Posted on 01/07/2008 10:15:44 AM PST by Lorianne
There's something pathetic and embarrassing about our obsession with Barack Obama's race ___
To put it squarely and bluntly, is it because he is or is it because he isn't? To phrase it another way, is it because of what he says or what he doesn't say? Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is the current beneficiary of a tsunami of drool. He sometimes claims credit on behalf of all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, blah blah blah, though his recent speeches appear also to claim a victory for blackness while his supporters—most especially the white ones—sob happily that at last we can have an African-American chief executive. Off to the side, snarling with barely concealed rage, are the Clinton machine-minders, who, having failed to ignite the same kind of identity excitement with an aging and resentful female, are perhaps wishing that they had made more of her errant husband having already been "our first black president."
Or perhaps not. Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be "black," anyway? Is it for this that we fought so hard to get over Plessy v. Ferguson? Would we accept, if Obama's mother had also been Jewish, that he would therefore be the first Jewish president? The more that people claim Obama's mere identity to be a "breakthrough," the more they demonstrate that they have failed to emancipate themselves from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
On the far left they're all agog that Obama did so well in WHITE Iowa.
The fact that Obama is so popular among whites, is shattering their pre-determined notions of genetic racism among whites. They can't sit or stand they're so confused ... why don't their stereotypes stand up, dammit!
Hear about Obama beefing up his security simply because he is BLACK? It’t true. He’s another racist preying on “white guilt” and blacks that hate whites.
All these commentaries miss the mark by a wide margin.
B. Hussein Obama is the creation of a generation of people who believe multiculturalism is the highest ideal, as taught us in school and by our “masters” the ruling elite, and Islam is a “religion of peace”.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The chickens are coming home to roost.
And to all you who believe YOUR public school isn’t harming the thought processes of your children, the proof is here.
Being Jewish is religious, not a race.
The article I saw that mentioned a google search on Obama’s name for “assassination chatter” said it returned nearly 2,000 hits. The same search of Bush turns up 23,900 hits today.
It wasn’t racism that caused the terrorists to set of bombs in Spain to alter their election. It wasn’t racism in Pakistan either.
This is great isn’t it? How can Obama not get the white vote in Iowa since the pop. is 95% white? The democratic process is at work rejecting the power hungry collectivist Clintonistas for the “Rock Star” Obama. Just put a little dust in your hand and blow.....so long Hillary!!!!!
To my religiously observant Jewish friends, at least those who did not convert to Judaism, it is both. And for them, the answer to Hitchins’ question is, “yes.”
Yeah, but they could have gone for Edwards and Clinton first, then Richardson and Obama last ... if the WHITES were following their genetic racist natures (in the opinion of the liberal left nutwhacks)
Not to Jews. It’s both.
Slash of Guns & Roses is also the offspring of a black parent and a white parent but it was never mentioned as a factor in his success.
There are few others who would have had the courage to write something like this. White racism has been dead as a major factory in our society for a generation, it good to see it.
LOL. Now isn't that the most apt of all descriptions of a Democrat campaign you've ever heard? Go Hitchens.
Hmm, lol! Looks like the Iowa results really did a number on Hitchens. He seems very unhappy here in religious America. He might think whether his unhappiness is really the fault of everyone else, or if perhaps his own arrogance isn’t the real fuel.
I would think he is only popular with a portion of whites. Liberals or those who believe the bs put in front them in written format or tv.
My point was, I can choose to be Jewish, I cannot choose my race.
Hitchens revels in taking on “sacred” targets for derision. There’s Mother Theresa, for one. Now I see this in the linked article:
“The sickly canonization of Martin Luther King Jr. has led to a crude rewriting of history that obliterates the great black and white secularists—Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, Walter Reuther—who actually organized the March on Washington. It has also allowed a free pass to any demagogue who can manage to get the word reverend in front of his name.”
Martin Luther King — a demagogue?
I think, here, Hitchins was referring to the well-known, contemporary race hustlers who have “... managed to get the word reverend tacked on in front of [their] name[s].”
thanks, bfl
It’s a tribe.
It must be so chic to drive around in a Toyota Prius with an Obama ‘08 sticker and an educator’s license plate as one pulls into a Starbucks.
btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.