March 18, 2008, - 11:22 am

The Audacity of a Black Man Exposing Obama

By Debbie Schlussel
When we criticize and expose Barack Hussein Obama, we’re called “racists.” But when a Black intellectual does it, he’s probably called an “Uncle Tom.”
Regardless, in today’s Wall Street Journal, the great American thinker, Shelby Steele (who happens to be Black), has the guts to say what others will not. Here is part of it, but you must read the whole thing, which is solid gold. He writes of “bargainers” (Obama) versus “challengers” (Jackson and Sharpton):

Race helps Mr. Obama in another way — it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America’s tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. . . .

shelbysteele.jpgbarackobama.jpg

Shelby Steele Calls Out B Hussein O

Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans — black and white — Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America’s very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.
And yet, in the end, Barack Obama’s candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton’s or Jesse Jackson’s. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama’s run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were “challengers,” not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.
But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don’t know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey [DS: Here, I beg to differ with Mr. Steele, as we are well aware of Ms. Winfrey's uber-left-wing politics, even if they are couches in a colorful glossy magazine and an insipid daytime talk show.], bargainers all.) . . . .
Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama’s political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday — for 20 years — in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage (“G-d damn America”).
How does one “transcend” race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?
What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn’t thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn’t this hatred more rhetorical than real?
But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one’s blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America’s television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.
No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity.

Amen, Brother!

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

35 Responses

You mean I’m only going to vote for Obama because I’ve been manipulated?
I thought it was his level-headedness, his cool persona while others are in hysterics, his enabling of the Earned Income Tax Credit for Illinois, his work on behalf of the Wounded Warrior Project at Walter Reade Hospital, his plan for universal health care, his quest to bring the troops home in a careful and responsible manner, his college tax credit for students willing to give back, his rollback of tax breaks for the wealthy, the way in which he’s conducted the most amazing campaign of my lifetime and derailed the Clinton machine, and finally, the way he’s inspired thousands upon thousands to get involved with the political system who never have before. More democrats have voted in the 2008 primaries than in 2000 and 2004 combined.
Nah, no substance there. Just an empty suit who manipulates.
Please.
http://www.republicansforobama.org

Audacious on March 18, 2008 at 11:45 am

If a white candidate associated with a known racist, that would be the end of his political career. Yet for all the reasons (and perhaps more) that Shelby Steele writes, Americans are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt about Wright. They want and need to believe even when he is fallen there is the possibility of human redemption – and progress in spite of all the obstacles, to a more perfect American union. That’s why Obama’s candidacy is a recapitulation of a myth. His candidacy may have no real substance behind it but myths speak to deeper needs within us and that’s why he remains a potent candidate even without the Wright issue in the news.
At the same time, its true a white candidate who is demagogic as Obama wouldn’t go anywhere. Thus, if there is a double standard in America – its not one necessarily to Obama’s detriment. On the contrary, its probably been to his advantage. That’s why people give him, on account of his race and skin color, a pass they wouldn’t give to a white person.

NormanF on March 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm

You can see exactly what I said earlier has already started. The Liberal mainstream, Obama-loving media is breathing a fake “sigh of relief” and is preparing to drop this issue like a hot potato.
Totally predictable.

cankelz on March 18, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Both Obama and Hillary fail my Gun Litmus Test as they are both rabidly anti firearms ownership.
I cannot trust a government that doesn’t trust me to own a gun…..

Shootist on March 18, 2008 at 12:31 pm

It’s amusing you post this instead of the Obama speech today which directly refutes almost all of his points.

stormhit on March 18, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I read Obama’s speech this morning, and while it covered all the points of concern very eloquently, it solves nothing — our top candidates for Prez will say anything to prevail, including Obama – his speech is a big SO WHAT as far as I am concerned. Look at the man’s/woman’s actions and votes and you will see their soul.
I also read Cindy Sheehan’s little ditty this morning, and even though Obama’s mother isn’t here to state her opinions, methinks Obama’s mama would agree with Cindy and would have been very comfortable sitting in Rev.Wright’s church saying, “Right On, Brother!” Obama started his learning at mommy’s knee about Leftist thinking, socialist utopia perfection, and the evil White man. The proof is in the puddin’…

Sioux on March 18, 2008 at 12:58 pm

must see a debate between Shelby Steele, and Barak ObamA

ploome on March 18, 2008 at 1:08 pm

(We don’t know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey)
Michael Jordan is a well known Dem, who in 2000 supported Bill Bradley’s candidacy. Oprah’s politics are also well known. The only one whose politics are still largely unknown is Tiger Woods, unless one interprets his refusal to be manipulated by Bill Clinton during a celebration of Jackie Robinson’s commemoration as his being a closet Republican. Although I suspect on the basis of his approach to life and as described by Rush Limbaugh that he is probably more pro-GOP than pro-Dem.
But I just wish the GOP had an Obama like candidate with a political manifesto comprized of of Romney’s economics, Tancredo’s immigration and multiculturalism and Islam and Giuliani’s security policy. Had there been such a candidate, we’d be fully savoring the ‘Rush the vote’ operation in the Dem primary, instead of having to groan over having to support a Marxist-Leninist at the top of the GOP ticket.
Maybe 2012, we’ll have one in Jindal or Palin.

Infidel Pride on March 18, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Sioux said: “methinks Obama’s mama would agree with Cindy and would have been very comfortable sitting in Rev.Wright’s church saying, “Right On, Brother!” Obama started his learning at mommy’s knee about Leftist thinking, socialist utopia perfection, and the evil White man”
That’s an odd characterization of Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, a white woman who fancied herself an atheist yet kept a bible, Qu’ran and books of other denominations in the household. You really picture her as a church-going, white-hater? I don’t see what you would base that on.
Obama’s speech this morning confirms for me that he is the best candidate for President. Give me a leader with this kind of intelligence, eloquence, candor, an inspiration. Give me a President I can look up to with pride and reaffirm my faith in America and the human spirit.
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage

Audacious on March 18, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Audacious- Here’s an article that will reaffirm your faith in America and the human spirit
“Allah Akbar- Mohammad is his prophet – is One of the prettiest sounds on Earth”–The call to Muslim prayer, that BO said is one the prettiest sounds on Earth he has ever heard.
http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/2008/03/hussein-obama-update-allah-akb.html

wolf2012 on March 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm

“Give me a President I can look up to with pride and reaffirm my faith in America and the human spirit.”
Teddy Roosevelt? JFK? Jefferson? Lincoln? Reagan? Washington?
Oh yeah, never saw Obamaduke at WRAMC while I was an inpatient there. Hmm.
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org

Nuggler on March 18, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Yes, wolf, Obama speaks quite respectfully of the Islamic faith, as do I. I’ve posted here in the past about the two Muslim doctors who operated on my elbow and my hand and saved my left arm. I’m not about to denounce the entire religion due to the minority who’ve hijacked the faith to devious ends.

Audacious on March 18, 2008 at 2:15 pm

But, the bottom line, the cut-to-the-chase question, is “what’s in his heart, what direction does he want to take our beloved America and us?”. All I hear in his or Hillary’s words is socialism and retreatism and blame the rich. Sounds simply like the latest Olympic sport: Horse Hockey. It is, and always has been, a battle of philosophies. Democrat vs. Republican. Socialism, the gov’t is the answer, vs. Individualism and personal responsibility/possibility and small gov’t. That will not change.

Floyd R. Turbo on March 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm

You need to do more homework on Obama’s mama, Infidel Pride. No, I don’t think she would have been interested in going to church. Neither was Barak until he saw what went on at Rev. Wright’s church. I used to be sucked in by smooth talking, too, but no longer. If you agree with Obama’s leftist, utopian, anti-sovereignty, pro-abortion/euthanasia, voting record (the highest liberal rating in the Senate – higher than even Kerry, Kennedy, and HRC), then by all means vote for him. But first – Look behind the curtain to see who is pulling (and financing) BHO’s strings.

Sioux on March 18, 2008 at 3:13 pm

“But first – Look behind the curtain to see who is pulling (and financing) BHO’s strings.”
The financing, Sioux, may be the most remarkable story of all. $36 million in January, then $55 million in February, the bulk of it from his website. More than 90 percent of the donations were under $100, and more than half were under $25.
Pretty incredible.

Audacious on March 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Even more incredible is that you can donate to his campaign via his website from all over the world without having to provide documentation that you are even an American Citizen! (Where’s the Senate oversite committe when you need them)woo hoo, They have repositories for campaign contributions in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and all over Africa, wow, there must be millions of Americans living in Iran and Syria, and Kenya.
His half sister has been campaigning for Barack in Kenya for two years now, along with their cousin Odinga, African -non-Americans donating money to Barack— can anyone say ethics violation there anyone.
Oh and lest us not forget, the UTube video being played by Trinity’s new pastor Ottis Moss has a link attached to it for people to donate money for Barack. Can we all say Seperation of Church and State, or how about tax exempt status for a non profit organization–the IRS is currently looking into the United Church of “Christ” tax exempt status for that very reason.

wolf2012 on March 18, 2008 at 3:49 pm

What’s the law here, wolf? Does one need to be an American citizen to donate to an American campaign?
The Obama website does ask for address and your place of business. Is the Obama campaign in violation of any campaign finance laws that you know of?

Audacious on March 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm

I think that what is scarier than Obama himself, or Hillary, or the rest of them, is the massive dumbing down of the American people, which makes campaigns like Obama’s possible. No looking at content whatsoever. It seems like today, everyone under 35, and, unfortunately, some people over 35, punctuate every other word in their speech with the word “like”. They also seem to begin every sentence with the words “yeah, no”, or “no yeah”. I guess it’s kind of a substitute for the word “well” (adv.)
There’s nothing wrong with emotion in politics as long as it is based on some type of rational thought, but the ‘issues’ in this campaign are so imbecilic that I’m having trouble even paying attention to them, while the real problems are ignored by all or most of the candidates.
This isn’t very original, but I think the most depressing aspect of all of this is that people can no longer make distinctions. Wright is like Hagee; Ferraro is like Wright, etc. etc. While it is fortunate that not everyone believes this tripe, enough people believe it to really scare me. We’ve lost the ability to think.

c f on March 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Yes they most certainly are, excepting money from foreign nationals to help decide American soverign politics is against federal law.

wolf2012 on March 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm

wolf:”Yes they most certainly are, excepting money from foreign nationals to help decide American soverign politics is against federal law”
Well you can rest easy, wolf. The Obama campaign only accepted $86 million in the past two months after contributors agreed to these conditions:
Legal Compliance
Check this box to confirm that the following statements are true and accurate:
I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident.
I am at least 16 years old.
This contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organization or national bank.
This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee.
This contribution is not made from the treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor.
This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.
The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
Ya gotta admit, Wolf, that Obama has run a helluva campaign.

Audacious on March 18, 2008 at 4:55 pm

c f “the ‘issues’ in this campaign are so imbecilic that I’m having trouble even paying attention to them, while the real problems are ignored by all or most of the candidates.”
They’ve addressed the war, the economy, universal health care, veterans benefits, racism, college education.
What are the real problems, c f?

Audacious on March 18, 2008 at 5:02 pm

A campaign of LIES, yes they should be so proud!!!

wolf2012 on March 18, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Audacious, I’ll confine my comments to your lack of simple understanding of grade-school math. The comment that 90% of his contributions are under $100 meaningless without knowing how many contributions there are. Theoretically there could be 10 contributions, 9 of them totalling $900 & the tenth one for millions of dollars. If there are 10,000 contributions, 90% would total $900,000, and the remaining 1,000 would total they would total $1,000,000 and the remaining 1,000 would total about $90,000,000, or almost $100,000 each, so without knowing the contribution base, what is this telling us, assuming all contributions are recorded, and the statistics are even accurate?
Among the meaning issues are the platitudes about health care, education, increasing the ‘right to privacy’, and, it’s ironic that you should mention Illinois. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago metropolitan area has the highest local tax rate in the country, thanks to Hussein Obama’s supporters who are soaking the unfortunate residents of that area. Poeple who are functionally illiterate because they are lazy complaining about a lack of education, people who are obese because of their own gluttony complaining about allegedly poor health care.

c f on March 18, 2008 at 7:11 pm

I forgot what may be the most imbecilic issue of all: gobal warming.

c f on March 18, 2008 at 7:26 pm

c f: “I’ll confine my comments to your lack of simple understanding of grade-school math. The comment that 90% of his contributions are under $100 meaningless without knowing how many contributions there are.”
Boy, that’s nasty c f. My complete sentence was: More than 90 percent of the donations were under $100, and more than half were under $25. Your examples don’t follow that initial equation. And if it makes you feel better, the number of contributors was 727,972.
c f: “it’s ironic that you should mention Illinois”
I didn’t mention Illinois.

Audacious on March 18, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Audacious, this speaks VOLUMES to your nothing illegal diatribe.
“The funds I am donating are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.”
Does the name TONY RESZCO ring any bells! Indicted, on trial as we speak for not only this exact thing, but other federal corruption and money laundering charges.(hmmm, no surprise tony’s a syrian Muslim, as most of obama’s close personal friends, associates, and members of his campaign team are not syrian, just Muslim)
He and his Obama cohorts donated $250,000.00, thats two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to B. Hussein’s various campaigns. Of course when asked obama initially said it was only $50,000, then that number went up to $150,000.00 now in the last week, he’s admitted to it being upwards and possibly beyond that amount of $250,000.00…I wonder why he keeps changing his story, OH YEAH, because the trial that is currently going on is uncovering these nasty little bothersome facts that obama keeps trying to shuffle under the carpet. He spends all of his time backtracking, and covering with new lies to cover up last weeks lies. He’s actually becomming just to commical.

wolf2012 on March 18, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Audacious, please read your first post in this thread, where you referred to Sen. Hussein’s Earned Income Tax Credit for Illinois.

c f on March 19, 2008 at 1:44 am

Wolf, Obama has raised millions of dollars over the years from hundreds of thousands of contributors. To vet each and every contribution to see what connection it had with Rezko can only be a long, arduous process.
Obama has not denied any association with Rezko, nor the fact that he accepted donations. Obama has revised the amount as the information has become available.

Audacious on March 19, 2008 at 7:35 am

Wrong Audacious !
Obam-ination has revised the amounts as the information has been E-X-P-O-S-E-D !!!

billybob on March 19, 2008 at 9:09 am

Exactly right billybob-EXPOSED!
“Obama has not denied any association with Rezko”
He actually played down his involvement with Rezko, first he acknowledged that they had a cursory relationship, He was aquainted with him, but they were not friends.
Then when it was EXPOSED that the two met while at Harvard, then his relationship turned into a business working relationship, nothing more
Then after his house deal with the man came to light, then it was “It was a mistake to get into a business transaction with him-but I wasn’t aware of any nefarious activity concerning Resko–All the while he was excepting money fomt his man through his various buisness dealings in campaign contributions.
Then it was EXPOSED that Resko was under federal lawsuits from several banks for three years prior to the house transaction, and that federal charges were on the way indicting Resko for various forms of fraud.
Then B. Hussein O. finally admitted to knowing all about his friends problems with the government. HIS CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND for the past 15 years- mind you.
He only admits what has been uncovered at the time, then continues to lie about the exact nature of his relationship until more evidence comes to light.
HE CONTINUES TO DENY

wolf2012 on March 19, 2008 at 10:05 am

From Friday’s Wall Street Journal:
“Obama Discloses Rezko Contributions
Nick Timiraos reports on the presidential race.
Antoin Rezko, a former Obama fundraiser who is on trial facing extortion charges, helped raise up to $250,000 for the Illinois senatorís past political campaigns, nearly $90,000 more than the Obama campaign previously acknowledged.
Sen. Barack Obama made the disclosures in interviews with two Chicago newspapers on Friday. The campaign said that the previous figure ó of up to $160,000 in contributions raised or contributed by Rezko ó represented the total for just his 2004 successful bid for the U.S. Senate, and that Rezko had helped raise between $60,000 and $90,000 for his state senate contests and his unsuccessful congressional campaign in 2000.
In the past, Obama has donated to charity all contributions linked to Rezko.”
With the amount of money that Obama has raised, I wouldn’t be surprised if the figure is revised again, higher than $250,000.

Audacious on March 19, 2008 at 10:10 am

This piece from the Chicago Tribune on Sunday puts the Obama-Rezko relationship in proper perspective:
We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we’ve been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 — shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama’s house purchase — that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him — and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.
Friday’s session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama’s critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn’t happened.
Obama said Friday that voters who don’t know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, “see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing … and who they can trust.” Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.
Obama tries to live by “high ethical standards,” he said. Although “that doesn’t excuse the mistake I made here.”
Obama should have had Friday’s discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn’t, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it’s like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information — too eager to “control the narrative.”
Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.”

Audacious on March 19, 2008 at 10:16 am

Thank you Winjammer,
“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.” — Barack Obama
enough said.

wolf2012 on March 19, 2008 at 11:50 am

@Audacious:
From your 1st post above you spoke as satire–
“Nah,no substance there.Just an empty suit who manipulates.”
ACTUALLY,it is insight grounded in fact & truthful.
It’s unfortunate that you fail to recognize it as so because you’ve been o.d.-ing on his koolaid willingly.
It is 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.Sooo,tell me,did yesterdays Philadelphia speech–a theatrical masterpiece of deception–cause you to drink 3 or 4 more doses ???
I’ll be blunt…you’ve been “enabled” pal,stop drinking the poison before it’s to late !

billybob on March 19, 2008 at 12:01 pm

“… (the highest liberal rating in the Senate – higher than even Kerry, Kennedy, and HRC), then by all means vote for him.”
That’s not true. as Political Compass pointed out, Obama’s voting record is one of a moderate conservative. (As indeed is Hilary’s.)

No Pasaran! on March 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field