Okay, let me get this right, Chris Matthews host of Hardball on MSNBC said after President Obama gave his State of the Union address that, "I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It is interesting that he is post-racial. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour." Then went onto say that Americans forgot he was black tonight because of the breadth and scope of his speech and "seduction". Am I missing something? Imagine if Rush, Hannity, or any other Conservative pundit had called Obama "post-racial" or "forgot he was black". The kicker was the chuckle from Olbermann, who was off camera, as Matthews made his comments. Besides "Post-racial", what is that?
As I admitted in my previous blog entry, I was not able to watch the speech live but I did go back and listened to it. I apologize that I did not gathering in Obama's lack of blackness as Matthews had. I saw a President attempting to run to the middle all the while shouting back at the past. I saw a President attacking the Supreme Court for a decision that had nothing to do with foreign corporate campaign financing as the President wants us to believe. I saw a President desperately trying to keep his poll number alive.
Not once did I think, "Man, President Obama is not black." The trouble I have with Matthews statement, especially after his town hall meeting two weeks ago, is that he evoked race into a situation that did not require it. Everyone in the world knows that the President of the United States is black. Perhaps Matthews felt this way because President Obama, as Sen. Reid points out, does not always speak in a "Negro dialect". Actually, I wished Obama had used the "Negro dialect" last night because his speech lacked emotion and conviction. I saw a man angry with America. Americans have spoken loud and clear that they do not want Democrat health care reform via the town hall meetings, the Tea Party movement and the vote in Massachusetts.
Perhaps that anger is bubbling over after the recent defeats of Democrat strongholds as Americans are growing tired of big government which grew under the Bush administration. President Obama promised hope and change to which he has not delivered on. I agree with President Obama that change "will not happen overnight" and "it will not be easy" but when it is done in the secrecy of the Oval Office I take offense and question his sincerity. I am willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and hope he will guide America to a brighter future. What I see instead is a man bent on growing government and spending money that our grandchildren's children haven't even earned yet. Obama has been given everything in life and now adversity presents itself; he does not like it. Maybe that is why Matthews "forgot he was black"?
Ta'Nehesi Coates attempted to gloss over Matthews words in her article by saying, "I think it's worth noting that Chris Matthews wasn't trying to take a shot at anybody. But I think its most worth noting that 'I forgot Obama was black' – in all its iterations – is something that white people should stop saying, if only because it's really dishonest." Coates added, "Chris Matthews didn't forget Barack Obama was black. Chris Matthews was white" (http://www.thegrio.com/politics/chris-matthews-to-thegrio-no-regrets-on-forgot-obama-was-black-remark.php). Why are we focused so much on color of a person skin and not on their skills and/or experience? Barack Obama is our President, for better or worse, and he, like any other President, ought to be challenged when the direction of the country is not right or when being deceived.
Why do we allow Matthews to go unchecked in his comments? Where is the outrage from the White House or Jesse Jackson or Rev. Sharpton or even the black community? Is it perhaps because Matthews is a mouthpiece of the left that he gets a pass?
"Obama has been given everything in life and now adversity presents itself; he does not like it.' You just aren't given admission into Harvard Law School, the head of the Law Review and a job teaching Con Law at a top 10 law school. Please show specifics of what he's been "given" and how he has shunned from adversitiy. Seems like he is doing what he deems best to address the issues facing the country. You just don't like his solutions.
ReplyDeleteI also certainly did not believe his speech lacked conviction and emotion. Far from it. I saw passion. But, you are entitled to your opinion.
Obama is the first to admit that him and his wife are products of Affirmative Action in regards to Law School. I do not take anything away from Obama or his wife for accomplishing what they have but they both have had a gravy life and doors have been opened for them.
ReplyDeleteNow, he was elected both in the Illinois and the Senate against no one. Both of his races had opponents when their opponents mysteriously had skeletons in their closests. Obama was groomed by the Chicago Machine. Why else can an Junior Senator propel to the top of the heap after spending less than 18 months in the Senate and voting present in the Illinois Senate. Obama has no major piece of legislation attributed by to him. It is a lot like JFK's movement towards the Presidency for which his father bought for him.
Obama had the Chicago Machine where JFK had his father. Obama's party had control of, and still does, both houses of Congress and could not get their own party members to pass legislation. Ask yourself why? Democrats did not need one single Republican vote to pass anything. Now that the late Sen. Kennedy's seat fell to a Republican Obama is looking for bipartisan ship.
First, you do take away from what they have accomplished since you believe everything was given to them. Meaning, they didn't accomplish any of it.
ReplyDeleteAre you bitter that doors were opened for others? Do you believe you have achieved everything on your own with no help? And so what if it getting into Harvard was a product of affirmative Action? That's wrong? I'm not sure it has a place today, but it certainly did decades ago. And getting in is one thing, staying in any law school takes a tremendous amount of hard work. Trust me, I know. Making law review, even more hard work. Being the top dog of the law review, that they do just hand out to the coolest cat.
So, his failed 2000 House campaign, was just part of this master plan to hand him things? Not just a loss, but a crushing one at that.
Oh, the "why" is simple if you don't believe in conspiracies and set aside your bitterness and anger for a second. Democrats don't vote as a party, they vote as individuals. And they differ about what is good and what needs to be done. It's not like Obama talks and Obama gets.
But you know this. Otherwise, it would have just been handed to him like everything else.
But I realize that you simply don't like him. Which is fine. Let me add it for you, and one of the great things about this country, that being we can not only have, but express, our differing opinions. But if you are truly trying to advance the discussion, you should think about staying away from grandiose statements that aren't true. They weaken your arugment.
I am not a bitter person. I feel that hatred and jealously are two emotions that waste people's time. I do agree that Affirmative Action was required and its time has run its course.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I understand the difficulty it can be to obtain a law degree for it were simple any Joe Smo would have one and then it would be cheapened. I went back and watched the speach again and still came away with the conclusion that Obama is angry. Rightfully so too but his anger is misplaced.
I know that not all Democrats will fall into line like he did while in Congress and I think that angers him. The trouble is for him to lash out at the Supreme Court for a decision made and then to attach a group of people to the decision was no better than when Wilson yelled, "You Lie". Obama is the President and should act like the President.
My entries about Obama are not about him in particular. I really do not even know the man on a personal level so I reserve judgement there. Where I can see how one may take my comments to feel that way, I warn that just because one disagrees with the philosophy or actions of another does not translate automatically into a dislike or hatred for the person. That is what America has been reduced to.
No longer can we disagree then agree that we disagree without attributing blame, hatred, or other to the conversation. There will be some things we just do not agree on. It is how we work to compromise on them that shows our true character as Americans.
Obama was given the Peace Prize for speeches and nothing else. Obama cannot even hold his own party together to get his agenda passed through Congress. Massachusetts even changed their election laws to assist Obama but still nothing. And now he is anger and lashing out. As I said before, he is lashing out at the wrong crowd. It is not the Republicans that obstructing anything in Congress. If Obama is this great uniter, why is it that we cannot keep his caucus voting in lock step?
Fall in line like he did regarding the Iraq war after he took office? Didn't he vote against the party on funding?
ReplyDeleteYou reserve judgment except to state that he and his wife had a "gravey life." You clearly passed judgment.
I don't believe I said you hate him, rather dislike, which is accurate.
How is threatening to fillbuster every piece of legislation not obstructing? Why is there theexpectation that he should be able get everything he wants how he wants it? It's not Burger King.
So do you recognize that a JD from Harvard isn't handed to someone? You skipped right over the objection and go on about things not related to the conversation. Do you understand the objection to such broad unsubstantiated claims? It's at best mispeaking, which you didn't clear up given the chance, and at worst a lie from the start.
I don't believe that you honestly believe "everything" was handed to the President. So why say it? Your credibility certainly suffers along with the image of being objective.
On nearly every piece of major piece of legislation, yes one was the funding for Iraq War, he voted in lock step with the Democrats. See:http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans do not, at least did not last year; hold the ability to filibuster any legislation. Obama ran on and allowed him to be painted as a "Uniter" and his Peace Prize Award was based on that hope as well.
In regards to his political life, once he hooked up with the Chicago Machine it was all laid out for him. If he plays ball they will get him to any office he wants. That is Chicago Politics to which litanies of books have been written on it. It is Obama who freely admits that he and his wife are products of Affirmative Action, so when I bring it up I lose credibility? Really?
It is true that they both have had doors opened for them that other members of society have not. Now, to their credit they have made the most of them. To which I applaud them for. The question that we cannot answer is if certain doors were not open for them would they have been just as successful. Why do we shy away from that aspect of the conversation? Let me say this again. Just because I disagree with certain aspects of his vision for America does not translate into how I view him as a person. Yet, some contend they go hand in hand, why I have no idea!!!!