Friday, April 25, 2008


Andy McCarthy makes an excellent point at the Corner, commenting on Sol Stern's City Journal article about Barack [middle name redacted] Obama and Bill Ayers.

Stern had noted:
In his last debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama referred to Ayers as a “professor of English,” an error that the media then repeated.
But as McCarthy points out, that was not an error. It was deliberate misdirection.
As I recounted in this piece, Obama not only served for years on the Woods board with Ayers; he also appeared with him on a panel arranged by Associate Dean Michelle Obama at U-Chicago in connection with which (a) Ayers' "social justice" work to fight against the incarceration of juvenile criminals — which had utterly nothing to do with teaching English — was elaborately described, and (b) Obama was joined with Ayers precisely because his (Obama's) work as a state legislator to fight jail sentences for juvenile criminals dovetailed perfectly with Ayers' conception of "social justice." Obama did not call Ayers an English teacher because he was confused or misinformed. He called Ayers an English teacher because he was lying. That is, he was intentionally minimizing his relationship with an anti-American revolutionary with whom Obama has been friendly, collaborative and entirely comfortable. [Emphasis added.]
Everyone who has followed the campaign knows that Obama is a liar. He is a very skillful liar, but of course he is aided and abetted by a complaisant press.

What should also be clear is that by defending Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, Obama is unmistakably identifying himself as an America-hating left-wing extremist.

What we are talking about is not "guilt by association." What is most important is not that Obama has for many years associated himself with anti-Semites, anti-Americans, and communists. What is most important is the way he has behaved as a Presidential candidate when confronted with those associations. That's what is so revealing about his character and his inner moral compass.

It is astonishing that a national party seems determined to nominate for President a red-diaper doper. He will certainly garner 90% of the African-American vote (which the Democrats would win, anyway, with Hillary Clinton or any other candidate.) But his hate-whitey, blame-America-first campaign is not going to make it. I think that the Democratic party leadership understands that. They probably would like to think that George Soros's money can help them, but Obama outspent Hillary 3 to 1 in Pennsylvania, and the money didn't help. The superdelegates' conundrum is that the African-American vote is the Democratic party's most loyal demographic block -- and they think of everything in terms of demographic blocs and identity politics. If they fail to nominate Obama, they risk alienating African-American voters, and thereby depressing the African-American vote in the big cities, without which they cannot take very many statewide elections. If they do nominate Obama, he leads the ticket into a defeat of McGovern-Dukakis proportions.

No comments: