March 21, 2008
Can We Handle The Truth?
One of the editors poked me with a stick yesterday; he wanted me to write about Barak Obama's speech in Philadelphia. As a result, I spent about three hours last night flopping around in bed like a fish on a dock.
It's not that I had ignored the speech. It was impossible to, seeing how everywhere I looked in the newsroom, people were watching, whether gathered around a TV, or plugged into their computers. But I was working on something else - a piece about the unmeritorious way that Pennsylvania picks its judges. Every time I started talking about judicial elections and the lack of minority representation, the conversation worked back to Obama's speech, in which he condemned the offensive remarks of his former pastor, The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, then went on with naked honesty to say things about how blacks and white see America.
"The most honest political speech I have ever heard," two people told me that day. Same exact words.
I went to sleep convinced that Obama had taken the third rail of American politics -- race -- and turned it into a balance beam from which he pronounced the most difficult truths.
And about 1 a.m. I woke up thinking we are not ready for the truth. I don't think we're ready for Obama. I thought we were. I was naive.
When my wife and I would talk about the Democrat candidates for president I kept telling her that her Hillary was unelectable. I'd recall the eight hours I spent in a room with her in 1985, as she sat in for her husband the goveror and talked to a dozen education reporters about school reform in Arkansas. I was blown away by her brilliance. And then I'd tell my wife that Hillary is just what the opposition wants. No one would energize the base like another Clinton to hate, and we'd be caught rehashing the past when the need to fix the present is so urgent.
Obama is the unelectable one, my wife, the reconstructed Southerner, would reply. Despite lip service, she argued, in the privacy of the voting booth too many white people will not be able to pull for a person of color. A few months later, I'm coming around to my wife's position.
After Obama's speech I went blog hunting, and the headline on the Politico site left me dismayed: “GOP sees Rev. Wright as path to victory.” They look at Obama. They see his angry pastor.
“It was a speech written to mau-mau the New York Times editorial board, the network production people and the media into submission,” said GOP consultant Rick Wilson, who was behind the 2002 ad that tied former Sen. Max Cleland, a Vietnam war-wounded Democrat from Georgia, to Osama bin Laden. "Beautifully calibrated but deeply dishonest." It didn't take long to spin poetry.
Hate was all around. In the words of the Clinton volunteer at a Philadelphia phone bank who told an Los Angeles Times reporter that he was voting for Hillary because "I love the Lord and I don't want a person named Al-Barack Hussein Obama to be our next president."
In the work of an aide to John McCain who was suspended on Thursday for spreading on the Internet a race-baiting YouTube video that mashes Obama's words with those of Rev. Wright, Malcolm X and the Public Enemy song "Fight The Power."
And in a posting on the BooMan Tribune, a liberal Philadelphia-based blog. The writer, an Obama supporter, had scored a seat at the National Constitution Center for Tuesday's speech, and afterward was walking through The Gallery when he sat down and searched for a wireless signal for his computer.
"An elderly white woman sat down next to me and was silent for a little while. Then she said, "That's where my tax dollars go."
I looked up at her, not knowing what she was referring to, and asked, "Excuse me?".
She nodded at a group of young early-20's black people (some with a baby carriage) walking by, and repeated herself. The people she was referring to were nicely dressed and appeared to be enjoying themselves as they window-shopped in the mall. I think I just mumbled something like "Mmmn" and returned my attention to my laptop. Then the elderly woman said, "Do you know that Hillary is coming here today?"
I nodded, "Yes. I just came from seeing Obama."
She frowned at this news and then said, "I'm very excited to see Hillary. She knows how to deal with (she swept her hand around to indicate the mall crowd) this." I excused myself.
Part of me wonders whether this anecdote was a bit of bloggy stagecraft to advance the Obama cause. But you don't have to make up something like this. It's everywhere.
It reminded me of what I heard covering Europe and the Middle East from 2000 to 2003. The Kosovars blaming the Serbs. The Serbs blaming the Americans. The Palestinians blaming the Jews, the Jews blaming the Palestinians. Each nation intoxicated by its own victimhood. Drying out is difficult when it feels so right to have been wronged. You don't have to go about the hard work of moving forward that Obama talked about in Philadelphia.
I listened again to the Obama speech Friday morning as I walked the dog. As he explained the resentments harbored by both black people and white people -- the two separate realities -- I remembered the last time I said something to set off a minor racial incident at work. I was talking to a cherished colleague, who is black, and she was mourning the number of minorities who lost their jobs at the paper during last year's layoffs because they were among the most recent hires.
At least it will be easier for them to get jobs, I said. I was trying to say something helpful. I wound up saying something hurtful. What made me think it would be easier? she asked. She didn't make eye contact with me again for days. I insisted to myself I was right. Wait a year, then we'll see. In fact, it has little to do with numbers, everything to do with perception. Each convinced we were right, each a little buzzed on our victimhood. At least we're starting to talk about this.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Can We Handle The Truth?:
I live in Kentucky. Yes, I know people here who wouldn't consider voting for Obama regardless of his politics. They won't vote for him for one reason only, his skin color. I was raised to believe the opportunities in America are endless. I'm a 58 yr. Native American female and I know first hand about bias in various forms. I refused to believe I couldn't rise above both the racial and gender prejudice I experienced along the way.
To say our country isn't ready for a black president is self defeating. The country is ready and like any growing experience sometimes there is discomfort along the way. As many know its getting through the hard times in life that makes us stronger. Its time we learn from all those energized young people who are wise enough to grasp the inspiration and opportunity Sen Obama is giving us and elect him as our next president.
Posted by: not4clinton | Mar 21, 2008 12:54:16 PM
It's a shame we're not ready for this. We're not ready for a president who is going to make us think. Say nothing, evoke no response, get elected.
That's the message we send to our leaders, and then we complain that those in power are weak-willed and unable.
We get what we ask for.
Posted by: Jay | Mar 21, 2008 3:23:01 PM
I am from Illinois and also thought that maybe some don't want the truth. Obama has had to deal with the truth all his life and realizes that he has to deal with the truth while running for president. He has been all alone in front of everyone of whom many are waiting to take pot shots at him for any misstep. But in the end everyone who hears him speak will realize at some level that it is he who is speaking the truth and many of us are still in the state of denial. Once we get past that then we can look candidly at Obama and Hillary and truthfully know which candidate has been tested and ready to answer a 3 AM call. They may not like it but they will still know.
Posted by: ktlin | Mar 21, 2008 3:25:16 PM
It saddens me to say this, but I'm starting to believe that it might be true that America isn't ready for a black president. Based on the reaction that I am seeing on many blogs, etc., it is beginning to seem as if mainstream Americans were ready for Obama when they believed, on some level, that he wasn't really black. Now, when they see him deeply ensconced within a congregation whose leader said a few things that a.) they despise, and b.) confirms their deepest suspicions about what black people really think, they are running away from him in droves.
It doesn't matter that Obama himself doesn't agree with those statements; after all, he heard statements that were (allegedly) akin to those statements, and he stayed in the church (it also doesn't matter that, number one, we don't know what they were, and number two, that Wright said MANY things over the years that were positive and uplifting). It doesn't matter that there is truth in some of Wright's statements (even if they are expressed in a way that mainstream America doesn't want to hear) -- for instance, America IS run by a white power structure, and unless I miss my guess Hillary Clinton HASN'T ever been called the "n" word. The fact that people find that statement offensive is so mind-boggling that I can barely respond to it.
Finally, it doesn't even matter if many Americans who criticize Obama for not leaving the church have questions of their own to answer about their continued allegiance to their own churches which have made mistakes that are INFINITELY more egregious than anything that Wright ever said.
The only thing that seems to matter is the fact that now, Obama is quite firmly the 'black' candidate, and America won't vote for a president that it believes is actually black. I am firmly convinced that the only black who can succeed in a presidential election is one who is genetically black but culturally white.
Maybe America will prove me wrong, but I don't hold out much hope.
Posted by: Tiffany | Mar 21, 2008 3:37:57 PM
Whether America is "ready" to elect an African American President is a moot point. Obama simply isn't qualified to be President. He is remarkably naive on many national matters, particularly the American military. His endless rants about "hope" are already wearing thin with many Americans. It takes a lot more than "hope" to effectively lead the United States. And for a guy who talks about "change" every chance he gets, isn't it AMUSING that Obama is now calling for a CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION of the State Dept. snooping on his passport information?
Democrats have been whining for congressional investigations into just about EVERYTHING for 7 1/2 years.
Same old stuff in a different package.
Posted by: Lieut | Mar 21, 2008 3:47:33 PM
"Part of me wonders whether this anecdote was a bit of bloggy stagecraft to advance the Obama cause..."
Why would you add it, then? It does come off as a way too convenient encounter from a blog that I've never heard of before. Sounds like something Scott Templeton from The Baltimore Sun (from the last season of The Wire) would make up. I mean, what is the old lady saying? That HRC is going to get blacks to stop procreating and wasting time at the mall?
Posted by: brian | Mar 21, 2008 4:45:10 PM
I'm ready for Obama! Hillary is a corrupt back-stabbing liar and McCain is worse. Barack, despite what you have written, is capable of motivating people who are FOR him and not merely people who are AGAINST the alternative.
Posted by: Andy | Mar 21, 2008 4:52:40 PM
oh please, please, please someone tell me why someone so morally compromised as "GOP consultant Rick Wilson", who slandered Max Cleland with the worst of lies for political gain, is able to publicly speak his venom virtually without censure. Compare this to our treatment of a man who is trying to lead the people who want to take this country to a higher ground. It is not Mr. Obama who is being judged. We are. If we allow the dirty tricks people to ONCE AGAIN manipulate us into the lowewt common denominators of stupidity & prejudice, we will surely get what we deserve. We don't have to go along with this; we can ignore & censure the creeps & liars & weasels. We can make our leaders accountable for REAL issues, not follow the manipulators over the cliff once again. We can begin the work to repair our democracy. We can take our government back. Yes. We. Can.
Posted by: Carolyn | Mar 21, 2008 5:00:50 PM
I was unaware that so many Americans live in the blissful state of ignorance.
Posted by: an observer | Mar 21, 2008 5:09:02 PM
Wow. Calling Hillary "brilliant" should automatically disqualify anyone's opinion as ridiculous, but Mr. Rubin continues on to basically make the case that Senator Obama's beneath the surface prejudices, combined with the open displays of dislike for the country he intends to lead (i.e. his spiritual advisor being an America-hater, his wife only being proud of this great nation when her husband’s campaign gained traction, and educating us all on how we are bread to be “typical white people”) are not the issue – it is us who are the issue because WE are not ready for such “truth”.
Mr. Rubin should be grateful to have employment and the insulation of being in the written media world, so addressing him is worthless. This is to anyone over the age of 26 that is actually considering pulling the lever for Senator Obama. I just have one question: Please enlighten me as to what experience he has that makes him qualified to lead the most powerful and influential nation on the face of the Earth - to be responsible for being the executive of a country of 300 million people with a GDP of $13.8 trillion?
In making your case, please avoid the following:
Avoind pointing to others behavior/experience to make your point, i.e. “well so-and-so didn’t have experience” or “so-and-so had experience and he was a bad president” – the tools of a weak mind like Mr. Rubin’s – please focus on the Senator specifically.
Avoind using totally abstract and subjective things like “hope”, “change” or “the future” unless you can support them with hard facts as to HOW those things will be accomplished.
I’m interested to hear some substance and not just eloquently delivered rhetoric…
Posted by: c-note | Mar 21, 2008 5:13:15 PM
Oh, and Tiffany, I didn’t really take offense to Mr. Wright saying that America is run by a white power structure, or that Hillary was never referred to as one of the worst slurs in the English language – both are probably true. And I realize that based on your stunning naivety you may not be capable of critical thinking, but do you think, perhaps, that the offensive part of what Mr. Wright has said was maybe that AIDS was “created” to kill off people of color? Or maybe it was that “GD America” thing? Or maybe even it’s the fact that Mr. Wright bestowed an honor on Louis Farrakhan, one of this country’s most outspoken racists? Or, maybe it’s that this is not just a church affilitation for the Senator (as you take your swipes at Catholics)…I don’t recall a presidential candidate referring to a pedophile as his “spiritual advisor for over 20 years” that would enable you to excuse away the Senator’s association with an admitted racist and America-hater. Nah…I’m sure you’re right about the Hillary thing.
I think my favorite Tiffanyism would be when you so brilliantly state that that “Wright said MANY things over the years that were positive and uplifting”. Simply brilliant. So, I guess that if the disgusting David Duke had a litany of “positive and uplifting” statements, it would make his vile venom okydoky right? Or if Bull Connor had a simply wonderful philanthropy for the poor, that it would make him not so despicable?
I truly hope that you are simply young and naïve. If not, then by all means please keep repeating to yourself “gas on the right, brake on the left” so as to limit your effect on us all to only a random mindless blog entry.
Posted by: c-note | Mar 21, 2008 5:52:55 PM
Obama missed the opportunity to demonstrate his credibity when he failed to repudiate the irreverant reverand for his rascism and bigotry. He needed to denounce Wright and his remarks in no uncertain terms. He can still love him like he was "his crazy old uncle", but he needed to be stronger in his criticism of Wright. Instead of trotting out the tired old excuses for the rev, based on slavery, Jim Crow and the civil rights movement, Obama needed to drop the eloquence and take Wright to task. If he can't stand up to Wright, how can we expect him to stand up to the likes of Achmadinijad.
He blew it and it will probably cost him the election.
Posted by: Joel | Mar 21, 2008 5:54:12 PM
Only someone who didn't hear the speech would say that Senator Obama never 'repudiated' Rev Wright because he did. The first 5 minutes of his speech was directed right at Rev. Wright. Are you sure that you were in the same room I was? I was there too ... with a veterans group.
Posted by: Mike | Mar 22, 2008 1:43:48 AM
People, use your noodles and think about this for a moment...diplomacy in action. Senator Obama is able to motivate people to come together despite their differences by finding common ground that outweighs those differences. Senator Obama also practices what he preaches, as demonstrated by both his speech and his actions when it comes to the now all-the-sudden famous Rev. Wright. What Mrs.Clinton fails to realize is this...reality. You want a candidate who can actually work well with other countries, ESPECIALLY the ones who look at us now and laugh at our government and our people. We are in a big mess. We've managed to demolish Iraq, kill off thousands of innocent civilians not to mention our own military, leave too many without basic necessities that we too often take for granted here, and then turn around and say Go Hillary?!!!...She's part responsible for the mess we are in now!..and you think she can demonstrate diplomacy and expect to be received as a diplomat at the same time to the very people's land she helped demolish??? That's laughable. I'm sure it's laughable to the rest of the world as well. She can't even be "diplomatic" enough to reach out to Mr. Wright...and ask him herself to please explain so that she may try to understand....she did nothing, but hope that it would help boost her canidacy. She chose divisiveness over diplomacy...and her supporters are proud of it! If she can't practice diplomacy here in her own country..(oops, i mean the people's country), she sure as hell isn't prepared to do so to those foreign to us...and the truth be told...many of those countries far exceed the mistakenly perceived "hatred" of mr. wright. don't be stupid now. This is common sense!!
Posted by: Lis | Mar 22, 2008 2:42:12 AM
Mr. Obama has the ultimate American story. He represents the best in this country and he recognizes that only in the United States would he be in a position to make this run. He is a true patriot. His speech, which did include a strong repudiation of the stupid comments of a pastor who is really a relic of the past, actually taught us something. I can't remember when a national political figure did such a thing. It was a majestic moment. The notion that Obama cannot be elected is belied by the evidence. He has won many more states, many more delegates and many more votes than Mrs. Clinton. He was just endorsed by a very important figure, Bill Richardson, and continues to build his superdelegate tally. Hang in there - don't worry - do what Mr. Obama did when he received his 3 am telephone call - maintain your poise - be calm and recognize that in the end, not just intelligence, but class, decency and hope will prevail in this race.
Posted by: Andrew E. Greenberg | Mar 22, 2008 9:57:42 AM
While some people may not vote for Obama because they perceive him to be a "Black" man, they should consider this - he could just as easily say he is "White".
Suppose Obama did not visibly associate himself with "Blacks" and had mostly "White" associates (family, friends, church, etc). Would we still be having this discussion?
Note: I use quotations for black and white because they, in my view, are terms used to divide rather than identify. As a "Black" man, my skin is brown and as I've never seen a "White" person rather I've seen individuals with pale skin that is not even close to white.
Posted by: Douglas | Mar 22, 2008 10:00:01 AM
Good point about Hillary being divisive? From the very moment she stepped foot on the national stage years ago she was denigrating someone. The first time was when she said she could have stayed home and baked cookies. She also said when she got to the White House that she was surprised at how negatively a lot of people responded to them. That was long ago and should have been her clue to change her attitude and strategies right then and there. However, in Iowa she badmouthed Mississippi and it cost her. Before Fla and MI she said she knew their votes wouldn't count without batting an eye and then suddenly when she needed them she was trying to get them riles up so they wouldn't be disenfranchised. And of course she was saying it was Obama's fault??? We saw the before and after. Bill tried to get away with badmouthing Jesse Jackson and Obama in SC. I think looking back that was the defining moment of this campaign and he thinks he was mugged about that. He won't accept one ounce of accountability for saying Obama would not win because he was black. That is what he said period. When Hillary calls our president pathetic and half of the country sides with him does she not know that she has alienated half the country against her? She hasn't figured that out. For a while everything was anti-Bush. Do we not know already she would disagree with everything Bush has done. That is not the problem. Her mouth and what she says which leads to devisive is the problem. In fact in one of her rallies she was MAKING FUN of unity and harmony. I think HIllary lives in her own little dream world where she thinks she and Bill are smarter than everyone else. SURPRISE!!!
Posted by: ktlin | Mar 22, 2008 10:00:37 AM
Divisiveness is part of a bigger picture. I don't think it so far out of the realm of possibility that the Government prefers us to be divided as a people.
As long as we are a divided people, we are distracted; allowing the Government on all levels to gradually strip us of our rights and continue to transform this country from a world leader into a serfdom, beholden to banks and corporations.
Posted by: Mary | Mar 22, 2008 10:06:58 AM
It's not Obama's skin color....it's his judgement or lack thereof in belonging to a racist hater's church and his liberal voting record.
Colin Powell would be elected in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Zach Sawyer | Mar 22, 2008 10:52:18 AM
Can we handle the truth
? Maybe, it's time to find out.
Posted by: Rick | Mar 22, 2008 12:03:44 PM
I concur with you, C-note, about one thing and one thing only -- "Calling Hillary 'brilliant' should automatically disqualify anyone's opinion as ridiculous." I guess you cut English class the day double negatives were discussed, or perhaps yours was a Freudian slip and you're simply a narrow-minded bully wannabe. Only a truly weak-minded person would attempt to shut down a conversation as important as the election of our next president by threatening those with actual thoughts with his "bully club."
Posted by: candace | Mar 22, 2008 1:11:32 PM
Truth: "Ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience."
For those of you not ready for the truth, there's always Canada.
Posted by: JJ | Mar 22, 2008 1:42:31 PM
I am African immigrant, my husband is African American. As a black male in this country, he has many perceived and real injustices relating to how he is treated, especially at work. Initially, I was inclined to disbelieve him, think he had a chip on his shoulder, etc. I am not naive but I really felt that America's past didn't necessarily weigh in on her present as much, that if you just pulled yourself by the bootstraps, blah blah blah...
But the longer I live in this country and in my line of work (Human Resources) I see a lot of things that unfortunately confirm his and many other african Americans' opinions about race relations in the US.
Right from the beginning, I backed Obama. I had already read his first book and was sure he had the integrity, coalition- building and inteligence it takes to lead this country. My husband initially was on the fence, because he was afraid to believe white America would give him a fair chance. As Barack won in places like Iowa, he, like many AfricanAmericans, started taking notice. As an African who grew up in Africa, it is no big thing for me to see black people in authority, running governments, etc. Initially I was upset with AfricanAmericans for not getting on the Obama bus. Why did they have to wait for Whites to believe in him first before they decided to take a chance? Now, I actually am thankful for the way things worked out on the campaign trail.
If Obama had started out as the favored-by-blacks black candidate, he would never have made it this far. It does appear there is a huge segment of America that due to the inbred nature and history of racism in this country, covert and overtly on display, wold have immediately as a gut reaction, tuned him out, gone for Hilary or maybe even more would have voted for John Edwards.
Now that he is an established entity, who conveniently seems to be aligned with an "angry black, miliant preacher", all the old fears and prejudices of the slave owners, passed on to their descendants, are coming out in full color. "There is going to be a negro uprising. We have to keep them in their place. They are subservient to us, here to further our interests and if one of them is in charge, our interests will be eroded." But these sentiments are cloaked in more politically correct ideas like "is he going to be patriotic enough, is he really a christian, Aren't the New Black Panthers endorsing him?" etc.
The bottom line is obvious: not everyone is ready for a black president, especially one who is not embarrassed of his heritage and is not going out of his way to be white/assimilated. But there are many who are ready and who have committed themselves to this cause. Not because Barack is black first, but because he happens to be brilliant and a visionary first.
Thanks to their commitment earlier on in the primary process, we do have a fair shot at having at least a Black nominee. But in order for Barack to win, we will need to address the media distortion (forget bias) and patently blatant attempts to discredit a good man. It will involve white America turning off some TV stations, or at least not swallowing everything they hear/see hook, line and sinker.
Research, think objectively, ask questions. People think they know. White Americans tend to think they are culturally superior, that their decisions/lifestyle should be everyone else's (eg, why didn't he leave the church, why doesn't he denounce Wright? How about honor your father and mother and paying homage to them just by virtue of the fact that they are in a place of authority over you?)
At the end of the day, much as America is a melting pot, there are some people who can not melt, as long as they have their skin color, features, traditions they uphold and they are not understood because there have been systems in place that make it almost impossible to traverse the gap.
My two cents, for what they are worth.
Posted by: rosie | Mar 22, 2008 1:48:32 PM
"Only someone who didn't hear the speech would say that Senator Obama never 'repudiated' Rev Wright because he did. The first 5 minutes of his speech was directed right at Rev. Wright. Are you sure that you were in the same room I was? I was there too ... with a veterans group."
Senator Obama did not repudiate Wright. He rejected the more venemous statements that were made by the minister, and which have been exposed to the public over the past days. However, that he is doing so only now with the glare of the kleig lights on him is particularly telling. And it is not enough, because the words of the sinister minister are only the tip of a larger iceberg.
Trinity United professes Black Liberation Theology which is impregnated with anti-semitic and anti-white sentiments. Google Black Liberation Theology and you will find information on James Cone, a founder of the philosophy, who approves the term the white man is 'devil' employed by Malcolm X and repeated by Louis Farrakhan.
Jeremiah Wright may have done good things for the black community in his lifetime. But he has done so by perpetuating a lie, that the only reason black people cannot achieve in this society is due to systemic racism.
Barack Obama clearly does not believe in this philosophy, because as a half-white man, that would mean he hates himself. He does not. However, the fact that he never left this church and found another one for his impressionable daughters is a reason to seriously rethink your support for this man.
Obama has said that 'experience' alone is not the hallmark of a good president. He has repeatedly stated that 'judgment' is equally important.
He gets an "F" on both counts.
Posted by: Christine | Mar 22, 2008 1:59:23 PM
Poor, poor Candace. Focusing on the construction of one sentence as opposed to the real issue – what qualifies a junior senator with only two years in the Senate (one of which he spent running for president), who has never been an Executive of anything (please don’t feed me the Harvard Law Review) to be the leader of the free world?
Instead of making your case, you focus on my grammar. That ain’t displaying the most bestest edumacation now is it? That’s the best you can do? In this “conversation as important as the election of our next president” as you state, you cannot come to the party with anything more that my double negative? And since when does asking what a candidate’s qualifications are, qualify as “bullying”? When you can’t refute the message, personally attack the messenger…maybe my schooling wasn’t so bad if that is what you learned at yours.
Who can’t handle the truth? The truth is that the Senator has consistently demonstrated his naivety regarding foreign policy – i.e. it’s a GREAT idea for the leader of the free world to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, and the new Castro, and all of the other murderous dictators, subsequently providing them new found legitimacy as statesman as opposed to the dictators they are. So despite thousands of years of fighting in some cases, the senator will simply will them all into peace and into ceasing their oppression of liberty and freedom (especially for women) with his eloquence and his fantastic diction? That is not only silly, it’s dangerous.
And he now has demonstrated an even more concerning lack of judgment in his choice of “spiritual leaders”, and his keen ability to “bring us all together” by labeling that all “typical white people” have been bread to be racist. If your idea of “bringing us al together” is simply the same old, tired blame white people bit that has been so played out by the Al Sharpton’s and Jesse Jackson’s of the world, then the senator is certainly reading from the correct playbook.
It is clear who cannot handle the truth….and it is not the clear thinking Americans who realize that it wouldn’t matter if Obama was black, white, yellow, blue or some random mixture of colors, he is still categorically unqualified to be the President of the United States no matter how great an orator he may be.
Posted by: c-note | Mar 22, 2008 3:45:30 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.