Will Not Speak of the Raging Elephant in the Room And Most Slate Readers are Unable to Connect the Dots

[How's that for one long title?]

What Christopher Hitchens wanted to state, but did not have the backbone to do, was that the overwhelming majority of Black America and excitable or faddist liberals are supporting Obama because he ‘appears’ close enough to Martin Luther King, Junior in their eyes, in poor lighting conditions and if they squint enough, to inspire them to ignore any and all other faults or wrong notes, even if those faults are obvious and those wrong notes are very loud and jarring.

Whether or not this is true, certainly countless encounters with Obama supporters on these forums fail to convince me otherwise. For every one thoughtful person I encounter I come across a dozen ‘true believers’ that ‘know’ Obama is special because . . . well because he just is.

What they cannot articulate because it resides on a subconscious level with most of them, or like Christopher Hitchens they are dishonest enough or cowardly enough to shy away from stating outright, is that they do believe that Obama is the second coming of MLK, Jr. Since that man has been all but deified in this nation, the superficial resemblance of Obama to MLK Jr. in their speech making and speech delivery abilities has become a quasi-religious experience for a great many Obama supporters. Hence their inability to explain why such an inexperienced politician with very little in the way of accomplishments should become the president of the United States of American during these crises years. Obama being the reborn MLK, Jr. is their unspoken reason.

There are several ironies in this. Not the least of which is that Obama has never really given much of a damn about racial issues throughout his political career. Obama talks about race only when his back is to a political wall and [usually] when he is trying to get himself out of a dangerous corner. Feel free to disagree with me on this point.

Then again, racial issues are not a front burner issue in this nation at this time. The concerns of citizens are almost exclusively about the economy and the Afghanistan and Iraq war ventures. While it may always be a good time to discuss racial issues and tackle problems in that area there hasn’t been a series of crisis points reached that make racism a must tackle front burner issue here and now.

What Obama has done is learned to use racial issues talking points to side step trouble or to divert attention from his weak areas. Otherwise he ignored race, simply because he’s not particularly interested in the issue. He’s no MLK, jr. and despite what knee-jerk apologists for all Blacks will retort with he’s hardly experienced enough incidents of oppression or racial hatred in his somewhat privileged childhood and college and professional years to hammer him into what one might call a civil rights leader. He’s a politician and he has political interests, not racial interests.

So Obama is not MLK, Jr. reborn and racial issues is not actually all that important to the average citizen at this point in time. There’s a rather an interesting amount of irony though, because his bad-lighting-conditions resemblance to MLK. Jr. is why he is being touted to the skies by the more flighty sort of liberal and why he is quietly being endorsed by what is guessed to be about eighty percent of Black Americans by various polls.

I don’t know but that the Obama enthusiasts may be correct, however, in that simply by Obama being Obama he may miraculously fix racial problems that currently are not front burner problems and correct the fall of the downward spiraling economy, and ‘fix’ Afghanistan and Iraq simply by continuing to issue brilliant speeches and forging hands across political aisles because his supporters ‘believe’ that he has this mysterious ability based on their faith alone; because he has never actually demonstrated any such abilities – aside form issuing pretty speeches, that is.

Faith is a wonderful thing . . . when it actually accomplishes something.

Anyway, this is probably a great deal closer to what Christopher Hitchens wanted to say, except it also strikes a bit too close to the truth for comfort; for his comfort – him being a long time civil rights supporter and all. In other words, it comes too close to subscribing to Black Americans a voting preference that really is based on a massive case of outright wishful thinking and willful or blind self-indulgence and also of pointing out the known [but never spoken of in polite society] truth that a great many liberals jump on bandwagons just to hear the pretty music from a good vantage point.

Still, the Obama supporters may all be correct. Sometimes logic structures and rational thinking does not lead the way. Sometimes it’s best just to follow your heart. My head and a lifetime of hard knocks in life tells me that Obama is not filled with the right-stuff, or at least not of the right sort of stuff that his supporters are thinking of, but my heart . . . well my heart tells me . . . well, never mind what my heart is telling me. It’s my heart and I shall let it get on about its business while my brain continues along its own path.

I rather think the difference between MLK and Obama is that MLK and his comrades were serious political activist formulating obtainable goals. MLK with religious rethoric but essentially secular ("humanist"). Obama creates soundbites that echo this rhetoric, but fails to provide anything concrete. On the contrary, his association with figures like Wright gives the impression that this kind of cynical demagogues are part of the solution not the problem.

CH gave a nice link to the page about B.Rustin, at the end of this article you find some articles by this great man. (http://www.socialdemocrats.or­g/brindex.html)

Read Rustins "FROM PROTEST TO POLITICS" and "THE BLACKS AND THE UNIONS" as well as his debate with Malcom X. Than you might realise that there is an essential political advancement lost. If I should believe that Barack Obama will do real change, than I want to see him going beyond the achievements of MLK and the CRM, proposing concrete measures and plans and mobilising people for it, not regressing into demagogy and meaningless empty phrases to get himself elected by dumb white people and black nationalists.

I, like many, do not identify with Dr. King having been born too late, like anyone under 50. Senator Obama does, I believe, offer the things this country really needs. A measured and thoughtful approach to all that we currently face as a country and above all the vision and leadership we need to become the great country we could be, but are not now.

We could be the country the world looks up to as a shining beacon of what is fair and right. We are not now. We could only use our military when we have to and then would weild so much more leadership in the world. These, my friend, are the dark ages and true vision is what is desparately needed..

max

As stated, I do not believe that Barck Obama particularly cares about racial issues one way or the other. Disturbing to me is the worry that he does not particularly care about anything except becoming president.

This is not automatically a bad thing, mind you. But it does make him susceptible to slick talking politicos with their own agendas, which in turn can be either good or bad on a case by case basis.

Frankly, after the Minister Wright incident I have begun to think more kindly towards Barack Obama, because he revealed that he is both a brilliant politician and an utter cynic. I am not being fatuous here. Brilliant cynics frequently make excellent presidents. I honestly believe that brilliant cynicism is what Bill Clinton was all about and he was an outstanding president.

Unlike with Obama, however, I was clear on what Bill Clinton intended to accomplish in the White House and why he was interested in following that particular path.

On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton and she may actually be a bit too intense for my tastes when it is all said and done. I get the disturbing impression that for all of her obvious political cynicism and, yes, outright brilliance, she is a bit more of a true believer when it comes to some of the shaky tenants of Far Left liberalism than I [as a Centrist] trust.

I LIKE those tenants as ideals, you understand. I just don't believe that they are all that practical when you get down to it.

"MLK and his comrades were serious political activist formulating obtainable goals." Absolutely correct. Obama on the other hand is just another politician [with a gift for brilliant speeches] that is being mistaken for the second coming of MLK, Jr. by people that would rather emote than think.

The thing is that Obama cannot go beyond MLK, Jr's achievements simply because Obama really does not give a damn about racial issues in this nation, not from the standpoint of them being a core platform issue with him.

As for the nature of his speeches and such, he found early on what worked for him and is probably afraid to mess with the formula for fear of losing the magic touch. This means that eventually all his speeches begin to sound very much alike.

None of this, however, is to say that Obama is a bad candidate. On the contrary, now that I know that he is a hard core political cynic, I quite like him as a possible president. I just wish that I knew why he actually wanted the job and what he really intends to do if he gets it.

I am fairly clear on who and what Hillary Clinton is and what she will probably do if she gets it. Obama is much more of a cipher to me, though.

That's an interesting post, Gatewood. I agree with you that Obama is not all about race. Advancing the interests of black people is something he's for, but he's long thought himself destined for bigger things. What is wrong with that? He's ambitious, very ambitious, and has been for a long time. I think that is a job requirement for a successful president.

I suspect that he joined Trinity to win acceptance among black voters in Chicago, and to overcome the suspicion that he was too much the outsider and not black enough. But the notion that Obama was an empty vessel into which Rev. Wright poured his half-baked ideas is belied, made ridiculous, by exposure to Obama's mind. It's a formidable mind.

Presidents set broad policy goals and then try to persuade people to follow them. They do their persuading with words, usually with speeches. Obama seems to be better at this than anyone since at least Ronald Reagan. Since I basically like his policies, I wouldn't care if he were green, or grey with pink polka dots, or half-black and half-chartreuse.

but I cannot agree with the exclusivity of your perspective on Obama because the following "A measured and thoughtful approach to all that we currently face as a country and above all the vision and leadership we need to become the great country we could be, but are not now," could as easily be said about Hillary Clinton.

But what really bothers me is the entirety of your second paragraph in that it reads like someone having a religious experience. I am not mocking you. I am trying to be clear in this respect.

It's not that Obama cannot become 'a shining beacon of hope' and clearly he already is that to the vast majority of his supporters, but they represent at most only one third of this nation and there are no indications whatsoever that HR Clinton supporters [one presumes good liberals all] remotely feel that way in regards to Barack and we can take it to the bank that republicans in general, and very nearly every self-proclaimed conservative, considers the senator some sort of a con-artist rather than a uniter or any form of inspiration or inspirational source thereof.

By all logic and reason, one may also [or as easily] assume that HR Clinton will also serve as a source of hope and inspiration the moment that she enters the Oval Office and begins methodically undoing the vast damage to national and international policies and relationships caused by G.W. Bush and his jolly band of thugs.

Obama supporters [in general] are subscribing to the senator abilities and intentions not readily apparent to the rest of the nation, and so there is a credulity problem there.

Actually, Obama reminds me maybe of Bobby Kennedy a lot more than he reminds me of King. Somewhat. He reminds me somewhat of a number of admirable people. Mostly he seems to me to be a distinct individual. Just because Obama is black doesn't mean I need to put him in a lineup with other famous black persons (or famous black-person stereotypes) and say "OK, which of the 3 or 4 brands of Black People is he?" That's what we're getting in the media and in the letters here and everywhere, and it is atrocious and repulsive and boring and so tacitly racist that it shouldn't need comment.

I'm a 57 year old white woman and Obama has never reminded me particularly of Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Tiger Woods... Jeez. Why would he remind me of Martin Luther King? Because he is black and sort of more moderate and conciliatory that some other blacks? Could we compare him to other humans, rather than just to other black people? It's so incredibly stupid. What sort of round, white, famous white people does John McCain remind YOU of? Get it? Doh. (Hitchens is so dumb any more.)

Without burning desire one cannot become an upper level politician or president. The struggle is just too long and arduous. Equally necessary in order to be a good upper-level politician or president is an intense focus on a well-developed set of plans and goals.

Supposedly in his biography or in some interview somewhere, Barack bluntly admitted that he joined that particular church in order to build up the correct sort of religious street creds for the voting block in his area of Chicago. This may be true or an urban legend, but it certainly seems true in that there is no credible evidence to suggest that he ever 'bought in' to the bulk of Minister Wright's rage-based rants. He was just being a cynical politician taking advantage of the reverend's earned Civil Right's 'chops' in order to convince a certain segment of voters that he HAD TO BE in sympathy [secretly, if nothing else] with their thoughts on certain racial issues or beliefs.

I do not automatically discount the man for being a political cynic. I am more likely to trust him from this point onward just because he is a cynic, and therefore understands how politics really works in this nation.

Speeches; ah yes, those wonderful speeches. They are good for bully pulpit work, if the nation actually cares about the subject under discussion; otherwise they are pretty much simply a tool of obfuscation. That's a handy tool for any politician, mind you.

My point being that those speeches can actually pressure congress into actions that they would prefer not to take. This is pretty much how Ronald Reagan finessed congress back in his day.

But as important as speeches is having a well functioning and seasoned political machine that works for the president behind the scenes to figuratively twist arms, cut off-the-record deals and blackmail as necessary. There is no indication that Obama has such a political machine at this point in time. We KNOW, however, that Hillary Clinton does have just such a machine and knows precisely when, where, and how to use it.

I prefer the cynical Hillary Clinton to the cynical Barack Obama, based on pure effectiveness, that is, and proven meanness.

Confetti, I had the same reaction to the Hitchens piece -- "He's black, he talks about change, so why can't he be more like MLK?" Tacitly racist is right.

reasoning, however, among Obama supporters. It does not, for instance, account for the currently accepted figure of eighty percent of the Black community [if true] of voters supporting him. It does not account for the generally irrational [if well meaning and uplifting] arguments of typical Obama supporters.

You are a statical maverick. That is good. Treasure that uniqueness.

Truth to tell, we know that if Barack Obama had never entered the race then the vast bulk of current Obama supporters would be ardent and [probably equally irrational] HR Clinton supporters, which is a disturbing thought indeed.

The fact that Obama has got the bulk of irrational supporters in his corner does not, however, mean that he is a bad candidate. He might very well be the better of the two remaining democratic candidates, but it is very difficult to tell because of all the verbal chaff from people utterly infatuated with him.

With the revelation of the Minister Wright speeches and Obama's twenty year association with the man, however, in a pupil/mentor relationship, race is now a major issue in this campaign. Pretending otherwise or automatically labeling non-Obama supporters, that discuss the issue, racist is not only counter-productive, it is intellectually dishonest.

Hitchens may be suffering from the long term accumulative effects of alcohol poisoning and he may be a bit too cowardly to really tackle the racial issue head on, but he is not 'dumb' by any means. He is an angry, bitter, disillusioned man that quite probably hates most of the people on this planet of ours, granted, but 'dumb' he is not.

Gatewood, we almost agree. I am less ready to ascribe cynical motives. The candidates for president all want power and are willing to go to great lengths to get it and keep it, but they usually also have social or policy goals. There is an overlap: if I choose the right goals and achieve them, I will enhance my power.

Richard Nixon was cynical. Lyndon Johnson was merely power-hungry. Johnson twisted arms, called in favors, worked the phones, but it took Nixon to compile an enemies list.

As a practical matter, I cannot agree with you when you write:

<blockquote>I prefer the cynical Hillary Clinton to the cynical Barack Obama, based on pure effectiveness, that is, and proven meanness.</blockquote>

If they way their campaigns function is any guide, Obama wins hands-down on effectiveness.

an argument as to why Obama's campaign is more effective than Hillary's. This is because as a cynic's cynic I rather think it is due to a distinct, pervasive, and generally deliberate press bias that is, in effect, actively campaigning for Barack Obama.

It is interesting the differences you and I have regarding the inner nature of Richard Nixon and LBJ. Now while it was true that Nixon defined political cynicism, he was also very power-hungry indeed. He was in fact so power-hungry that it is debatable whether that aspect of his nature or his utter cynicism served as the charged petard that hoisted him in the end.

In contrast LBJ was power hungry only so far as the accumulation of power allowed him to accomplish his stated or unstated goals. Unfortunately he really did not have a clear notion in some respects as to what those goals were nor as to how they should be accomplished [the Vietnam War]. I consider Obama much closer in nature to LBJ than Nixon, and Hillary Clinton is the Left Wing version of Richard Nixon from nose to toes.

Regardless of why I am less wary of Obama than I used to be, I now consider him viable presidential material. I am just waiting for him to clearly enunciate a clear and non-ambiguous plan for this nation forward rather than wrap it with 'inspirational' messages to the extent that it can be interpreted to mean anything.

To be clear, I am waiting for him to do this in his speeches not on his official web site. I want this 'Great Communicator' to clearly communicate to this particular cynical voter. Hillary has already done so to my satisfaction.

@ Gatewood:

"Without burning desire one cannot become an upper level politician or president."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but George W. Bush is a living counter-example. He can properly be called an "accidental president" in almost the same way Gerald Ford was.

Bush was plucked from well-deserved obscurity by a Republican establishment overly-enamored with the name "Bush". The MSM went along with the gag for no better reason than because Al Gore didn't have Bush's "folksy" charm. The rest, as they say, is history.

Obama 08!

I have a different view of packing speeches full of policy specifics and factoids. Hillary is big on this, but to confuse the "mastery of policy detail" that the media is fond of crediting her with with leadership is a mistake. Hillary is a grind, a crammer. She has a good memory for detail, and can name all the leaves on the trees nearby, but she doesn't see the forest, or even realize that she's in one.

It's not a concession to cynicism to admit that a detailed policy put forward today may not be what's enacted a year or more from now. For example, Obama has said he wants U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months after taking office. Then Samantha Power stirred up a brouhaha by saying that he'd have to see what the situation was like in Jan. 2009. Well, of course he would. Anything else would be foolhardy. Does that raise the possibility that Obama is deceiving anti-war people like me? Yes, but one can look at the general thrust of his views, rather than the specifics, and test how and whether they are enacted over time.

We should remember that Franklin Roosevelt ran in 1932 in favor of tax increases and spending cuts, to close Herbert Hoover's dangerous budget deficit. He later went in another direction. I wouldn't hold that against him.

Obama is as specific as he needs to be, but is not a contestant on College Bowl the way Hillary often is (Al Gore also has this failing). Here is Obama's March 27 speech on the economy:

<link>

It's definitely got policy specifics in it, along with broader ideas about shared prosperity and the role of government in the economy.

By the way, I fully agree that Hillary is a liberal Richard Nixon in a pants suit.

presidency but he wasn't certain until well after he entered the race that the GOP propaganda machinery could protect and insulate him against the rather blunt and blatant nature of his unsavory past.

Only after he realized that for whatever reason, not only were the party's professional propagandist capable of covering for him and of literally re-writing or 'fixing' his unsavory background but the national press was essentially campaigning for him at the expense of John McCain and then Al Gore did he become a political tiger.

The things to always bear in mind about G.W Bush is not only was he a spoiled little rich boy but both a bully and a terrible, terrible coward that honestly believed [and still does obviously] in the superiority making properties of personal wealth over all other issues and concerns. Once you understand that about the man-boy everything that he has done since becoming president makes perfect, if utterly sick and revolting, sense.

The fact that the press is also campaigning for Obama just as vigorously as they campaigned for G.W. Bush really should give more people some pause for thought. Should, but doesn't and won't.