Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Sowell on the Obama speech (update)
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, March 19, 2008

A pretty damning analysis:
Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.

Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now “move on,” even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory.

Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.
And Sowell hits on the elephant this is still in the room:
The great unasked question for Senator Obama is the question that was asked about President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; What did he know and when did he know it?
Here's the reasoning:
Although Senator Obama would now have us believe that he is shocked, shocked, at what Jeremiah Wright said, that he was not in the church when pastor Wright said those things from the pulpit, this still leaves the question of why he disinvited Wright from the event at which he announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination a year ago.

Either Barack Obama or his staff must have known then that Jeremiah Wright was not someone whom they wanted to expose to the media and to the media scrutiny to which that could lead.

Why not, if it is only now that Senator Obama is learning for the first time, to his surprise, what kinds of things Jeremiah Wright has been saying and doing?

No one had to be in church the day Wright made his inflammatory and obscene remarks to know about them.

[...]

But even if there were no tapes, and even if Obama never heard from other members of the church what their pastor was saying, he spent 20 years in that church, not just as an ordinary member but also as someone who once donated $20,000 to the church.

There was no way that he didn’t know about Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American and racist diatribes from the pulpit.
Pretty much my point yesterday.

Even ABC understands that something is just not quite right:
Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America's racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons.

[...]

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

"I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month.

"He has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel; so he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that," Obama said on March 2.

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

Obama did not say what he heard that he considered "controversial," and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright's sermons over the last 20 years.
To this point and in spite of the speech, the questions most people want answered remain unanswered. Until they are answered and answered in full, the story will remain alive and dog the Obama campaign through the rest of the primary, and if he makes it, into the general election.

And, it should.

UPDATE: Lanny Davis, a long-time and well-know Clinton supporter and sometimes spokesman has some questions as well. Note how he excuses asking them:
But many people, including Obama supporters, may still have two questions that Senator Obama's speech did not sufficiently answer, at least in my opinion. And, for any Democrat whose priority is to win back the White House in 2008, they need to be answered now — because, if Senator Obama ends up the party's nominee (I am a supporter of Senator Clinton's) — for sure Senator McCain will insist they be answered in the fall.

These two questions are:

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?
Remember, those questions came from a Democrat.
___________

Linke by Below the Beltway - Thanks!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
There is nothing I find Honorable about Rev. Manning.

I’m beginning to believe that racial harmony must start with the black clergy.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Always liked Sowell, and this is yet another reason why:
Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.

Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech - a theatrical masterpiece - will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters.
...
Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.
Compare this to what I said a couple days ago:
I think the biggest concern of the Obama camp is their base slipping. They’re acting like their internal polling numbers are telling them they have a serious hemorrhage in supporters. It seems to me that the base are the ones who take this race card thing far more seriously than does the electorate as a whole. The Obama base got involved because they thought he race thing was finanly beind them. Imagine their thought processes as they find that their hero, centers his entire campaign on it. In the end it’s that anger he’s dealing with more than anything today.

Obama can give a great speech when he feels the need. The question that now is being asked is whether or not anyone will believe him, anymore. Some of the “true believers” probably will. they were already predisposed to believe him anyway. It’s not going to take much convincing to get them over this hump. As to the rest of the American voters, I to question that won’t be answered. For some time, November specifically. Assuming he gets quite so far.
Admittedly, I’m engaged in a SITYS dance. It’s nice to see someone you admire, paralleling your own thoughts on what has become a major issue.

But there’s more to this comment....


If two people of rather diverse backgrounds, and educational levels, and ways of thinking can see this speech as what it is, why can the press, who gets paid to think about such matter, cannot?
Admittedly, as McQ points up ABC’s vaugely aware there’s something wrong with things. But is this as good as our vaunted press corps comes?

Is it that they’re afraid to get tagged as racist?



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Is it that they’re afraid...
Yes.
... to get tagged as rac...
Yes.
...ist?
Also, it’s been observed that the press has been in the tank for Obama, and as recently as a few days ago still was. I think that while eventually they’re going to unstick from Obama just like everybody else, it will take the consensus time time to so break. There’s a delay imposed by most individual’s desire not to be seen as the first in such a crowd; people not running in crowds have no such delay to work through.

I think this is the "stick a fork in it, he’s done" moment; had he actually managed to transcend politics and speak frankly about having made a mistake in this association, that it made sense in the past but it’s time for him to move on, hey, he’d have made a fan out of me! Instead, I’m not sure how he could have been a more stereotypical politician. I don’t see how he can pull out of this, he just doesn’t have the resources and even if he came clean tomorrow, it could well be too late.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri/
Hmmm.
Interesting, Jer. Certainly, this is a transitional moment, but to what? Hillary Clinton?

Thinking aloud, here;

I hadn’t been quite ready to break out the fork, yet, because the question in my mind has been if Dick Morris is correct when he says there’s no way Hillary Clinton will ever get nominated now, because of the way the Delegate mess has evolved. The delegates are already counted, after all. They can’t very well ’do over’ the whole country, which is essentialy what it would take.

Which leads Obama to the nomination, the way the numbers look now, problems or no... but because of those problems, he gets defeated by McCain... indeed, my read is Mccain will have an easy time against Obama, now, assuming Morris is correct and Obama gets the nod.

The question is, will the DNC react to all of this, and how? Do they contrive something so as to go with Hillary Clinton? Seems to me the Democrats have been trying with all hey had to avoid her being nominated, and now may no longer have much choice in the matter.

OTOH, I figure McCain isn’t gonna have much problem with Clinton, either, so what difference would such gymnastics on the floor of the convention make, in the end, other than even more serious warfare within the Democrat party?

(Sigh)
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Yeah, but Bit - just the chance to see the Dem National Convention in a middle of a tornado when Hillary accepts the nomination would be worth the price of admission. I have never seen an implosion before - it should be interesting!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Well, there is that. I suppose popcorn vendors will thrive. How ever that might be, I’m considering starting a pool on how long Dean lasts after the convention.

And I suppose the bigger question for the long term, then; Does this eliminate the stranglehold of MoveOn on the Democrats, or reinforce it? I’m taking no bets, on THAT one.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
This goes a lot deeper than what Jeremiah Wright said in this or that sermon and put out on CDs.

Fundamental to the most vicious of his racist statements is the "black theology" on which those statements and his teaching and his church are based.

After what I’ve been reading by James Cone the past two days — Cone is the author who Wright himself insisted that Sean Hannity had to read to understand Wright’s church — I think it’s safe to say that one need not stop at calling Obama a con man.

Moe later.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Certainly, this is a transitional moment, but to what? Hillary Clinton?
I honestly have no idea. I’ve long since come to grip with the fact I can’t think like the press.

What happens when the press itself can’t decide?

Maybe we’ll get halfway unbiased coverage for a change.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri/
This goes a lot deeper than what Jeremiah Wright said in this or that sermon and put out on CDs.

Fundamental to the most vicious of his racist statements is the "black theology" on which those statements and his teaching and his church are based.
Precisely why I ran the quotes above, Martin.
But there’s another reason, too. That being, Wright, Cone, and Obama, are not alone. Watch those tapes of Wright again, and watch the number of people cheering him on. Look again, at the number of people who leapt up to defend this ’theology’.

Go read again, what Cone said.
Still wondering why there’s a race problem?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Oops. I was referring to the Cone quotes in the other post, of course.
What I get for posting while doing three other things.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I have known black ministers in the South where Jim Crow was practiced in the past. Men who must have suffered as did MLK. But they were not the fiery haters that we have heard about recently. Why is that we are hearing that those who minister in the North and in Pastor Wrights’s case, who were born and lived mostly in the North, are the bigots. I can not remember any situation, when I lived in the South for decades at different times in my life, where I as a white man have been treated uncivilly by an older black who lived through the Jim Crow era; yes I have been witness to insulting and uncivil actions by young blacks who have never experienced that hatred, but not by those who one would think would harbor hatred for whites. I do not really know why this is what I have experienced, but I often wonder if the political victimization of the black culture by liberal government and race hustlers has created a monster in the black youth.
 
Written By: AMR
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider