Slowbama makes a special pleading (Added note)

Can someone please explain to me why so many people consider Barack...(pause)...Obama to be a gifted orator? At least Shatner knows how to machine gun his words between those weird, misplaced moments of silence. Sure, Slowbama speaks more effectively than W does -- but that's like saying he's thinner than Harry Knowles and more sober than Britney Spears.

Once I adjusted to the Tarkovsky-esque rhythm of the thing, Obama's speech seemed impressive -- until he came to this part:

We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

In the U.K., where libel laws are tougher, writers have perfected the art of denying a claim in order to get it on the record: "We can safely dismiss the rumors that Lord Slimey pilfered company funds and raped his neighbor's cat." I would have preferred an honest, straightforward attack on Ferraro. Keith Olbermann's diatribe was inane and hyperbolic, but at least he did not rely on stealth.

It gets worse:

For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

The boldfaced sentence plays to The Myth that Hillary used racism to steal votes from Obama. But Obama sends a confusing message: He places his Mythology within a paragraph about black anger, not white bigotry. Taken at face value, the text seems to refer to African American politicians who have ginned up votes within the black community. If that reading is correct, a specific example or two might help: Which black pols have done this? If no examples come to mind, we may presume that Obama chose these words in order to push the Hillary Myth in a subtle fashion.

At least this time he isn't leaving that job to surrogates.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

Here is the point where off I get pissed. The phrasing conjures up an image of Susan Atkins telling a jury that "There was a confrontation, violence broke out, we're still not sure how it all started..."

Obama's camp has been playing the race card since December, making fake "racist" accusations against the Clintons. The Obamites did so in order to win the black vote -- the majority of which she possessed, and without which Obama could not win.

Obama should have apologized for the slime-ball tactics of his campaign -- which, I would remind you, still employs Jesse Jackson Jr.:

Jackson, once again playing the role of the Obama campaign's "race man" enforcer, posed a leading question: "Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?" Black congressmen were threatened to fall or line or face primary challenges. "So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position," Jackson said.

Obama "the uniter" should have taken this opportunity to denounce the toxic lies told by his supporters. Over on Huffington Post (an allegedly left-wing publication -- I say "allegedly" because I have long suspected that Arianna is one Greek who would never reverse her position), an article about the Clinton campaign caused one reader to shout: "Vince Foster! Vince Foster! Vince Foster!" Such sentiments are not rare; they find expression every minute of every day on the pro-Obama blogs.

The "left" journals would cease repeating Scaifeshit if the Savior From Illinois denounced the practice. Do not hold your breath waiting for the Savior to speak.

As for Obama on Wright...

In my blogging career, few developments have amused me more than the sight of progressive bloggers insisting that they would never judge a candidate by his pastor. Come off it.

If a member of Jerry Falwell's church became a frontrunner for president, Blogostan Left would scream like a pack of howler monkeys. Hundreds of articles would resurrect every bigoted, bizarre pronouncement ever made by the savant of the Donald Duck Baptist Church. At least a few of those articles would bear my byline.

I'm old enough to recall how appalled lefties became (and properly so) when Reagan conferred with "End Times" preachers of the Hal Lindsey variety. No member of a racist "Identity" church will ever get near a nomination, and no speech by such a candidate -- however carefully worded -- would erase his history of attendance.

Remember the gloriously goofy work of Pastor Gene Scott, the televangelist who espoused weird theories about the Great Pyramid? Be honest: How would the pundits (right or left) react if any follower of loopy ol' Doc Scott became the leader of a major party? The media hallways would echo with shrieks and cackles, even though the Guru of Glendale was merely a harmless eccentric.

When Pat Robertson -- who had no chance of success -- ran for president in 1988, his critics had great fun poring through every jot and tittle of his nuttier religious pronouncements. Wags started to have similar fun with Huckabee until McCain sewed up the nomination.

Notice how Josh Marshall doesn't talk about the McCain/Hagee connection any more? As Hatlo used to say: "That's diffo!"

Progressives want to live in a convenient world in which others may not speak as they do.

Long-time readers may recall my argument that Democrats should have clobbered the Republicans for choosing Tim LaHaye to give the opening prayer at the 1984 Republican National Convention. At the time, LaHaye openly referred to the Pope as the Antichrist, and Reagan needed the Catholic vote. (LaHaye is more circumspect nowadays.)

Speaking of Catholics: Will they be pleased by the Obama spokesman who equated Catholicism with Wright's "God Damn America" pronouncement? (See earlier video embed.) Of course, anti-Catholicism -- like anti-Clintonism -- is, in our society, the socially-sanctioned alternative to race hatred.

Obama has denied attendance at the "God damn America" speech, but he should have known about it. Wright sells the video. Wright would not offer such wares if they expressed sentiments outside his usual message.

Obama's defenders must understand: You can go for the "crazy old uncle" argument, or you can go for the "cherry-picked quotation" defense, or you can go for the "Wright was right" line. But you can't have it all three ways. You must choose one mode of attack and discard the other two.

The video evidence gives the lie to any argument that ABC News "cherry picked" uncharacteristic moments from the Wright canon. Look at the response from the congregants; the story is there. Did they gasp with shock? Or did they react with glee and approval? Wright knew that his words would be accepted because he knew his crowd -- and for twenty years, Barack Obama was in that crowd.

Indeed, Wright's congregants -- showing commendable honesty -- did not argue that Wright's "God Damn America" remark was uncharacteristic.

Flooded with a tide of criticism, Trinity declines to condemn Wright's remarks, instead casting them as consistent with the traditions of the black church.

There goes the "crazy old uncle" argument. There goes the "cherry-picked quotation" argument. All you have left is the "Wright is right" argument -- and I'll be overjoyed to see the Obamafolk try to run on that.

Rolling Stone exposed some of Wright's more questionable spews nearly a year ago, yet Obama chose to denounce those sentiments only when the controversy hit television. Listen close and you can hear Clark Gable saying his famous line: "You remind me of the thief who is not at all sorry he stole, but is very sorry he got caught."

I prefer the forthright words of Reverend John Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, to Obama's casuistry.

Pastor Wright's judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?

Do I counsel polite prayers or gentle admonitions? Hell no. I prefer passionate argumentation founded on examples and evidence. And I would be very interested to hear examples and evidence proving the claim that Bill Clinton did to the black community "what he did to Monica."

No doubt, many lefties will rise to that challenge. Lefties have also claimed that FDR was a tool of the rich, that JFK coddled da Mob, and that Hillary killed Vince Foster! Vince Foster! Vince Foster! The predictability of a progressive is axiomatic.

Although one must be suspicious when a rag like American Spectator quotes an anonymous source, I would like to know if a former Obama adviser really did say these words:

"The things the Clinton campaign have attacked us on are the things we were prepared for," says the former adviser. "Trinity, his close financial and ideological relationship to former SDS members, we knew it all going into this, and they haven't disappointed.

If this quotation is accurate, then the Obama campaign actually seems to be under the impression that Hillary Clinton, all-powerful Queen of Evil, dictates which stories run on Fox News. Ah yes. That explains why Fox always gives the Clintons such positive coverage.

Incredibly, some contributors to Daily Kos and Democratic Underground have expressed that very view. What more evidence do we need that the progressives and the Obamabots have lost contact with reality?

I'll have more to say about Wright and his theology soon, but that should suffice for now.

Added note: My readers have resorted to the usual tactics employed by people with losing arguments. They have heaved mindless insult in my direction, and they have tried to change the subject. Anyone out there want to try to address the actual points made above? Anyone want to show up flaws in my reasoning?

Stop being cowards. I'm not going to allow you to play the switch-the-topic game anymore.