The dream didn't make it to Denver.
In his acceptance speech Thursday night, Barack Obama said,
"One of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism."BOTWT points out.
This is supposed to sound high-minded, but what Obama is really trying to do is pre-empt questions about his own character. The Chicago Tribune reports that the Obama campaign is trying to suppress criticism of Obama's friendship with Bill Ayers.Seems likely. But it also means that Obama just threw Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., under the bus.
On Aug. 28, 1963 - 45 years to the day before Obama's speech - Dr. King spoke at the Lincoln Memorial and said this:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. [Italics added]Now the new Democratic nominee says that "the content of his character" is precisely what he does not want to be judged; this from a man who until recently kept making the color of his skin a persistent theme of his rhetoric.
I'm sorry - in exactly what way is Barack Obama a breakthrough candidate? And, a hundred years from now, which man will historians judge to have been of better character and a greater man, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Barack Hussein Obama?
Well, the question answers itself.
Update: Well, Obama habitually throws his own staff under the bus, too.
Posts
3 comments:
I find most irksome the constant refrain from the main stream media that if I don't vote for Obama, it is only because I'm a racist. This is wearing quite thin with me and, I suspect, others.
I won't be voting for Obama not because I'm a racist, but rather because he the furthest left of major party candidates in many years, including McGovern. McCain, for all of his RINO tendencies is far preferable. I first voted in1968 and have yet to vote for a Democrat for president and certainly can't see a reason to start this year.
Jack
The One is really running scared. The Paris Hilton thing has him gun shy about high flying speeches. So he gives a speech that disappointed all but the choir.
The main problem with your claim is that you ignore what I'm quite sure you understand Obama is getting at, and that is cheap attacks on someone's character by dwelling on the trivial or by exaggeration, or leaving out crucial details. For instance, it is legitimate to ask Obama about Ayers. But any attacks should avoid exaggerating the relationship between Obama and Ayers. And since John McCain was unfaithful to his first wife, it is legitimate to want to know that he stands for something better now. It's legitimate to examine Sen. Trent Lott's claim that McCain physically accosted an associate of Daniel Ortega. It is legitimate to consider Sen. Grassley's comment that he wouldn't speak to McCain for two years after one of McCain's tantrums. It is not legitimate to lie about McCain's war record.
Opinion can shift, too. Most white people I knew 40 years ago considered MLK, Jr. lacking in character. Today, a majoirty would likely say that his achievements outweighed his flaws. As to what is a civil comment, that varies, too. I don't think referring to Obama as throwing MLK, Jr. "under the bus" approaches Biblical standards of civility.
No, I think what Obama is getting at is whether there is balance, or simplycharacter accusations that effectively equates jaywalking with murder. And sadly, it appears that both the Obama and McCain camps are willing to absolutely destroy the reputation of the other to win the presidency. Obama may be hinting at a way for the two camps to keep matters in check. The pressure is on. McCain is still deeply resentful for what he considers over-the-top attacks on him -- he is convinced that Bush operatives planted the stories that McCain gave the Vietcong useful info, when he clearly didn't. But, like Obama, if McCain isn't reigned in, they amy very well each do what they detest -- such is the pressure to win.
Are writers for the Institute on Religion and Democracy lacking in character because they accepted funding from a Christin dominionist who advocated executing practicing homosexuals?
Joel
Post a Comment