well spidercmb, this is exactly the kind of thing that should not be promulgated. I think when he was running for election there was an undercurrent of feeling that if you weren't for him it was because he was black - which is ridiculous. I mean some people may have felt that way - a lot of people didn't like JFK because he was Catholic....but there were plenty of reasons to not vote for Mr. Obama. Race was not one of them - still I did feel an under current every time I said I was not going to vote for him, and I got some dirty looks too....

Now in hindsight I think that most thinking adults can clearly see that there are several reasons to be concerned about his performance, none of which have anything to do with race.

bringing race into the equation shows very poor taste

but I think it needs to be said that we can oppose a candidate who is black, female, catholic, jewish and it is NOT because of their race , gender or religion

I was being sarcastic. Every thread where Obama is mentioned, eventually the conservatives and libertarians who don't support Obama are declared racist. It was a per-emptive strike, per say.

I think a lot of the dislike for Obama is racist.

I've never see that happen.

But there are some who are racist.

I get called a Jew hater because I appose Zionism.

I have no reason to hate Jews.

I was being sarcastic. Every thread where Obama is mentioned, eventually the conservatives and libertarians who don't support Obama are declared racist. It was a per-emptive strike, per say.

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?

See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events

Update:

Author's Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons:

1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why?

2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:

"'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"

3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance? To me it all adds up to affirmative action.





Mattpattersonline.com



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html#ixzz1fVAl5PsL

I was being sarcastic. Every thread where Obama is mentioned, eventually the conservatives and libertarians who don't support Obama are declared racist. It was a per-emptive strike, per say.

Sometimes when you attempt to swing your opponents weapon...

It bites you in the butt.

I understand.

It is a good thing towards racial equality when such a joke receives immediate response (even from peoply who like not the 'butt' of it).

Still...

You swung your opponents 'sword' of 'race' and it DID bite you...

my joke. back!

racers?

Yeah, it means someone who cries racism in a pathetic attempt to end discussions. Plenty of them here, at least one in this thread.

I think your are making up words.

Racer
Tony Katz coined the phrase/term/word ‘Race-ers’ on the MSNBC Contessa Brewer show on oehalf of Tea Party members & Republican Conservatives in response to being constantly labeled a ‘Birther’ & racists for any open criticism or questioning of President Obama And/Or Obama’s failed policies.

well as a white woman who lived in the hood for more than 10 years, don't knock it till u have tried it - my neighbors looked out for each other - no one had the money to be narsacisstic - Obama is as removed from the hood as he is from middle america also

the hood is pretty racially diverse these days BTW - just mentioning that for those who have never really seen the hood

but if race became an issue in his election - which it did - shame on us - we only have ourselves to blame for that - each of us as individuals should not have let that happen within our spheres of influence

well spidercmb, this is exactly the kind of thing that should not be promulgated. I think when he was running for election there was an undercurrent of feeling that if you weren't for him it was because he was black - which is ridiculous. I mean some people may have felt that way - a lot of people didn't like JFK because he was Catholic....but there were plenty of reasons to not vote for Mr. Obama. Race was not one of them - still I did feel an under current every time I said I was not going to vote for him, and I got some dirty looks too....

Now in hindsight I think that most thinking adults can clearly see that there are several reasons to be concerned about his performance, none of which have anything to do with race.

bringing race into the equation shows very poor taste

but I think it needs to be said that we can oppose a candidate who is black, female, catholic, jewish and it is NOT because of their race , gender or religion