Althouse: "While President Obama has touted himself as a post-racial president, he has built a record demonstrating precisely the opposite."

July 18, 2010

"While President Obama has touted himself as a post-racial president, he has built a record demonstrating precisely the opposite."

Writes David Limbaugh — saying something a lot of people have been saying.

My question is: Did Barack Obama tout himself as a post-racial President? Or did starry-eyed voters imagine that's what they'd get?

Seriously, quote me some quotes: What did he say? Or did he just stand back and allow white people to spin out their fantasies of conquering race once and for all? Was there a point when he should have spoken up and said, it's not going to work that way? Is he guilty of deception or are those who voted based on the post-racial dream guilty of self-deception? Do you blame a political candidate for not correcting people who have formed an excessively idealized picture of him?

Remember when Bill Clinton said "This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I’ve ever seen"? People didn't want to hear that, and Bill himself hustled to deny that he was referring to the way people were fantasizing about the significance of electing a black President. It wasn't to be talked about.

I think this idea that electing a black President would redeem us from all things racial was something that developed as a shared and mostly unspoken delusion. Obama presented himself as another candidate, running on issues, and throwing out high-level abstract platitudes. Those who voted for him because they believed his election would make us post-racial — and I'm not one of them, though I voted for him — need to take responsibility for their own distorted, exaggerated thoughts.

Now, David Limbaugh did not vote for Obama. He's keeping the old delusion alive to use it as leverage to argue what he's probably always argued, that we should shift, right now, to a race-blind way of life. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," as the Chief Justice famously wrote.

And speaking of Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh was always utterly clear and emphatic, throughout the 2008 campaign, that the election of a black President would not begin an era of post-racialism. The racial politics would continue (and increase) and you're a fool to think otherwise.

So who thought it? Who said it? Who touted it? Was it Obama? I don't think so.

122 comments:

Bender said...: Whether Obama ever said it himself or implied it, or said it through surrogates, he absolutely most certainly heard it being said by plenty of people, and he also heard folks like Rush say the opposite.

Whether he ever said it himself, Obama took advantage of it, thereby appropriating the idea to himself.

And whether he ever said it himself, Obama NEVER said to the American people, "what I am going to do is fan the flames of racial hostility, to exacerbate racial tension, turn multiple non-racial issues into racial ones, and have my associates engage in race-baiting." But that is EXACTLY what he has done.

Whether Obama said it or not, he is still dishonest, either by this latter omission of his real intent or by his having used and appropriated the idea of a post-racial America, when he had no intention of bringing that about.; 7/18/10, 10:16 AM
mesquito said...: Start with Juan Williams, In November 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30williams.html; 7/18/10, 10:19 AM
KCFleming said...: Obama never said anything you could pin down for meaning, except by accident ("spread the wealth around").

He's a blank slate, Mr. 'Voting Present', plausible deniability and bait-and-switch.

At this point, I don't give a damn if he himself claimed he would have any effect whatsoever on race.

Whatever he did, it ain't better, unless you're a Black Panther.; 7/18/10, 10:26 AM
Michael Haz said...: Or did he just stand back and allow white people to spin out their fantasies of conquering race once and for all?

People who voted for Obama were (and many remain) filled with fantasy about the meaning held by his election to the presidency. They are the ones who hoped for the rapture of a "post-racial" America, whatever "post-racial" means.

Obama never rejected the things he heard while sitting in the pew at Reverend Wright's church all those years. He never claimed to be post-racial. Obama is, in fact, highly racial; he is the opposite of what his followers believe him to be.; 7/18/10, 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: I had this conversation the other day: Had Barack been American born and bred, he probably wouldn't have been elected (The Nation of Islam, Rev. Wright's church, The Panthers hip-hop, deep seated racism, either a Thomas ((Sowell and Clarence)) conservatism which wouldn't get you elected or a much more liberal support of government) and all the white liberals on the 'right' side of morality and history.

Frankly, perhaps we would be ready for it some time in the future. Perhaps never.

Now we get to use our politics for this moral expiation. This has many dangers.; 7/18/10, 10:31 AM
The Dude said...: He's a racist, as is his enormous wife.; 7/18/10, 10:31 AM
Michael Haz said...: Or did he just stand back and allow white people to spin out their fantasies of conquering race once and for all?

White people? What kind of racist nonsense is that? Do white people have "fantasies about conquering race once and for all"? Did you take a poll, and do you presume to speak for white people?

Seriously, that statement is loaded with elitist nonsense and projection.; 7/18/10, 10:32 AM
Right is right! said...: Barak Obama is a godless socialist marxist. Those who control the mainstream media and other institutions know that.

I know I will continue to get attacked for this but until we return this country and the rest of the Western world to its Christian foundation we will continue our downward slide to Communism.

So, bring on your slings and arrows. But you know I am right.; 7/18/10, 10:38 AM
jungatheart said...: Regarding the Skip Gates fiasco, he was always way too scripted for his cops-behaved-stupidly line to have been a gaffe. I think he's planning a stirring racial healing campaign thingy come 2012. Hey, maybe he is Black Jesus!

And Gibb's gaffe about losing seats? Not an accident (and Pelosi knows it, tee-hee). Congressional Dems should brace themselves for their arrival under the bus. Bam and co. are looking forward to a Clintonian second term.; 7/18/10, 10:40 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: "Do you blame a political candidate for not correcting people who have formed an excessively idealized picture of him?"

I did. It was one of the things I held most against him: that he saw it, and he and his staff laughed about it, but he rarely, if ever, stepped up to correct it. That's one way I knew he wasn't honest, or a true leader.

As far as mass delusion playing a prominent role in American thinking and politics, all I can say is "thanks for the support".; 7/18/10, 10:42 AM
-blessed holy socks, the non-perishable-zealot said...: C'mon, dear. What about the word 'wigga' for a HALF black/ HALF white puppet like the smelly BO who takes all of his orders from the filthy rich, 2%ers?? At least 50% of U.S. didn't vote for that filthy wigga who supports abortion every effn' chance he gets without any thot on how that'll effect his eternal destiny. If you wanna delete our post, so-be-it. But be warned, however. What YOU do HAS eternal consequences (just as what eye do) --- Nevertheless, kick-ass, girl. Truly amazing, isn't it, how we can be so caught-up in the passing pleasures as to MissRepresent our eternity? I don't wanna see you ANYWHERE but where I am in the Great Beyond. See my abundant, unlimited blog: wacky, tacky, backed by God - not to mention a lil' efficacious avant-garde'ness thrown in. You'd love it if you're as nuts as I am about Heaven. So, why don’tcha meet me Upstairs where we can play ThumbWars while we wait for our beer??? God blessa youse -Fr. Sarducci, ol SNL; 7/18/10, 10:42 AM
Meade said...: Read the speech he gave after he was forced to leave Rev. Wright's church:

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction -- a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

Not post-racial and not promising to be post-racial.; 7/18/10, 10:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Yes, Obama did say it. Read his Philadelphia race speech.

Of course, he gave that speech under duress when his association with Rev. Wright threatened to deep six his campaign.

He lied then, and repeatedly afterward, about the extent of his relationship with Wright, just as he lied about the extent of his relationship with Bill Ayers. A sympathetic (not to say lapdog) press conspired with Obama to downplay these associations.

So, yes, Obama did say that it was time to transcend racial division and race baiting. He was lying, and I knew at that time that he was lying.

Obama's associations with Jesse Jackson, Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers told me all I needed to know about him.

For those of you who continue to deride Sarah Palin as a cornpone hick, you might consider how and why the press characterized her in that fashion. They did so precisely because she called Obama out for his radical associations. That's why she was supposed to be so stupid.

American politics plays out over the long term. I just returned from a cruise. One of the most striking things I noticed was how many middle class blacks were aboard. Blacks are not going to be able to play the outsider, underdog role much longer.

The quota system has been in place for 50 years.

Blacks will continue to try to play the quota system and race baiting for all they can get. That's just human nature. And, Obama cannot win re-election without winning 90% of the black vote. But time is eroding the power of the quota system sycophants and the race baiters.

Last week, Jesse Jackson said that the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers had treated LeBron James "like a runaway slave." That sort of race baiting rhetoric has lost its punch. It's laughable. But, Jackson and Wright and Obama aren't going to give up on the golden goose of race baiting.

Race baiting still offers black the opportunity to make money and gain power. They won't give it up until... well, until white people laugh at them.; 7/18/10, 10:42 AM
Bender said...: Barack Obama, the Rev. Wright speech --
"I have asserted a firm conviction -- a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union. . . . The profound mistake of Rev. Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country -- a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen -- is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow. . . . For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle -- as we did in the O.J. trial -- or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina -- or as fodder for the nightly news. . . . That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. . . . I would not be running for president if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation -- the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election."

Now, he does say a lot of other conflicting things in this speech, but if in these excerpts he did not explicitly say that his election would mean a post-racial America, if he did not imply that by these words, then he still absolutely explicitly spoke about "the audacity to hope" for a post-racial America, for perfecting America, which his election would bring about.

No one can be faulted if they came away from that speech thinking that Obama was promising a post-racial America, or at least sincerely and significantly moving toward that end.

----------

Now, if you want to get technical about it, with respect to Rush and conservatives, they moved beyond race ages ago. They have been living a post-racial America, but it is the likes of Barack Obama who keep dragging us down into the pit of racialism and racism.; 7/18/10, 10:42 AM
Bender said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/18/10, 10:43 AM
Unknown said...: At the Democratic convention in 2004 Obama said "Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America."
Sounded post racial to me.; 7/18/10, 10:44 AM
AllenS said...: Here's an article from Daniel Schorr of NPR. Seems like he's one of many who started it.

Using Google I did this: Obama "post racial".; 7/18/10, 10:47 AM
pm317 said...: My question is: Did Barack Obama tout himself as a post-racial President?
I think this is a silly question even to ask aloud. D. Limbaugh is using this faux question to rev up his audience. He is not interested in finding evidence for it as you demand of him.

To assume Obama would do anything of that significance is to know nothing of the man. He as usual called it "present" on this issue. You are right to say his starry-eyed supporters (media included) built it up to a crescendo and everyone (you included) got tingles up your ankles and voted for him.

Now as to why that first part was a silly question: if he ever explicitly proclaimed that he was post-racial, he would have killed the whole race-baiting industry of Sharptons, Jacksons, the NAACP, that Harvard professor. He would NEVER do that to them. They need their grievance to advance themselves monetarily or otherwise. In fact people like Jarret (and his wife, I am sure) in his own campaign felt that he should tout himself as a black candidate more.
Read the excerpt from the NYTimes quoted here.
As usual the Chicago pol danced the "present" dance -- he let the media rev it up as post-racial for the White crowd and let his usual culprits do the race-baiting for the Black crowd.; 7/18/10, 10:48 AM
Unknown said...: Consider the phrase, "plausible deniability", and imagine a variant - the concept of something never overtly spoken, but furiously promoted. Though it was never spoken by him, the post-racial thing was always on everyone's mind from Iowa on.

The idea was probably not so much in press packets, as it was communicated in conversation from Axelrod & Co to the useful idiots. This sort of not-quite-subliminal conditioning brought us to Chrissy Matthews' tingle.; 7/18/10, 10:49 AM
Right is right! said...: Shoutingthomas states "For those of you who continue to deride Sarah Palin as a cornpone hick, you might consider how and why the press characterized her in that fashion."

To answer your question, Sarah Palin is attacked by those who control the main stream media because they know she is to her core driven by her Christian beliefs. They also know that the last bulwark protecting us from all out socialism is this country being a Christian one.

You do the math.; 7/18/10, 10:51 AM
Bender said...: Ann Althouse, March 22, 2008 --

"Obama's popularity has been built on unifying us and transcending race. If only 30% of us heard unification in that speech, then the speech and the connection to Wright have been massively destructive to what is the chief substance of his reputation."

Well, that blogger obviously thought that Obama had been pushing the idea of a post-racial America. Was she fooled into thinking something he never even implied, or was the Obama campaign being dishonest with voters?; 7/18/10, 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I don't know one person who voted for him because he was black or that he'd somehow get us to a post-racial Nirvana.

I know plenty of people who voted for him that preferred Hilary in fact.

I voted for Obama, because he's intelligent and moderate. And because he's not batshit insane like the Republican Party (eliminate all taxes, end unemployment benefits, invade Iran now, etc.) And I'm actually very delighted with how he's turning out. I love the fact that he explicitly did NOT freak out during the oil spill, because he was smart enough to know that it was not an easy thing to fix.

Unlike Maureen Dowd, I don't need an inspirational President. I need a competent President. And we have one with Obama.

But it was quite obvious during the Rev. Wright affair (a totally hyped up non-story by the way), that the Obama Presidency would bring out the worst racist tendencies in the country. And it has. Shocker.; 7/18/10, 10:52 AM
A.W. said...: I don’t recall him saying anything of the sort. But, here’s the argument as I remember. He’s post racial because he doesn’t talk about specifically black issues, especially discrimination. He presents himself as just another candidate. The only time he talked about race, during the campaign, was when he was forced to talk about it when Rev. Wright came to light.

Not sure I totally buy that, but fwiw.; 7/18/10, 10:53 AM
FloridaSteve said...: Oh puuulease. A surfer doesn't have to "make" the wave to actually ride it or acknowledge it.; 7/18/10, 10:58 AM
Brian said...: Because the MSM was an agent of the Obama campaign, by traditional principles of vicarious liability Obama is responsible for its touting of the post-racial non-sense.; 7/18/10, 11:00 AM
bagoh20 said...: In the 2008 election, Obama only had one vote. It's not his fault.; 7/18/10, 11:04 AM
Synova said...: What did Obama say in that speech he gave about race? Other than that his grandmother was a racist old woman?

Self delusion is a powerful thing, particularly as so many people want so badly to be rid of the national shame of racism. So very many people want to prove we're past it, want to prove that we're beyond judging a person on the basis of race, that who can really blame them?

I never liked Obama one little bit but I did "hope" that at the very least his election would encourage black youth not to see success as being "white" and I was happy for the people who found personal joy, particularly older black people, in walking into a polling place and voting for a black man for President.

But it was a fact and was *always* a fact that Obama did not win in spite of being black. He won largely because he *was* black.

And it was a fact and was *always* a fact (and one that I and many others pointed out at the time) that Obama's actions during the campaign were often race card playing and race baiting. His actions were always pretty clearly to remind people and perpetuate ideas of racism, even if just as this thing that must be defeated by voting for him. Since he never or almost never had real, actual, racism to point to he tended to make it up, describe the future actions of his opponents, the things people *would* say that would be racist.

People then could choose between racism and Obama.

So implicitly, yes, he used racism as a thing that had to be defeated by voting for him even if he never claimed it would be defeated if he became President.

I don't think that technically counts as "touted" though.; 7/18/10, 11:07 AM
Oso Negro said...: PM317 has it right - there are some big bucks in the race-baiting industry. The Mighty O has no incentive to shut it down. Quite to the contrary, the DOJ Panther deal looks like he is covering it.

And check out Downtownlad - he got HIS competent president! It is indeed a multiverse, not a universe that we inhabit; 7/18/10, 11:07 AM
bagoh20 said...: "the Obama legacy will be with America for generations."

Lets hope so, because right now that legacy looks to be the re-installment of conservative values, starting in November.; 7/18/10, 11:09 AM
Brian said...: Downtownlad:

"Unlike Maureen Dowd, I don't need an inspirational President. I need a competent President. And we have one with Obama."

Ask those in the Gulf Coast how competent Obama is.

We used only a tiny amount of the available skimmers to clean up the oil, and Obama's bureaucracy thwarted efforts by the States to deal with the damage. Thousands put out of work, billions in environmental damage, and Obama did little save strategize with Alexrod and Rahm about how to keep the fallout focused on BP.; 7/18/10, 11:09 AM
Big Mike said...: So who thought it? Who said it? Who touted it? Was it Obama? I don't think so.

Who thinks it matters? He clearly tolerated the meme, and now that Barack Obama is president he has taken no steps to disavow the notion -- pushed very hard in certain leftist quarters -- that opposition to his policies is not based on honest disagreement but is based instead on raw racism. Consequently I assert that Barack Obama has made race relations worse than they were prior to his election.; 7/18/10, 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Who touted it? Will I Am did!

It's the second line in the song:

It was whispered by slaves & abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom...

Just try to watch that video now without gagging! Things were so different in 2008.

Still, conservative opportunists like the Limbaughs would have us believe that our desire for CHANGE back in 2008 was less-than-pure-- that it was based on naive and trendy New Age notions like having "post-racial" America.

But no, no... that's not accurate. We wanted government to be competent and free of corruption and work to service its people. Those were noble goals.

But a government like that is not possible in America. That's what Obama proved. In reality it is "No we can't" not "yes we can".

It took a long time and a lot of effort by both parties to make American government so hopelessly dysfunctional. Establishment Republicans carry just as much of the blame for bringing America to that point as Democrats do.; 7/18/10, 11:11 AM
dave in boca said...: Obama is proving himself to be a nasty sophomoric thin-skinned second-rater who has passed some monster legislation which will turn the USA into some sort of first-world Zimbabwe. I'm sure he doesn't compare himself with Mugabe, but on Nelson Mandela's 92nd birthday today, it is dead certain that Obama is NOT a Nelson Mandela.; 7/18/10, 11:12 AM
John henry said...: Tidy Righty tells us that Obama is a socialist. I agree but I think we need to go further. What *kind* of socialist is he?

I would argue that he is a National Socialist or, as Stalin ordered the world to call them in 1940 a "fascist".

The basic definition of socialism is govt control of the means of production. We seem to be getting that. One of the characteristics of national socialism is govt control of the means of production while leaving the nominal owners in nominal charge.

Look who is supporting Obama in particular and the Demmies in general. The Dems are the party of big business.

John Henry; 7/18/10, 11:12 AM
HT said...: And speaking of Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh was always utterly clear and emphatic, throughout the 2008 campaign, that the election of a black President would not begin an era of post-racialism. The racial politics would continue (and increase) and you're a fool to think otherwise.

So what is the conclusion here? But first, what is the operating assumption?; 7/18/10, 11:19 AM
Wince said...: "Did Barack Obama tout himself as a post-racial President? ...Seriously, quote me some quotes: What did he say? Or did he just stand back and allow white people to spin out their fantasies of conquering race once and for all?"

Obama's Announcement for President

That's what Abraham Lincoln understood. He had his doubts. He had his defeats. He had his setbacks. But through his will and his words, he moved a nation and helped free a people. It is because of the millions who rallied to his cause that we are no longer divided, North and South, slave and free. It is because men and women of every race, from every walk of life, continued to march for freedom long after Lincoln was laid to rest, that today we have the chance to face the challenges of this millennium together, as one people - as Americans.

Senator Barack Obama's Announcement for President
Springfield, IL
February 10, 2007; 7/18/10, 11:19 AM
Beta Rube said...: I have no doubt, DTL, that when my grandchildren are forking over their hard earned cash to the Chinese, they'll remember Obama and his legacy.

Funding every available liberal fantasy with borrowed/printed money is leadership?

By the way, didn't Chris Matthews feel his legs tingle during the One's throw Wright under the bus speech?

In any event, Holder reminded us that we are racial cowards. Not much hope for progress there.; 7/18/10, 11:20 AM
bagoh20 said...: My impression is that Obama's election was the high water mark for the left - coincidently, worldwide.

A wide variety of leftist juggernauts are being challenged, defanged and discarded world wide. It's not total, because that's not realistic, but it is widespread as their failure is clear after decades of free run.

In the U.S. this includes the race industry. People have just heard it all too many times. Now that virtually everyone in the country has been called a racist multiple times for all manner of things, it has lost it's power. Maybe we can start talking like adults now.; 7/18/10, 11:20 AM
chickelit said...: Downtownlass wrote:
I love the fact that he explicitly did NOT freak out during the oil spill, because he was smart enough to know that it was not an easy thing to fix.

Obama famously expressed confidence that Steven Chu (who by the way won a Nobel Prize) was going to fix it. Now Chu is staying he may have worsened things: Link.

Even Chris "The Tingler" Matthews saw through this exercise in incompetence.; 7/18/10, 11:21 AM
Unknown said...: Post Racial ? What in the world does that mean ? That is a (white) liberal construct.

Those of you who complain that Obama should have said, there's no such thing as post racial -- you people are just being silly. Obama is a politician. He was running to win.

I hope no one was fooled by Bill Clinton's vigorous denial of the meaning of the fairy-tale statement. I sure wasnt. But I thought Bill was not only talking about the post racial bit, I thought he was also saying the vary notion that Barack could be president was a fairy-tale ...; 7/18/10, 11:23 AM
bagoh20 said...: "it is dead certain that Obama is NOT a Nelson Mandela."

Nelson Mandela was no Nelson Mandela either.; 7/18/10, 11:24 AM
Adam said...: What *kind* of socialist is he?

He is a Fabian socialist.; 7/18/10, 11:24 AM
Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...: The notion that Obama is the "most" racial president is pathetic. It rests on the notion that white presidents don't have a race. It is easy to name just a few who were far more racialized than Obama. Think Andrew Johnson. Since 1964, no Democrat has won a majority of white voters. Whites have elected "white" presidents who share majoritarian views about race. But, in a society where whiteness is the norm, politics can only be racialized if a person of color is involved.; 7/18/10, 11:26 AM
Ann Althouse said...: AllenS said..."Here's an article from Daniel Schorr of NPR. Seems like he's one of many who started it. Using Google I did this: Obama "post racial"."

And did you happen to find examples of *Obama* making the claim about himself? That's the issue. You found support for what I was saying: That some white Obama supporters made up a big fairytale.

Michael Haz said..."White people? What kind of racist nonsense is that? Do white people have "fantasies about conquering race once and for all"? Did you take a poll, and do you presume to speak for white people?"

I didn't say all white people, but I do think it was white people and not black people who believed such things. Do you have some examples of black people doing that? If so, I'm happy to acknowledge that some black people thought like that too. Bet you can't.; 7/18/10, 11:27 AM
Synova said...: "-- that opposition to his policies is not based on honest disagreement but is based instead on raw racism. Consequently I assert that Barack Obama has made race relations worse than they were prior to his election."

I disagree.

Look at the response to the NAACP? Like someone or other said... when he called Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro racists, it was over.

Who even cares if they are called a racist anymore?; 7/18/10, 11:31 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Do you have some examples of black people doing that?"

So what did Blacks expect to happen if not post racialism? Was it just lust for a symbol? Democrat type mindsets do love those.; 7/18/10, 11:34 AM
Sprezzatura said...: "They need their grievance to advance themselves monetarily or otherwise. "

Hilarious.

Have any of the cons here noticed that the professional-cons (e.g. the Limbaughs or Palin) and the novice-cons (e.g. whiney Althouse con-commentors) do nothing but wallow in their grievances to advance themselves monetarily (pros) or otherwise (novices: victim-mentality-losers looking for a victim fix)?

You folks are a barrel of laughs.

Even though you're surrounded by reality proving otherwise, some of you cons viscerally feel (with metaphysical certitude) that the real grievance money and the loudest grievance mongers are on the left.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.; 7/18/10, 11:35 AM
Unknown said...: downtownlad said...

I don't know one person who voted for him because he was black or that he'd somehow get us to a post-racial Nirvana.

He lies. Remember the idiot from San Fiasco who called him a 'lightworker' that would bring everyone together? Remember that creepy video of the school kids singing, "We're gonna spread happiness, we're gonna spread freedom, Obama's gonna lead 'em"?

I voted for Obama, because he's intelligent and moderate. And because he's not batshit insane like the Republican Party (eliminate all taxes, end unemployment benefits, invade Iran now, etc.) And I'm actually very delighted with how he's turning out. I love the fact that he explicitly did NOT freak out during the oil spill, because he was smart enough to know that it was not an easy thing to fix.

Note what he attributes to the Republican Party and determine who's really insane.

Also, what Brian said.

And Republican idiots keep comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter. The real comparison is with Lyndon Johnson.

I remember when the Lefties excoriated LBJ, hated him, and took pride in "having hounded him out of office". Going from Ol' Bucketmouth to Mr Great Society is a downgrade.

Republicans can have their wingnut freakout of the day for the next 2.5 years (OMG! Obama is taking a 3 day vacation in Maine!!!!), but the Obama legacy will be with America for generations.

The same can be said of Josef Stalin and Russia. Legacy is not always a good thing, but dtl tells us what he thinks is important.; 7/18/10, 11:37 AM
Adam said...: @DL Hutchinson,

I'd rank presidents (or law professors, for that matter) as "racial" according to the extent to which they seem to view the world through the prism of race. So I agree that Andrew Johnson could be rated "highly" on that scale, and probably Andrew Jackson as well. But then I'd find it hard to understand how one couldn't see Obama as very "racial."

I would, however, agree that his worldview is at least as much Fabian socialist as it is racial. If that's why you find it "pathetic" (?) to view him as highly racial, well, OK then.; 7/18/10, 11:39 AM
KCFleming said...: "So what did Blacks expect to happen if not post racialism?"

Payback time.; 7/18/10, 11:40 AM
Unknown said...: Easy answer: Obama's Philadelphia speech was highly anticipated and well received (likened to some of the great speeches by Lincoln, Johnson and Kennedy).

Obama said:

1. [after describing why the Consititution was unfinished because it stained by the original sin of slavery and then describing years of the civil rights movement]

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together

2. Reverend Wriight's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems

3. I have asserted a firm conviction -- a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

At the time, you said, "I think Americans will study Barack Obama's speech 100 years from now, maybe even 300 years from now, whether he becomes President or not"

and you opined:

1. I'd say he did not do very much -- other than to resist condemning Wright and to model his socially acceptable attitudes and generate a feeling — I'm sure you didn't all feel it — that we need unite behind this man if the terrible divisions over race are going to end.

2. Even if he can be understood to have said something along the lines of "I'm mad too," he distinguished himself from Wright not in hiding his anger, but in believing we can change the things that cause the anger.

3. He insisted both that we confront race and also that we get past it.; 7/18/10, 11:49 AM
Synova said...: "Even though you're surrounded by reality proving otherwise, some of you cons viscerally feel (with metaphysical certitude) that the real grievance money and the loudest grievance mongers are on the left.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha."

This only works if complaining about grievance mongers is grievance mongering.

Set race aside for just a moment and lets look at feminism. Politically left, or else, and constantly on about how terrible women have it in this country.

Every now and then I accidentally find myself in a strange place on the internet reading a screed and comment list about, oh, how utterly terrible the movie Iron Man is and how hurt some woman is by the fact that her 10 year old son is exposed to it.

Crazy people.

And yes, perpetuating this sort of psychosis is a full time PAID job for a whole lot of women.

But no doubt my complaining about this is grievance mongering.; 7/18/10, 11:52 AM
bagoh20 said...: The election of Obama my not be post racialism, but it did definitely weaken the power of white guilt. I don't think Blacks wanted that, but it's a good thing. The dynamic needs to be honest and white guilt is not. Nobody alive was either a victim nor a perpetrator of slavery and few living were even part of segregation. Most people alive today in the U.S. have lived mostly free of any disparity in opportunity.

I was recently attempting to get a contract to supply the city zoo with some services. The application to be a vendor was ridiculous with every liberal check-box requirement you can imagine. One was that your company could have no history of association with slavery. We don't, but I imagined a company with young workers trying to make a living and being blacklisted by their own city for something that happened generations ago and had no relation to them whatsoever.

Chances are that not a single one of the workers in such a company had any historic relationship to slavery and some employees would likely be descended from victims of it. What a ridiculous and unfair crap-fest government procurement is. There is no way such a system can get less than double the cost of truly open and fair competition. Guess who pays for that. Racism is a liberal guiding principle. They are rudderless without it.; 7/18/10, 11:55 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Flexo said..."Ann Althouse, March 22, 2008 -'Obama's popularity has been built on unifying us and transcending race. If only 30% of us heard unification in that speech, then the speech and the connection to Wright have been massively destructive to what is the chief substance of his reputation.' Well, that blogger obviously thought that Obama had been pushing the idea of a post-racial America. Was she fooled into thinking something he never even implied, or was the Obama campaign being dishonest with voters?"

You substituted a different proposition from the one I raised. Most Americans, rightly, and including me, hope to get beyond race. ("I have a dream..." etc. etc.... it's a given.) Any politician might express that same hope and claim to be helpful in reaching that goal.

The proposition I raised was whether Obama claimed that upon his election, we would skip ahead into that post-racial America, the John Roberts way referenced in the post ("The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race")? I think Obama was always more like Justice Blackmun, who wrote: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race."; 7/18/10, 11:59 AM
bagoh20 said...: ""In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race."

"first" implies there is something that comes after, thus the "beyond racism". We have pretty much covered the "account" part at this point.

The best thing about Obama's election is that we can say we see race and we can ignore it. Of course that is exactly the opposite of what happened, but what's the truth got to d with it - when we have symbols to post on the road of history. The Obama billboard is up for eternity. It's time to get our eyes back on the road and pick a route - not look for a U-turn.; 7/18/10, 12:08 PM
Beth said...: This only works if complaining about grievance mongers is grievance mongering.

That sounds good, Synova, and I'm going to use it next time I hear that complaining about intolerance is intolerance.; 7/18/10, 12:10 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "But no doubt my complaining about this is grievance mongering."

BTW, imho it is not normal get worked up if you occasionally, accidentally read a feminist post or comment that claims this country is terrible for women because the movie Iron Man has damaged someone's male child. Imho, the appropriate response is to LOL (also, leaving a mocking comment could be fun), and then move on to something not ridiculous.

Keep things in perspective.

wv: hooker; 7/18/10, 12:10 PM
bagoh20 said...: Imagine if the whole concept of race magically disappeared last night. Who would be affected? Who would be scrambling for a new source of power and who would just continue on unaffected. Who would be freed.

My life and goals would all get easier. I would gain greatly from the elimination of racism. Many would not, and subconsciously, they know it.; 7/18/10, 12:16 PM
bagoh20 said...: I would also suggest that if there was no racism, we might still have black President, but it would not be Barack Obama.; 7/18/10, 12:20 PM
AllenS said...: Althouse: So who thought it? Who said it? Who touted it? Was it Obama? I don't think so.

Althouse asks me -- And did you happen to find examples of *Obama* making the claim about himself?

All I tried to do was find someone who said/touted it, per your original question.

Since Schorr's article was titled "A New, 'Post-Racial' Political Era in America" I thought that it would be a contribution to help answer your question. I guess it wasn't. I looked no further to see if Obama had made the claim, because I could care less.; 7/18/10, 12:45 PM
virgil xenophon said...: "Payback time"

LOL. As usual, Pogo pithily hit the nail on the head!

BTW, iirc, Obama DID display an awareness of the delusional aspects of white adoration by making a comment (can't remember exact quote) about him being a blank slate upon which people were projecting their own hopes and aspirations, so in a way he publicly gave notice to white America that they were delusional--banking, of course, on the fact White America was too delusional to notice. And why WAS white America so delusional? Shelby Steele warned us pre-election about the fact of "White Guilt" and the felt need for white America to expiate all its racial sins thru the election of a man such as Obama--so those who are having regrets can't say they weren't warned. But then people warned Jim Jones' followers too--but that didn't stop them from drinking the kool-aid.

Of course Charles Mackay anticipated all this back in 1841 with the publication of his work: "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," so why should any of us be surprised?

(And I might add that it is well-documented--then as well as now--that Obama's minions were not shy about accusing ANY and EVERYBODY critical of Obama or his policies as practicing racial politics and violating the "post-racial" atmosphere of the race and a chance to get beyond racial politics and torpedo any chances for a post-racial America. So if one carefully reviews the campaign reportage, one will find that while Obama himself may not have publicly/consistently held-out for the possibilities for a "post-racial" America with his election--his minions certainly did on a daily basis. In fact they used it as a club with which to cow the opposition with the charge of racism to be heaped upon anyone who, by dint of their very ( indeed ANY) criticisms, stood in the way of a post-racial America.); 7/18/10, 12:54 PM
Unknown said...: 1jpb said...

Have any of the cons here noticed that the professional-cons (e.g. the Limbaughs or Palin) and the novice-cons (e.g. whiney Althouse con-commentors) do nothing but wallow in their grievances to advance themselves monetarily (pros) or otherwise (novices: victim-mentality-losers looking for a victim fix)?

You folks are a barrel of laughs.

Even though you're surrounded by reality proving otherwise, some of you cons viscerally feel (with metaphysical certitude) that the real grievance money and the loudest grievance mongers are on the left.

No, the Leftist grievance machine goes back before WWI and proceeds without break; it is now funded by corporate America - those evil rich. Conservatives object to their rights and the fruits of the labors being expropriated by an arrogant and self-serving ruling class and intend to do something about it.

I understand the Lefties don't understand dissent except as a political ploy, but Montagne/Alpha/Freder/1-pbj and their Hahaha nonsense only indicate a walking past the graveyard mentality.; 7/18/10, 12:55 PM
Ah Pooh said...: Giving up the perception of personal discrimination is a big crutch to put down for most of us. "I would have gotten the job but he only likes beautiful women", "I wasn't waited on first because I'm old", "She dates him instead of me because he's taller" etc. The above could all be true OR (a) I didn't have the technical skills (b) the person called had a prior appointment, I didn't (c) the other guy is one of the nicest, most considerate people you'll ever meet, I'm not.
Perceived racial discrimination is one of the biggest crutches around. One because it has existed openly and was acted upon extensively in the past, and two, negative views of Blacks still exists in some individuals and organizations and thus racial discrimination can still be a factor.
Post racial in its purest form just isn't going to exist. Maybe the best we can hope for is that it will become just another crutch among many, hauled out less frequently.; 7/18/10, 1:07 PM
mesquito said...: “In the history of African-American politics in this country there has always been some tension between speaking in universal terms and speaking in very race-specific terms about the plight of the African-American community,” he said. “By virtue of my background, you know, I am more likely to speak in universal terms.”

BHO to NPR in 2007.; 7/18/10, 1:09 PM
Scott said...: "My question is: Did Barack Obama tout himself as a post-racial President? Or did starry-eyed voters imagine that's what they'd get?"

The answer has to do with how people relate to art; and why cartoons evoke greater empathy than more representational graphics.*

Cartoons are drawn in simple shapes and become familiar over time. Because they are not representational, they are easy to identify with. Dilbert and Catbert and the Pointy Haired Boss become people you know at the office, or even yourself.

Constrast this with a photo of a person, or an accurate drawing or painting of them. The subject is locked in a particular place and time, often with a very specific emotion. This is much harder for a person to identify with, or project their identity into.

And the answer to the question is: Obama is a cartoon.

Obama is a cartoon, drawn in simple shapes, of a noble young African American politician, a liberal Reagan to lead America on to...whatever. Into the Cartoon Obama, a hopeful America poured its aspirations. His speeches were skillfully vague sermons on hope and change; and YOU were left to infer the shape of this hope and the change.

Nobody knew who Obama was, or what he stood for. That's the way his campaign wanted it. Nobody dared ask him a hard question -- remember how the Cartoon Obama team delayed and reduced the scope of the debates? They were a terrifying threat to the illusion. A hard question poorly answered might make Cartoon Obama seem real -- and who wanted to spoil the illusion? Certainly not the people who filled Cartoon Obama with their own hopes and needs.

Time to wake up and smell the clear and present danger.

=====
*This is somebody else's idea. I've been unsuccessful finding the author. If you know whose theory this is, please post. Thanks!; 7/18/10, 1:09 PM
Michael Haz said...: I didn't say all white people..

You didn't say "some white people", or "the white people who voted for Obama", you said "white people" without identifying a subset.

Do you have some examples of black people doing that? If so, I'm happy to acknowledge that some black people thought like that too. Bet you can't.

Don't change the subject from what you said about white people (which projected your opinion onto an entire race of people) into a discussion of what black people thought about Obama.

Neither you nor I know what black people thought.; 7/18/10, 1:46 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "Conservatives object to their rights and the fruits of the labors being expropriated by an arrogant and self-serving ruling class and intend to do something about it."

Did it bother you when Reagan gave huge marginal tax breaks that most benefited the rich at the same time he created an SS taxing scheme that was reverse-progressive, and it generated huge surpluses that could be immediately used (in exchange for iou's) to show that net revenues were going up even as many folks paid less in taxes. And, of course additional budget shortfalls could be funded by selling bond/notes/bills.

So Saint Reagan believed in deficit spending (and robbing SS surpluses) to promote immediate GDP stimulation at the expense of future fiscal soundness--who knew that Voodoo economics was also Keynesian economics?

Via wiki
"As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 [16] and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.[17] In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[18]"

Then, it took Bubba raising taxes (and loosing the House) to reverse Reagan's greatest disappointment.

Now, the Rs are all ready to sign up for some more Reagan spending and tax cutting (w/ some taxing, assuming that it can be crafted to only apply to every dollar of income up to about 100k, then the tax rate must go to zero), Did anyone catch the R response to BHO's weekly address? The Rs are saying it's bad for BHO to be cutting from entitlements (Medicare/Medicaid).

Funny stuff.
.; 7/18/10, 1:47 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "All I tried to do was find someone who said/touted it, per your original question."

Huh? The original question was "Did Barack Obama tout himself as a post-racial President?" not did anyone say it.; 7/18/10, 2:14 PM
Ann Althouse said...: @Michael H I can introduce new questions if I want. You don't have to answer them.; 7/18/10, 2:15 PM
michaele said...: My recollection is that Obama dared white America to prove it wasn't racist when he'd make some jibe about "not seeing a face like his on the currency".; 7/18/10, 2:20 PM
AllenS said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/18/10, 2:34 PM
Big Mike said...: The original question was "Did Barack Obama tout himself as a post-racial President?" not did anyone say it.

To which the answer is, it doesn't matter. A significant part of any campaign -- right down to school board -- having surrogates saying things on your behalf. There are numerous themes that are put out in favor of one candidate or against one's opponent that are not spoken by the candidate himself (or herself) but which are part of the campaign strategy. If Barack Obama did not want to have the "post-racial" meme attached to his name he could have quietly put the word out to his surrogates to knock it off. He didn't. Case closed.; 7/18/10, 2:39 PM
Bender said...: Whether he said anything that explicit or not, he definitely wanted to leave the impression, wanted to gain votes from people who he knew thought that that is what he had said or otherwise stood for.

One thing is sure, Obama never disabused anyone of that impression. If they thought that, fine by him. As such, he owns it as much as if he had said it himself.

I think Obama was always more like Justice Blackmun . . .

Could be, but Blackmun hardly has a reputation for rational thought.; 7/18/10, 2:41 PM
AllenS said...: Althouse: Huh? The original question was "Did Barack Obama tout himself as a post-racial President?" not did anyone say it.

It was the first question, that's for sure, but there are a total of 10 questions in your post. Your first paragraph has two questions. I responded to the last four. Count 'em.; 7/18/10, 2:47 PM
TJ said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7/18/10, 2:58 PM
Fen said...: Ann: Most Americans, rightly, and including me, hope to get beyond race.

Sorry but no. The reason you voted for Obama is the same reason you only ban one kind of racial slur.; 7/18/10, 3:41 PM
Fen said...: And I'm really astonished that you continue to ignore that double standard.; 7/18/10, 3:42 PM
AC245 said...: I see Althouse is getting snippy, defensive, and professorial in the comments of this post (as she did in her posts about EDMD) while pointedly ignoring all of the direct evidence provided by commenters which refutes her premise.

Not one of her better performances.; 7/18/10, 4:13 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "which refutes her premise"

According to Sista S, that should be 'refudiates'.; 7/18/10, 4:51 PM
DADvocate said...: starry-eyed voters imagine

No doubt a lot of starry-eyed voters imagined a lot of things about Obama. No doubt these starry-eyed voters are the reason Obama won the election. To bad little of what they imagined has come true or will come true.

Those of us who didn't vote for Obama are seeing lots of things we imagined coming true. Too bad we imagined increased spending, higher deficits, greater debt, higher taxes, increased government control over private business, racial preferences, incompetence,....; 7/18/10, 4:54 PM
Cedarford said...: AA- "So who thought it? Who said it? Who touted it?"

1. Academia and teachers unions. Blacks are touted as the greatest of all Americans and the exemplars of our post-racial future because of superior talent and abilities that was only thwarted by bigoted whites.
Students learn the Holy MLK was the Greatest American. More time is devoted to study and adulation in class of Holy Martin than any other American. Students spend considerable amount of time learning "1st African American!" bios. First African American arctic explorer, female millionaire, MOH winner, chickpea grower, Senator, railroad engineer, etc.
Students learn the Tuskagee Airman, America's greatest pilots ever. (theyweren't). Undoubtedly, they would learn the greatest combat regiment ever was black. ( if that spot hadn't been labelled reserved for Japanese-Americans after Jap Senators and Congressmen lobbied Clinton to give the 442nd and the politicians personally a booty of a wheelbarrow full of medals 50 years after the fact, making the 442nd Reservists "The Most decorated Unit in US History".

Old civil rights organizers and agitators are worshipped in school as almost as Holy as Martin.

2. The progressive Jewish media invented "post-racialism" in the 60s and have uncritically touted Noble Blacks as Messiahs come to alleviate their guilt since the 1960s. Unless they slip up and let a "Hymietown" out. So no one was in the tank for Obama more than the media's Jewish influencers or their subordinate goy minions (See Chris "tingles" Matthews). It was even worth betraying Hillary for. Race trumps gender in progressive jewish thinking. (those noting the savagery the Jewish media, jewish comics, Hollywood, TV displayed going after Palin are part right - she was Christian, a woman whose gender was a distraction to the post-racial future. She was also an unqualified as Barack semi-idiot and a right-winger.

3. Like the Progressive Jews, the Euro-Left has the same sort of thinking. Worship of the wise black man. But, like Jews, best from a distance to the sensitive Euros..
Euros worshipped the Great Wise Men of Africa. NO one better or wiser in all of history than Julius Nyere, Jomo Kenyatta, Nelson Mandela. Euros were slavering hero worshippers to Kofi Annon. And approach tourism to Holy MLKs many tribute sites in America the way devout Catholics treat a trip to the Vatican.
After the tongue-bathing the All-Wise Kofi got, it was almost predictable that Obama would be an automatic Nobel Prize winner to show how enlightened the Euros are.
They wanted the morally superior black President to get it so much they couldn't wait until he actually did something, like King did. They gave it based on the Wise black man's speeches that were written by someone else - at least on that, he has common ground with MLK.; 7/18/10, 4:56 PM
Ah Pooh said...: Pet peeve - altho I understand it (one drop or something like that) President Obama is not Black but bi-racial. His mother was not chopped liver.
If and when my eight grandchildren have children if they mix it up racially (Black, Asian, Hispanic) all the better, one little step towards world peace. Then we can fight over territory, oil, water rights, etc. Religious wars are still on the table but if you really really want to you can convert - not so with ethnic background. On a local level we can discriminate on the basis of weight or if the person wears glasses; 7/18/10, 5:02 PM
traditionalguy said...: IMO Obama just rode the tidal wave into the shoreline. The wave came from an accumulation of many citizens' emotional need to express that they accept black citizens That need started with the 15 year career of an Atlantan we now just call MLK for short, after he was shot down like Abraham Lincoln was 104 years earlier, and for the same reason. Those emotions climaxed after Ken Burns Civil War series ran in 1990. The needed emotional closure finally happened. But we seem to be stuck with mitigating Obama's damage to us for another 30 months.; 7/18/10, 5:31 PM
tim maguire said...: This is an irrelevant question, isn't it?

Whether Obama said it or not, if people thought he would be it and he did nothing to stop them from taking that belief into the voting booth, then he can't complain when people are disappointed that he's failed to live up to that belief.

Now can he?; 7/18/10, 5:33 PM
Ah Pooh said...: Cedarford -
There is a great show on A & E (Monday nights in my time zone) on obsessions. Every time you hear the word "Jews" do you crack your knuckles 13 times , twist your ears counter clockwise, and thump your nose until it bleeds? If so, tune in - it could be liberating.; 7/18/10, 6:24 PM
Right is right! said...: The jews who post here claiming to be conservatives are a bunch of fakes. The last bulwark protecting us from socialism is the fact that we are a nation founded on Christianity. The fake conservative jews have the high handed nerve to attack me for pointing out this truth rather than refuting my arguments. They are traitors who should be dealt with as such.; 7/18/10, 6:27 PM
Anonymous said...: The jews who post here claiming to be conservatives are a bunch of fakes. The last bulwark protecting us from socialism is the fact that we are a nation founded on Christianity. The fake conservative jews have the high handed nerve to attack me for pointing out this truth rather than refuting my arguments. They are traitors who should be dealt with as such.

LOL; 7/18/10, 6:40 PM
traditionalguy said...: Tidy...Your 6:27 PM comment deserves an Academy Award nomination as Moby of the year. Guess what, no one ever commenting on Althouse has called Jewish citizens traitors (a capital offense) and thereby suggested we kill them all. But you have rung that Nazi bell. Please go back under the Fuhrer lover rock you crawled out from. You are making C-4 look like a moderate German.; 7/18/10, 6:54 PM
Ah Pooh said...: Tidy Righty isn't very good at what he does -
Subtle my son, to be effective your comments should be so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe. Because they are not that's why you keep getting outed.; 7/18/10, 7:36 PM
Right is right! said...: Tradguy, i am suggesting no such thing and you know it. I am obviously saying that they should be viewed as traitors in terms of their post here. Also, I am not German. My family has been here going back at least eight generations. But you should get the Academy Award for playing the anti-semitism card. You are as quick of a draw as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

Once again, the LAST bulwark protecting us from socialism is Christianity. It is much easier to hurl personal attacks on me than refute me.

Clearly too many jews who claim to be conservatives (David Frum, Brooks and many commenters to Althouse) chose their tribe over over conservative principles. The main conservative principle in THIS COUNTRY is that we have a tradition and that tradition is closely aligned with Christianity.

But for me to state this obvious truth I will be pummeled. Because their is no bigot like a jew bigot. After all they don't consider themselves the "Chosen People" for nothing!; 7/18/10, 7:51 PM
Bender said...: Once again, the LAST bulwark protecting us from socialism is Christianity

It is clear that you know little of Jesus Christ. Your expressed bigotry here is the antithesis of Christianity and you profane His name by associating Christianity with your hate speech.; 7/18/10, 8:21 PM
Ah Pooh said...: Tidy Tidy Tidy -
You are so silly, where is the nuance, the clever and indirect methods to achieve something? Your esteemed ancestors must be spinning in their graves.; 7/18/10, 8:24 PM
Right is right! said...: Ah! It is easy to throw around political correct terms like ''hate speech.'' But Flexo do you deny that this country's foundation is built on Christianity? Answer that and then we will talk.; 7/18/10, 8:40 PM
GMay said...: Tidy, see if you can contact New Hussein Ham for some moby lessons. He's not a great one, but he's nowhere near as shitty at this moby thing than you.; 7/18/10, 8:56 PM
Right is right! said...: GMay answer the question-"do you deny that this country's foundation is built on Christianity?" Then we will talk about who the real moby is.; 7/18/10, 9:03 PM
John Bragg said...: Leaving aside the crazy and getting back to the post:
"My question is: Did Barack Obama tout himself as a post-racial President? Or did starry-eyed voters imagine that's what they'd get?"

Barack Obama did not tout himself as a post-racial president. But the Barack Obama movement did. The whole point of the Obama Presidency was those kids in South Carolina chanting "Race doesn't matter."

Obama himself nearly gave the game away by refusing to denounce Rev. Wright, but America's desire to have had a black president and prove we're not a racist country would not be thwarted.

Voters imagined it, largely because Obama's early support groups imagined it.; 7/18/10, 9:12 PM
Bender said...: But Flexo do you deny that this country's foundation is built on Christianity? Answer that and then we will talk.

I have no desire to talk to you so long as you persist in spouting bigotry, and I would thank you not to drag the Lord into it. Part of that Christianity you bring up is not spewing hate.

Apologize, with sincere contrition, for your anti-Semitic remarks, and then we will talk.; 7/18/10, 9:23 PM
traditionalguy said...: Tidy...Have you read the founding scriptures of Christianity? They say that Christianity is a religion of "The People" whose existence you are saying is a danger to you. They also say that Jesus is a Jew. You should also check out one of Jesus's final teachings in the passage from Matthew 25: 34 to 46 Jesus was speaking about his Jewish brothers since there was not a gentile in the room when he prophetically taught it. We non-Jews later got in on Christianity by believing in the resurrection. We were then added into the Jews' new Covenant by grace and the power contained in the blood of Jesus's death for all men on the cross.; 7/18/10, 9:45 PM
Right is right! said...: Sorry Flexo but I am not going to play your politically correct games. I am not a bigot, I just write the truth.; 7/18/10, 9:48 PM
Right is right! said...: Tradguy, the atheistic socialists (and yes they are overwhelmingly jews-that is a fact) who control the mainstream media and other intitutions in this country are the enemy. Do you deny this?; 7/18/10, 9:56 PM
Unknown said...: @Ann at 11:27 am

"I didn't say all white people, but I do think it was white people and not black people who believed such things. Do you have some examples of black people doing that? If so, I'm happy to acknowledge that some black people thought like that too. Bet you can't."

This is such an odd claim of yours that I find it difficult to believe you really can't remember that far back.

Shortly after the inauguration, Earnest Harris said, "is not here yet. But that doesn't mean that it's not on the way or that the inauguration of President Obama, and the multiracial coalition of people who helped him get to this day, are not signs that our nation is indeed moving on a path to that promised land. I do believe that we are undeniably closer to that ideal now than we have ever been in our country's history. And that is certainly worth celebrating."

and ..."I am indeed amazed at the number of people, in the media and that I know personally, who truly do expect America to be now and forever free of its ethnic, religious and racial differences. And this is not coming solely from White Americans who some might think are doing a bit of wishful thinking that minorities can now stop complaining about getting a fair shot. I have also come across some Black Americans who seem to believe that President Obama is going to make everything OK for everybody,"; 7/18/10, 10:06 PM
Unknown said...: then there was Ali Mazrui and Desmond Tutu.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702896.html

If they are not black enough for you... there's this by Irene Monroe "or a younger generation of African- Americans as well as whites, whose ballots help elect this country's first African-American president, celebrating Black History Month seems outdated.

"Obama is post-racial. And Black History Month is old school," Josh Dawson (26) of New Hampshire tells me."; 7/18/10, 10:26 PM
traditionalguy said...: Tidy...I deny that an atheist who opposes me makes all atheist people my enemy. I also deny that a Jew who opposes me makes all Jewish people my enemy. I also deny that a black person who opposes me makes all black people my enemy. Therefore I oppose your slandering of a People as an ethnic group over the difficulty you claim to have with a few members of that group. I also do not remember that that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, or Ho Chi Minh were Jews, but if they had been Jews, then I am not so stupid as to hate German, Russian,Chinese, Japanese, or Vietnamese peoples over it. The only thing Jews have done as a group is to offend people is to produce God's revelations through Prophets and His Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.; 7/18/10, 11:16 PM
GMay said...: Tidy, you are a moby, and a shitty one at that.

Do you deny this?; 7/18/10, 11:24 PM
Alex said...: It's funny this topic came up. I was thinking about it this week to myself and wondered if the liberals or Obama ever said that electing him would lead to a "post-racial America". Then I remember no such thing.; 7/18/10, 11:46 PM
Alex said...: Instead of a post-racial America, we've got Jesse Jackson type race hustler running the government. Cripes.; 7/18/10, 11:48 PM
SteveOrr said...: virgil xenephon nailed it. Shelby Steele (and in the spirit of bipartisanship, Trevor Phillips) warned us on this point. The left-wing blogosphere howled with disapproval, claiming that Steele said "Obama isn't black enough".

That was a flat-out cynical lie. But it didn't come from Obama, it came from his supporters. To tell the truth, I was impressed with Obama's discipline on this point & pointed it out to my wannabe post-racial friends. They predictably attacked me. But let's focus our anger where it belongs: the media enablers & young skulls full of mush.

The media embraced the post-racial narrative because they knew the Millenial rubes would eat it up. Reporters knew it was wrong, they didn't care. Same thing happened to Bush in '92 when the recession was clearly ending. The media pushed it as the next great depression & Gen-X flocked to Clinton.

Republicans needed a candidate who could hit back on the post-racial nonsense. Romney wasn't as big a pansy as McCain. Shoot, Romney called out the profiteering Kennedy family in MA. He lost, as he would have lost to Obama. Still, we'd be in a better place if we had openly discussed this during the election.; 7/19/10, 12:00 AM
Anonymous said...: I think that it *could* have been a redemptive event...had we elected a great leader who just happened to be black instead of the racist tool currently sitting in the White House (when he's not sucking up lobster on the taxpayers' dime along the Maine coast).; 7/19/10, 6:29 AM
Sissy Willis said...: As I wrote back in December of 2006 in my blogpost "Did Obama just call me a racist?":

“Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics,” Barack Obama told ecstatic New Hampshire voters yesterday. Being one of those voters who probably wouldn't vote for him because of his politics, we were naturally offended at his suggestion that people like us are racists. Swept up in the locals' devotional hysteria, however, the media didn't seem to notice. Folks hear what they want to hear.; 7/19/10, 6:53 AM
john marzan said...: john mcwhorter is one if the biggest culprits in spreading obama as the post racial president.

and now that it's proven false, he's using the race card to paint the tea party as racist.

he's become what he hated the most, a junior race baiting al sharpton.; 7/19/10, 7:15 AM
Joan of Argghh! said...: Years and decades of careful cultivation of "white guilt" is what worked its magic on the electorate. Not any one promise, statement or essay. It takes much more of a steady, concerted and coordinated effort between educators and the media to produce such a widespread angst amongst stupid people of mostly good will; to place them in a Catch-22 situation and sneer at them for their fecklessness.; 7/19/10, 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Not all of us shared this delusion and when we said it aloud we got the "look" as if we were somehow wrong on race.

I think in the Democratic party this was one of the Big Reasons why then Senator Obama won caucus'. Did you "really" want to be the white liberal to oppose the first credible black candidate for president?

Collective guilt is the religion of liberalism and the election of President Obama was the triumph of said guilt.; 7/19/10, 7:36 AM
Michael said...: I know in Illinois, there was a huge hunger for the non-crazy black politician-- the one who would not immediately collapse in scandal (Gus Savage, Mel Reynolds) or utter incompetence (Carol Moseley Braun) or be a race hustler (Jackson Sr.), but make us all feel like we were past the days of a small black coalition living on crumbs from the big white machine. Obama fulfilled that, so whether he did anything else (like actually pass legislation) scarcely mattered.

I've long thought that an Obama who actually cared about anything would be running for Mayor of Chicago this year, not in his second year as president. But "you go in the history books and I'll keep telling you and everybody else what do for me" was an irresistible offer from King Daley to this champion resume-padder-in-chief... and, apparently, much of the Democratic electorate.; 7/19/10, 7:44 AM
tom swift said...: In what sense is Obama "black"? He's a white guy with some colored trimmings. Except for the minor influence of his absentee dad, he's white. He's black enough to get the benefits of affirmative action, without having had to endure anything at all which would make him in any way "disadvantaged" - an ideal combination, if one is interested in coasting through life with the government pushing one uphill all the way. But it's not obvious how it makes him "black" in any meaningful sense. Perhaps it's just that people can think they're all avant garde and progressive for voting for the semi-black guy, without having to listen to somebody who sounds like Jesse Jackson for four years.

So far as votes are concerned, it really doesn't matter what Obama said about post-racialism (whatever that is). One of the few non-platitudes he tossed at us during the campaign was a relatively clear statement that he was not particularly interested in pushing the gay activist agenda (specifically gay marriage), but he seems to have gotten the gay activist vote anyway. Now, of course, he is bitterly denounced for his "treason" to a cause he never claimed to support. Similarly, I suspect that Obama could have given us blatant tan-Klan rants a la Rev Wright, and still would have raked in the votes.; 7/19/10, 8:19 AM
jamboree said...: It wasn't an unspoken delusion at all - it was very, very "spoken" among both the populace and the media elite especially those "of a certain age": the Chris Matthews, the Kathleen Parkers (she of the "This is for my Mammy" guilt complex.) These people were mirrored in my regular life as well. But part of the delusion was that you had to protest it wasn't actually there, or it was incomplete.

I would LOVE to see them take responsibility for their exaggerated thoughts (which they won't), but to say that means Obama is blameless is just symptomatic of the same illness of giving him a pass no matter what.

John McWhorter said something along the lines of how cool it was that Obama used the cadences of black preachers (which he had to assume btw, they didn't come naturally) to seduce whites into making him their master.

Anyone who had been to church recently, imo, was less likely to be so amazed by Barack's "rhetorical abilities" because we had heard it every Sunday; we knew the steps.

Kathleen Parker, among others, projected their own apparent "attractive woman manipulating older men struck dumb" qualities onto Palin and ripped her apart for it, yet it was Barack who was far more conscious and knowing in his manipulations of people's desires and projections. He stated his awareness of this in his book, and he knowingly leveraged it. Of course he can be held accountable.; 7/19/10, 8:20 AM
John said...: That is exactly what happened. And a lot of people on the right, myself included, said it was going to end in disaster. When said ss soon as Obama got elected every criticism of him would be attributed to the racism of the speaker and the country would be more racially divided than it was before. And the HD Houses and Morty Montaigns of the world got up and said "stop arguing with the liberals in your head".

And of course they were lying like they always are. It is amazing to me how polite the opposition to Obama has actually been considering the tough times and his absolute detachment and contempt for most of the country. If liberals don't tone back their contempt (fat chance) and their charges of racism about everything, people are going to get tired of it and things are going to get ugly. We really will have a movement in this country that is as violent and racist as they think the Tea Party is.; 7/19/10, 8:22 AM
GMay said...: "Shelby Steele (and in the spirit of bipartisanship, Trevor Phillips) warned us on this point. The left-wing blogosphere howled with disapproval, claiming that Steele said "Obama isn't black enough".

They just didn't phrase it in the form of a question.; 7/19/10, 10:03 AM
Synova said...: "That sounds good, Synova, and I'm going to use it next time I hear that complaining about intolerance is intolerance."

Beth,

Complaining about intolerance isn't intolerance, but am I entirely mistaken in thinking that "I'm only intolerant of intolerance" and like things are often outright said by people?

Of course a person can't tolerate intolerance if what they mean by tolerance is approval. Certainly a person couldn't approve of intolerance.

Maybe what tolerance actually means is leaving people alone even if you don't like them very much.

But if that is viewed as intolerance then those who don't tolerate it are actually being particularly pushing and refusing to leave people they disagree with alone.; 7/19/10, 10:17 AM
Hawes said...: Shelby Steele gets the award for prescience:

http://thecheckup.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/shelby-steele-obama-is-a-bargainer/; 7/19/10, 10:51 AM
Nate Whilk said...: I agree with kate 7/18/10 10:44 AM. And that's how The Economist took it.

The earliest use of "post-racial" in connection with Obama that I found with Proquest is an Aug. 14, 2004 unsigned editorial in The Economist about his Senate run -- "United States: The politics of tokenism; Lexington;"
The Economist. London: Aug 14, 2004. Vol. 372, Iss. 8388; pg. 38

THREE weeks ago in Boston, the Democrats witnessed the birth of a new black star in Barack Obama, their candidate for the open Senate seat in Illinois...

The Republicans' fatal mistake [in running Alan Keyes] was to think that the best way to counter a black man was with another black man. The point about Mr Obama--as the Republicans might have realised if they had paid greater attention to his speech in Boston--is that he is a post-racial candidate. Mr Obama is the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas who was brought up by his white mother and grandparents in Hawaii and South-East Asia. He appeals just as strongly to white suburban voters as he does to blacks.; 7/19/10, 2:14 PM
a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...: Look at Barack's victory speech after the Iowa primary. It seemed to me that 'we' had put aside racial division in choosing him.; 7/19/10, 3:44 PM
sabrinasabrina said...: What has been revealed since President Obama's election, inspired the creation of following song, "Stand" to hear, click on or visit URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFmhEJB1_QA; 9/8/10, 2:47 AM