this may be overstated, at least in a political sense. Yes, his promiscuity will rub Republicans the wrong way, but head to head, Hillary Clinton certainly can't hammer him with it. Yes, he's 'more liberal' on 'important' social issues, but Republicans seem to be looking for someone who can really sell and better prosecute the War in Iraq. Overall, I think he's in a good position, but again, there are some questions to be answered, but it's safe to say it's a little early yet to predict how they'll play out. Overall, he's looked strong.

Mitt Romney-- Mitt seems to be emerging as the Conservative choice, although he's still in the 'getting to know you' mode. Romney, in my view, is probably the strongest candidate at this point from a political perspective. The Mormonism won't be an issue. When candidates attack Mormon candidates, they do so implying that its creepy. What makes it creepy? The answer is polygamy. Mitt has been married longer than anyone in the field. Considering McCain and Giuliani's partners were mistresses before they were anything else gives them very little credibility in terms of being able to make those claims. I think he'll be fine.

In terms of organization, Mitt's campaign is unmatched right now, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton. He's raking in the cash and essentially stacked the rolls down at CPAC to win the straw poll and make himself a legitimate candidate amongst McCain and Giuliani. Some people are questioning his moderate views in the past, but Mitt has consistently moved to the right over the years, and doesn't LOOK like a panderer. Mitt's done the best so far because he's accomplished the most. He proved he can raise money with the best of them and flat out, out-organized the rest of the field at CPAC. He's arrived and seems to gradually be picking up more and more steam, although the arrival of a Newt Gingrich-type Conservative Candidate could seriously eat into his support.

John McCain-- I don't really get what McCain's strategy has been. He announced his candidacy in front of a largely liberal audience and his double-talk on many issues is beginning to really torpedo his poll numbers. More or less, McCain has been the most quiet of the big three Republican candidates in the media, and doesn't seem to really be able to get both feet under him. Romney's nimbleness and Rudy's marketing have forced McCain's campaign off balance and he almost seems dead on arrival to many. He has a huge uphill battle to wage and his failure to react more quickly in the past few months may have left him permanently behind. His name recognition make him a perennial threat not to be taken likely by anyone, but he has appeared to be completely out-maneuvered in the early part of this campaign.

The Rest-- There isn't much to be said about the Republican field outside of the Three Musketeers. Newt Gingrich confessing his affair this past week all but puts him on the outside for good. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, while very likable, certainly look like second tier candidates. They may liven up the debate, but don't look for these two to really go anywhere. The one dark horse with an outside shot of making a name for himself is Sam Brownback of Kansas, whose organization was commended at CPAC both for it's scope and general aggressiveness. Brownback is well to the right of even Romney and has the burden of being a legislator in the US Senate these days to keep him down, but if Brownback plays his cards right, he could make himself, ironically, the anti-establishment candidate in this election, even though his views are probably the most congruent with the current ideological bent of the Republican Party.



The Democrats


Hillary Clinton-- I'm utterly shocked at how her campaign has struggled out of the gate. While hugely popular with the base, voters don't seem to be 'buying into' her like they went for her husband. Her stump speeches have appeared forced and rather cookie cutter, and she's struggling to establish herself as a likable candidate. She's been reacting to news rather than making it and seemingly has been off-balance the entire last month or so despite not really seeing anything in the way of resistance. In sum, Hillary seems to be hurting Hillary, and if you're a supporter of hers, that's not a good sign, even this early.

Barack Obama-- Obama's been the hot candidate on the left for sure. Despite not taking so much as a single policy stance on much of anything, he seems to be inspiring a fervor on the left for an individual candidate that hasn't been seen in some time. He's got many big money celebrities in his corner and is even picking off support from the Hillary Clinton camp, which is utterly shocking. The big question still looms large though: Will the rubber meet the road with Obama the closer we get to Primary Day? Obama can't avoid taking stances on issues forever. In times like these, even the left and the right agree on the fact that this choice is going to be one of the most important ever. Will his lack of experience really come out to bite him in the backside? Again, he's avoided it thus far and is doing well. However, when he can't anymore, how will he, and most importantly Democratic voters, react?

John Edwards-- Edwards has been hopelessly quiet, save for his publicized spat with Commentator Ann Coulter, but Edwards has run a focused, bare bones campaign. Edwards has done this thing before and really never got rid of the campaign infrastructure he had in 2004. Edwards seems to have the most out-in-the-open and focused strategy of any of the candidates. He learned in 2004 that a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire can completely win this thing and in my view, he's right. Edwards is by far in the best position in the places that matter. He's incredibly popular in Iowa. He looks like an overwhelming favorite there. If he wins New Hampshire, this thing's over, but if he finishes second, Obama and Hillary need to move over in a big way, if not get out of the way entirely. Sure, Edwards has appeared whiny thus far and has even had to beat off conservative attacks regarding two insane-o bloggers who were working as campaign staffers for him, but more or less, still seems to be in a pretty solid place all things considered.

The Rest-- Something about this Democratic field makes me think we may have a dark horse emerge. My pick is going to be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. If Richardson can get some media, I think he'll win the primary. Yes, I said it. Not only is he by far the most experienced candidate in the race, it's all experience that involve critical issues to voters this election cycle. He's got 8 years worth of experience in the House of Reps and will be able to work congress well. He's got two years of experience under his belt as a Governor in New Mexico, which also makes him credible on illegal immigration, not to mention he's, uh, Hispanic too. He worked as the Sec. of Energy for the Clinton administration which makes him a credible voice on the energy crisis and then spent his final days with Bill as the US Ambassador to the UN. If he can frame the debate as one about experience, he'll cleanly run over Hillary and Obama. He's incredibly dangerous. Two tax cuts in New Mexico will also give him cross over appeal. Whether he can get media or not is a big question, but Obama and Hillary talking qualifications with Richardson would be like two little leaguers trying to prove they can hit a baseball farther than Barry Bonds. Look out.

Chris Dodd shouldn't be in this race, period. Whoever told him he had a shot at getting anything higher than 3% in this race should be fired. He's not just dead on arrival, he's been dead for the last 5 years.

Dennis Kucinich.... riiight.

The rest of the field is certainly defined by the 'who cares' category.


I'll try and do a monthly analysis of where we're at with this whole mess. It's shaping up to be a very interesting race, indeed.

Obama's Audacity (Or Lack Thereof)

Philosopher Hanna Arendt always like to say that “politics is not the nursery”, but if one was to take a quick look at today’s political climate, one will see this proved untrue if not undeniably false. Triangulatio, which is the practice of playing opposing forces against one another lest by any chance one’s own principles be considered “offensive”, is now widely practiced in political campaigns.

Politicians like Barak Obama and our own Deval Patrick. who subscribe to this rhetoric, insist that arguments between opposing points of view creates more problems than solutions. It polarizes anyone who dares stand anywhere that isn’t the middle. This goes against the very point of politics and the process that surrounds it. Politics and government exist to help humanity better solve disputes amongst ourselves. Denying the necessary fact that politics deals solely in disagreements as opposed to agreements tends to produce a chilling effect against folks who don’t stand squarely in the center. If you take a stance, you’re deemed ‘controversial’ or ‘extreme’.

The simple fact is that in times of conflict, the center cannot hold, and if the best of the best lack conviction, it gives way. To borrow (or continue to ) from William Butler Yeats- to the worst, which are full of passionate intensity.

So now we’ve got Barack Obama, whose autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope” has become a neo-manifesto for ‘progressives’. My Father-In-Law leant me the book to read, and as I didn’t pay for it, I felt it wouldn’t hurt to give it a read. As far as I could tell from my own reading, Obama shows a tendency, even an outright eagerness, to take positions not conspicuous, let’s say, for their audacity. Perhaps his most prominent position in this regard is his ‘stand’ against genocide in Darfur, which really isn’t a ‘stand’ against or for anything, seeing as there is no such thing as a pro-genocide movement to ‘stand’ against.

In fact, Obama seems to be full of this sort of blather. When Obama declared he was running for the Presidency in Springfield, IL., he roused up the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, in which, as he told it, Lincoln “called on a divided house to stand together.”

It would have been awesome is Lincoln had, well, actually ever said that. What Lincoln did argue, actually and implicitly, was that the house would ‘cease to be divided,’ which is not quite the same. All the previous compromises made by moderate governments had amplified the danger of complacency. When Lincoln judged that a reckoning of some kind was coming no matter what, it was an attack on the establishment, moderate government, which, far from being too adversarial, had been complacent about those who wanted to split the country for far too long.

Harry Jaffa, a leading, if not THE leading historian on the subject, claimed that Lincoln represented a ‘great link in the chain of events that led to secession and civil war.’ So rather than Obama’s preference for a common front, its more in line with common sense to accept, as Lincoln did, that politics is division by definition.

This 100%, testosterone-free ‘rising star’ of the Democratic party is aiming, like Deval Patrick did here in Massachusetts, to turn the political arena into a nursery. Like Governor Patrick, Obama’s supporters would likely struggle to name his greatest accomplishment, aside of course, from his impeccable dental hygene and making the initials “B.O.” not be so gross anymore. One hopes this juvenile attempt will miss it’s mark, if only because it has little to offer it in a time when, with actual enemies presenting themselves against western civilization as a whole, politics in the western world’s leading country should be serious business. Obama’s triangulation politics, in contrast, are meant for show, and they ought to be regarded and treated as such.

After all, as Ann Coulter said in a column; “If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years.”

What Makes Barak Obama Qualified to be President? Part III

Thank you so much to 96.9 FM Talk Radio and Michael Graham for Making My Day. I'll parrot some of his points and toss in a few of my own, allowing and inspiring me to complete my mini-series on Barak Obama's unqualifications for the White House.

POP QUIZ!

Who said which of the following statements have been made by both Barak Obama and Deval Patrick in the last 90 days Can you identify which one said what?


A) "We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans."

B) "You know what else has to change? Our politics."

C) "Grassroots governing, like grassroots campaigning, is about listening to people."

D) "I've learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots."

E) "There are people just like me who are hungry for a reason to hope."

F) "People are hungry for a different kind of politics."

G) "I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you."

H) "Changing our politics can only come from you."

I) "The change I’m talking about is up to you. "

J) "Take a chance on hope."

K) "We must draw a line in the sand between the politics of cynicism and the politics of hope."

L) "Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"


Does it even matter at this point? It looks like the Democrats just want us to vote for eloquent, unqualified black men. For all I know, there could be tons of reasons to really go out and support Barak Obama's campaign for the Presidency, but no one from his camp are telling anyone. They did mention however, that he is, you know... black.

I'm already tired of the new wave of supposedly eloquent African American Democrats who are constantly talking about being above the fray, yet have no mark on their record that would suggest otherwise. Instead they mask their charade using words like 'hope' and 'change', all the while using their race as an excuse for avoiding the specifics. In the end, Democrats want us to vote for someone because of their race, which is just as ridiculous as voting against someone for the same reasons. This is a new, dangerous trend that puts race and style above substance and experience. Ironically, both Patrick and Obama completely lack the experience to pursue the offices they decided to seek. Patrick tricked the crowd, and it's very likely Obama could do the same.

Throughout the 2006 campaign, Patrick was high on substance and low of policy stances. It's taken until now to find out how he sees the world, and sadly, it's too late to avoid the train wreck. Let's hope voters find out what Obama thinks about things BEFORE we head to the polls.

What Makes Barack Obama Qualified to Be President? Part Deux

So it's official, Barack Obama is in. Earlier today, Obama announced that he has filed papers to form a 2008 Presidential Exploratory committee, but as my friend at GOPnews pointed out, when was the last time a Presidential Exploratory Committee came back and said "Um, now's not the time, go back to work"? So, unfortunately, it's safe to say, he's in. The timing is impeccable as it comes one day after Martin Luther King Day and exactly one day before he goes on Oprah, who I'm sure will stop just sort of removing all her clothes and allowing Obama to ravish her body on camera tomorrow.

Don't expect to learn anything new about Obama on Oprah. There really isn't much to talk about. Here's everything you need to know about Obama: Barack Obama is a rank and file Democrat who gives a good speech, presents himself well and so happends to be black. There's nothing else of substance about the man worth knowing or that makes him any more special than any other Democratic politician. He's simply the latest in an emerging type of black rank and file Democratic politicians who say a lot without ever really saying anything at all, cloaked in vagueness while being completely and utterly devoid of vision and ideas. Sounds like a certain Massachusetts Governor.

He was born to white mother and has a black father. He spent 8 years in the Illinois State Senate, but if spending 8 years as a state legislator is a qualification for the Democratic Nomination for the Presidency, I'm expecting Senator Gale Candaras, Steven Bouoniconti, Susan Fargo, and others to declare that they've filed their papers for the Presidency as well. Obama has come to the US Senate and voted 'across the aisle', uh, zero times. He has failed to take the lead on one piece of major legislation since he arrived in Washington.

Obama wrote a book (all about him) and then like the complete fake that he is, began talking to others about being above the fray, although there's nothing to suggest that he himself, was ever above any fray, anywhere. While he certainly talks about them a lot, Just what divides has Obama ever 'bridged'?

In refferring to the state of America today, Obama said in his 'announcement speech';

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that
concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics.

First of all Senator Obama, if you want to be President, you'd BETTER be worried about the 'magnitude' of our problems, especially today. Being the President isn't a game. Second, This statement says everything you need to know. Here is a man who clearly believes his own hype and is hopelessly consumed by his own ego. No ammount of disengenuous postulating and catch phrases are a replacement for actually knowing what you're talking about. Finally... Barack, try addressing the 'smallness' of your own ideas, or lack thereof, before talking about the smallness of others.

But in the end, maybe he's right. After all, thanks to the 'smallness of our politics', someone like Barack Obama who brings a lot of style, but is completely devoid of substance, has a shot at the Presidency. Maybe he has a point, after all.