The Reverend Wright's Sabotage

If Obama could not "stand up to" his hateful, racist pastor, how can we expect him to behave against international evil men, like Iran's leader. I fear another Jimmiy Carter-Never met a Thug he didn't Hug!

of GA 1:19PM April 27, 2008

I disagree with the sabotage meme, but I think Obama's in a quagmire with Wright.

Obama's spin is that poor whites and blacks are oppressed by rich white people and the government institutions that constitute America's civic establishment.

He positions himself as the "healer" and "uniter" who can reconcile America's partisan and racial divides, yet masks his views of America in sweeping exhortations for "change". Obama's 20 year mentor is a fountain of hate speech against whites who promotes disunity in our country. His wife isn't very proud of our country either, unless you spin her plain language.

Nowhere in Obama's speeches is there an admonition to "change" anti-social behavior by the black underclass that has been destroying our cities for two generations...rampant violent crime, family dysfunction, unparented children socialized by street gangs, destructive hip-hop themes.

This socially destructive behavior is blamed by Obama and Wright on the "white establishment", absolving blacks who support, aid, and abet it of any responsibility.

Americans of goodwill, which form the vast majority of all races, honor King's guidance to judge people by the content of their character. Obama's one-sided notion of black victimization and black freedom from responsibility has been challenged by braver black leaders, including Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, and Thomas Sowell. Were Obama serious about being a uniter, the breakdown of social order in black communities over the past 50 years would justify as prominent a lament in his speeches as his recitation of black repression that occurred from 50 to 150 years ago. Underclass destructiveness is the elephant in the room impairing America's race relations. It's so politically explosive, it can't ever be discussed...anywhere in a public forum. Anyone who raises the subject will be eternally castigated as racist.

To their credit since WWII, America's burgeoning black middle class has risen from the underclass, by classic personal discipline, hard work, delayed gratification, and constructive behavior. But Obama neither speaks eloquently of those hard-earned advancements nor seeks to lead any "change" in that positive direction within the underclass.

The post-racial and post-partisan unity America so desperately wants requires leaders who will urge ALL Americans, whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans, anti-war demonstrators and national defense advocates, establishment figures and progressive activists, to adopt socially cooperative behavior, and to eschew socially divisive themes. Real national unity can only be based on mutual compromise, a theme you never hear from Obama. Blaming America's disunity only on the establishment, Republicans, and whites without equal emphasis on underclass blacks, partisan Democrats, and progressive activists will perpetuate the current disunity. That isn't what America wants, but that's what Obama's leadership portends.

Obama doesn't project the balance, the leadership, or the courage, to move beyond black victimization themes and progressive rhetoric toward a balanced national reconciliation. Instead, his eloquent vision strives to attract Democrats, Independents, and disaffected Republicans to his vague agenda of "change". In this regard, Obama is as political as he is eloquent. But, he is proposing to lead half the country to an overwhelming political victory in order to disengage the other half from its influence on national policy. He never discusses compromise on national policy and has sought none as a US Senator. His appeal is inherently divisive, not unifying. Without even-handed policy balance, the defeated half will be angry and reactive, and no more cooperative than during the past 20 years. Because Obama's acting as a divider, I believe can't be a leader of all Americans, and is thus unelectable.

Robustus of IL 6:11PM March 24, 2008

I doubt that Wright would intentionally sabotage Obama. I'm sure Wright would be thrilled to death if he wins. But if Obama does lose, it will certainly be used to validate Wright's opinion that racist America won't elect a black and Wright ( and a lot of other blacks) will be vociferous with that point.

The sad truth is America WILL elect a black man (or woman), but only if they appear to not be harboring a grudge and reverse-racist attitudes about whites. Obama WAS that man; until his association with Wright became better known. Now it's questionable if Obama can regain the trust of whites who, a few weeks ago, were actually thrilled at the prospect of having a black they could support.

Tom Hinkle of 3:04PM March 24, 2008

The suggestion that Rev. Wright would use Sen. Obama as the "sacrificial lamb" in some twisted attempt to prove that America still has unresolved issues with regard to race (especially where the descendants of this country's African slaves are concerned) is more than just far fetched -- it is "foolish"! Let's consider a few events from '07 - for instance Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" comment and the souvenir lynch knots awarded to both a black professor and a higher-up within New York's police department. Sure, these are only two instances -- but they are two among many. That said - I don't believe that such drastic steps would be necessary to prove something as obvious as America's shortcomings with regard to race.

Valerie K. of NY 11:18AM March 24, 2008