(UPDATED and pushed to the top because of a response I gave to Michael’s counterpost.)
Why is Michael van der Galien buying into Taylor Marsh’s dissection of a video where Obama uses some lingo made famous by Malcolm X?
First, here’s the video…
Then, Marsh’s question after the video…
But why isnâ€™t Barack Obamaâ€™s speech, which he touts on his presidential website, being used as exhibit A, not only for using words that reach out to his community, but also as an example of how heâ€™s using race whenever he can and when it suits his needs and benefits his candidacy?
Well, first off, it’s not an example of him using race whenever he can. It’s one video. One. So I’m just going to dismiss her paper thin argument and move on to the more pressing issue…PoliGazette’s coverage of this.
The answer is that itâ€™s fine for Obama to do so because heâ€™s a Saintâ€¦ and African-American. He should be treated differently, at least according to the media.
He used the word hoodwinked. He didnâ€™t even cite Malcolm X, although if he had, who friggin cares? Would he be appealing to white voters if he quotes a founding father?
Is it because he was talking to a predominantly African-American crowd? is that what it is? Seriously, I need some direction here.
There is nothing here to even talk about. Iâ€™m just befuddled. Taylor Marsh has dedicated her blog to defending her chosen candidate. It makes sense that she would drag out everything possible to smear Obama, itâ€™s in her interest.
Something tells me, though, that maybe we’re seeing this because Michael really likes Hillary and he’s worried that Obama is coming on so strong.
And seriously Michael…a Saint? And you capitalized it? Please…
The truth is that elements within the media have been digging into Obama’s Rezko connections and I’m sure they are continuing to sift through that and other topics. It’s what they do. But only diehards like Marsh will pose such a dishonest question (why isn’t the media highlighting what I find important?) and frame it as some type of media bias.
Michael, you could do so much better than promote such blatant spin.
Michael has responded with not much at all except his feelings. Now, that’s his right, but some of the stuff is odd.
- Michael is saying people are crying and whining when others criticize Obama. Well, the Clintons have flat out lied about Obama’s views, specifically on Reagan and Republican ideas. So that’s what I and numerous high ranking Democrats chided the Clintons about it. Also, Democrats who haven’t yet taken a side in this contest called the Clintons out on their attempts to minimize the South Carolina contest due to race. Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama specifically because of what the Clintons were doing. So we’re ALL not stupid here. There’s something going on, and I’d hope you dig a little bit deeper into it before you dismiss it as simply crying and whining.
- It’s simply not true that Obama is hiding his liberal agenda. His ideas for healthcare, economic stimulus, etc., are all over his website. And I find it difficult to understand why Michael of all people would find it dishonest that Obama is packaging that agenda in a post-partisan, moderate tone. After all, isn’t the moderate blogosphere about civility too? Simply put, if Obama wants to do the same for liberalism that Reagan did for conservatism, he has to offer a new, more civilized tone for Washington. Why Michael paints this as somehow being dishonest really puzzles me.
- Michael says that Obama would destroy the economy, but doesn’t offer any reasons why. He also neglects to mention that Hillary’s economic stumulus proposal CAUGHT UP with Obama’s recently.
- He suggests that Obama has already made foreign policy mistake after foreign policy mistake and said downright stupid things. I can only imagine that Michael is talking about Obama’s contention that he’d engage our adversaries in a dialogue. If that’s stupid, well, count me as a big dummy too.
- As for the idea that Hillary somehow has this superior foreign policy experience, I’d like to see how that’s provable beyond opinion of life experience. Also, since Michael is such a fan of Romney too, his criticism of Obama is even less credible. If he were backing McCain, I could understand his point, but Hillary, Romney and Obama all have very similar kinds of foreign policy experience….that being slim to none. And remember, Hillary was not included in the daily intelligence briefings during Bill’s presidency and she voted for the war and has since flip-flopped on that. So in my eyes foreign policy experience ultimately comes down to judgement, and Bush’s lack of it has hurt our standing in the world. To compare Obama to Bush, while not including Hillary in that comparison borders on intellectual dishonesty.
Michael, your thoughts are always welcome and appreciated.