As it becomes more and more apparent that Obama will be our Democratic nominee for the presidency we are starting to see the ignorance, fear and outright racism that I feel will follow him throughout the rest of his campaign. Here's a clip from the Daily Show from people in West Virginia explaining why they didn't vote for him:
Muslim? The OTHER race? *whew* Funny, most people think we've moved past all this yet there are still some that cling to these ignorant beliefs. But perhaps even worse than those interviews is the following email forward I received from a family member a few weeks ago:
**********
FW: What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama.
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn't you think? Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time, every time. According to The Book of Revelations the anti-Christ is: The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA?? I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet...do it! If you think I am crazy..I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the "unknown" candidate.
**********
Words cannot begin to describe how awful this hate-fueled rhetoric is but I will give it a shot. First off, it proclaims that this article is written by a black person. I figure this is for one of two reasons; either the author of the email thinks black people are always correct in their political assessments or it is a racist attempt to establish credibility: "see! even the other blacks thinks he's evil!" There is no link to the original article, no date stated when or if it was ever published. Then it proceeds to make outlandish statements about Obama's foreign and domestic policy without one source citation, quote or link. It also attempts to induce fear (a typical right-wing tactic) by using oh-so scary catch phrases like "he wants to raise taxes!" and "he's hijacking Christianity!" My favorite part is where he talks about "Hollywood and San Fransisco values". As though the entire state of California is devoid of morality and is merely Satan's playground.
And the email builds to a smashing climax inferring that Obama is the Anti-Christ. Wow.
The most disturbing part of this email is that a lot of people will read it and believe it despite the fact that every word could be complete fabrication. You don't need facts, all you near is hate and the ability to install fear in people. I'd like to think that this is the last we'll see of such rhetoric but I fear that it is only the beginning and if Obama wins the nomination we will be subjected to this type of ignorance for months.
Obama v.s. Ignorance and Racism
About this entry
Youre currently reading Obama v.s. Ignorance and Racism.
- Published:
- at 11:33 AM on Saturday, May 17, 2008
- Previous:
- Older Post
- Next:
- Newer Post
-
6:10 PM
Reading "San Francisco values" made me laugh, but reading about Obama as the anti-Christ kinda freaked me out. What I find very annoying is this idea that "Middle America" has cornered the market on "values", which is generally meant to signal Christian, so-called "family" (ie anti-choice, anti-gay) "values". Ostracizing and discriminating against people who don't match the "mold" isn't displaying good values, it's hate.
-
6:14 AM
Indeed, Lyman and K. And didn't this used to be a Country made for and consisting entirely of folk who didn't fit the mold across the pond and created this democracy to accomodate the values of ALL? Just checking, 'cuz I thought it was.
And that's what annoys me is this idea that there's a set of values beyond that of respect for the right to express divergent ideas that is American and that all must subscribe to. To my mind, its completely antithetical to our founders' vision. -
10:44 AM
Lyman, I'm going to start by saying that I don't think you and I are ever going to agree on much that isn't of a musical skew. That being said, and I'm trying really hard to see things from a different perspective, I was hoping we could discuss this without the two of us hearing negative tone-of-voices. Imagine you and I sitting around drinking some beers, listening to some music, and talking. That's what I'm trying to do. Now...
Oh, before I forget, I referenced this post because it made sense in a larger post of mine. Thought you should know.
With less than a five minute search, I determined the original source of the article and without reading word for word, it appears to be accurately transferred. With the notable exception of the last paragraph about the anti-Christ comment and the subject heading. That's obviously something that someone (who we can all agree is a wacko) added later. So forgetting the wacko remark at the end for a minute, the original article originated from an editorial piece that Ken Blackwell wrote for a newspaper. How often do editorials ever cite sources? An editorial is barely a step up from a blog post and how often are those written exposing purely a person's views without getting into the "why" they believe it.
So I go on the assumption that anything that comes to me in forward form in my email with an obviously added wacko comment at the end needs to be checked further. Many may not do that, but I suspect you did.
You write that it "proceeds to make outlandish statements". Which statements, specifically, did you consider outlandish and why?
Finally, you write "You don't need facts, all you near is hate and the ability to install fear in people." I would argue that the same can be said in reverse. Many of the people who look at Obama hear his hope and change speeches without doing any research on how he intends to get that accomplished. No doubt the man can work a crowd like noone I have seen in recent history, and I totally agree with him that I want change, but that doesn't mean that I agree with him politically after researching him. You don't need facts if you can get people to buy into what you are selling without having to get into detail.
Sorry to hijack so I'll finish with this so that you know that we don't disagree on everything. I think there will be more ignorance like you described, but I don't think it will come from McCain's camp. I might be naive in that, but I think McCain believes he can beat him on the issues without ever having to play to a state's racial issues.
If you feel like you would rather continue the discussion via email and not here, you know the address. -
11:54 AM
Well I was assigning responsibility of the email to the person that forwarded it and to all others forwarding it. If I want others to change their mind about who Obama is, why not back up what I am saying? Why not link to the original article? My fear is that those who are persuaded by it (like those who think Obama is muslim or Saddam Hussein) haven't bothered with researching it.
Outlandish:
He infers because Obama wants to take nuclear weapons off the table that he is a national security risk. The US has successfully held national security for decades without nuclear weapons, to predict him as a risk is a huge jump in logic.
"His solution to everything is to have your government take over ..." Everything? C'mon, a blanket statement like this is nothing short of outlandish.
That's just two.
And to compare the rhetoric of the email with the rhetoric of Obama is absurd. Obama is not an editorialist who can speak off the cuff disregarding source citation, he is an accomplished politician.
You were very quick to research the article that you agreed with, have you researched Obama's speeches that you don't agree with? Start by visiting BarackObama.com and go to the issues section, there is a great amount of detail about his stances there. He is not trying to sell anything he can't go into detail about, thats just what Hillary and the talking heads on tv would like you to believe.
It seems like everyone is so comfortable with a president who has such a minimal grasp of the English language and Obama is so far from the idiocy we're accustomed that we've labeled him "flowery". Public speaking and political persuasion are HUGE assets to a president, he can't make laws on his own, he can't change domestic policy by himself, but he can move, unite, and break down barriers of perception. That is a positive. -
7:08 PM
Here is a link to the original article and Mr. Blackwell' response after his article was hijacked. As to the right injecting fear, I believe that is a tactic used by both sides.
As for Obama, my concern is that any attempt to show his "negatives" will be labeled racist.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/02/14/the_real_obama
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenBlackwell/2008/04/17/hijacked! -
8:31 PM
Thanks for the links. Good to know Mr. Blackwell's intent doesn't follow that of whoever started the forward.
When people talk about Obama being part of the OTHER race or about him being a Muslim (like the clip I posted which has unfortunately been taken down) you have to acknowledge that those are racist statements. I have yet to hear of any other claim against him as being a racist one. It seems to me like his opponents are focusing on his race much more than he or his campaign is. -
5:07 AM
More explaining to do...
I did not mean to directly compare the Blackwell article to Obama's speeches if you read it that way. I don't think I called Obama an editorialist. I was trying to say that the article about him was an editorial and didn't necessarily require the same level of citation as other forms of writing. I totally agree that Obama is an experienced orator and his comments definitely need to have basis.
I only mentioned the original source of the article and how easy it was to obtain to demonstrate how easy it was to validate and verify that the article was legit or not and/or how much was changed. It turns out, not much, with the before mentioned anti-Christ wacko comments.
I have researched Obama's stances after hearing his speeches and that's why I know that I don't agree with him politically. Kathy might not admit it, but I asked her about him many months ago before the presidential push. That came because I heard him speak. I assume you have heard someone else call him "flowery" because I know I have never said that. Who called him "flowery"? That is a ridiculous description. I don't think any man wants to ever be described as "flowery". :-)
I was also trying to say that, unlike the people who frequent this blog, I would guess that there are a large chunk of voters who don't do nearly enough research about any or all of the candidates to know their true stance on the issues. Just as you were suggesting that people will read the forwarded email and not try to determine its validity, I was trying to say that I think many people will hear him speak without really doing any research to find out his stances on all of the issues. I think he has an ability to get people fired up about change, but that some don't find out how he plans to change. Can we both agree that the details are important and that we think that people don't pay attention to them enough because of hate/fear or "presence".
You are also right that Obama can't change the country on his own. But a Democrat President, with a Democrat backed Congress, has a lot of pull. Even if some Democrats don't agree with his views, there are usually enough "party-liners" that many things can get through that might not otherwise. A good example, in reverse, would be a Bush backed Republican Congress.
I need another beer and who the hell was that on the jukebox? :-) -
7:00 AM
Again, I wasn't referencing you when I invoked the word 'flowery', its one I've heard in the media for a while.
You did accuse Obama of not "going in to detail" about his issues. Then you acknowledge having researched this. When you accuse him of trying to bet people to "get what he's buying without going in to detail" I assume you are talking about his speeches.
To which I say I don't remember any candidate going into specific detail about their platform during their speeches. Do you? -
9:55 AM
I did mean Obama's speeches and his ability to get people to believe in him based solely on his speeches. And you are right that the other two remaining major candidates don't go into their platform details during their speeches, however, Obama didn't come into this election as quite a known commodity as the other two. He had more to overcome to get the attention of the American people. I think his candidacy has been significantly bolstered as much by his ability to inspire people as it has been his politics.
-
1:48 PM
I think all of the candidates would prefer more time in public forums to speak directly to the direction they'd push policy making---unfortunately, that's not the way things happen. Does anyone remember Al Gore being labelled overly academic for daring to fully describe the environmental crisis?
People do, and always will, make decisions on incomplete information regarding politicians. And the candidate with the greatest ability to inspire (seen as key leadership attribute...) almost inevitably wins. That doesn't mean the charming candidates aren't also the smart or best candidates. - 6:08 PM
11 comments: