Tales & Tails of New York

I am keeping a list in my mind of all the Obama surrogates trying to shove this (in many ways, still mysterious) candidate down our throats and call a halt to the Primary Election process ("Hillary should drop out!")

 

What are Richardson, Lahey, Dodd and the candidate himself, Obama, exactly afraid of?

 

Apparently, they are afraid of the voters.

 

Thus, the reason, one suspects, for successfully blocking attempts to allow the Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida to either have their previous votes counted -- or do a re-vote.

 

The Democratic party is apparently willing to write off the Presidential choice of more than 2 million democratic voters due to the "breaking of rules" behavior of state political and party officials.

 

 

One wonders if the voters in Florida and Michigan will be so "understanding and forgiving" of being made scapegoats for others' ill behavior come November?  Will they rush to the polls to support the democratic candidate -- after being shut out from the Primary?

 

One wonders sometimes if the Democratic party has a short memory.  

 

Florida, after all, cost Al Gore the Presidency in 2000.

 

It could cost the Democratic candidate the same again in 2008 -- and this time, with good cause.

 

But, aside from apparently being afraid of the voters, there seems another reason why the Obama campaign is pushing so hard to get the nomination process over with before all states have had a chance to have their say in the Primary.

 

 

And for sure, there is going to be more damming information about Obama before this election process is entirely over.

 

There are too many unanswered and open-ended questions already.

 

Yesterday, on "The View" -- (a silly and mostly shallow program) the "girls," beside commenting on how "sexy" Obama is, actually asked a profound question or two.

 

Elizabeth Hasselback's questions were the most astute.

 

It seems that when Don Imus was being called to task for racially insensitive remarks, Barack Obama was one of the first people to call for the immediate firing of Imus from all media markets.  Why then didn't Obama completely disassociate himself from the remarks of his pastor, Reverend Wright and repudiate the man?   Was there not a double standard there?

 

Obama really didn't have a substantive answer for this question.

 

He tried to say that Wright recently "retired" and that his quotes were taken out of context.

 

But, there are some remarks that don't need to be "in context."

 

Referring to any women or people of color (as Don Imus did) as "Nappy headed hoes," regardless of intent as a joke or overall content of the conversation is simply Wrong.

 

By the same token, calling America the "USKKK" or Italians, "Garlic noses" or Judaism a "gutter religion" is equally insulting and wrong, regardless of the "content" it was spoken.

 

Obama tried to point up to all the good works and deeds of Reverend Wright.  But, Don Imus has done many good works too, including opening up and running a special home for cancer ridden children and donating generously to many charities.

 

Good works don't excuse the egregious wrongs we do and the toxic, cutting words that sometimes spill from some people's mouths.

 

Moreover, trying to excuse the hate speech spun by a close friend or associate by saying "We all say stupid things" doesn't cut it either.

 

There is a big difference between saying "stupid things" and saying things that are meant to deeply cut, injure and demean others.

 

As Don Imus was treated, so too, should have been treated, Reverend Wright.

 

That Barack Obama is apparently unable to see the "double standard" he is embracing and supporting says (to me) he is not fit to be President of the United States.

 

Finally, one has to doubt Obama's honesty and integrity when trying to claim he was "unaware of the comments that have so angered others."

 

That simply is not believable, considering the long and very close association Barack Obama had with Reverend Wright.

 

Did Wright save all his hateful speeches for when Obama wasn't in the audience?

 

Did Wright speak and write one way to his religious audience and another way to Obama personally?

 

That doesn't seem credible, either.

 

One of these fine days, someone is going to come up with a video clip of Obama being audience to some of Wright's fanatical ravings.

 

And the question will come up again:  Why didn't he walk out?

 

There are numerous things to question (or conclude) from Obama's close relationship with a "controversial" (but powerful) pastor over 20 years time:

 

1--Was Obama being "opportunistic" and using the pastor to help advance his status, ambitions and rise in Chicago political circles?

 

2-- Is Obama being dishonest when saying he was "unaware" of the pastor's more "controversial" positions on American, Israel, white people and Italians?

 

3-- Is Obama applying "double standard" when judging the behavior and words of white people vs. that of black people?

 

4-- Does Obama's ego rise to the point of arrogance in believing he could run for President and the hateful words of his pastor would never come out and demand explanation and/or repudiation?  Does Obama really believe America is "ready" to elect a President whose close friend and "spiritual advisor" of 20 years, rings out curses and endless, inflammatory accusations against the United States?

 

5--Does Obama believe that all misjudgments, destructive, racist words and wrong choices can simply be erased and forgiven by a grand and lofty speech, "good deeds" or an apology?

 

He apparently didn't think those things were sufficient for Don Imus.

 

Yes, there is indeed, reason to try and hasten this election process along, shame, pressure or embarrass Hillary Clinton into quitting, disenfranchise millions of people yet to vote and quickly try to grab the nomination.

 

The question Obama and his supporters need to ask themselves however, is:

 

 

I don't think so.  -- PCA