The Dallas Morning News

Rod Dreher
The company Obama has kept

02:12 PM CDT on Sunday, May 11, 2008

Forty years ago this month, Paris exploded in left-wing student riots that led to a nationwide general strike. The revolutionary fervor of France's soixante-huitards ('68ers) spread widely, including to American campuses. If you're wondering when the Good '60s of peace, love and civil rights gave way to the Bad '60s of anarchy and violence, May 1968 is as good a historical pivot point as any.John McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton at the time. Barack Obama was 6 years old. Yet the restless spirit of '68 haunts this year's presidential campaign, especially the White House bid of Mr. Obama, who, having pretty much missed the '60s – "Civil rights, sexual revolution, Vietnam War. Those all sort of passed me by," he told The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan last year – was supposed to take us beyond those divisive traumas.

It's not working out that way. His former pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is an unreconstructed '60s radical, a fire-breathing disciple of James Cone's period-piece black liberation theology. Mr. Obama wrote in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, about his attraction to the leftist pastor's church as a vehicle for social change. If black nationalism would uplift the race, he wrote, "then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence."

That's a remarkable admission of a racialized "ends justify the means" morality. It helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to stick with a crackpot like Dr. Wright. It also might explain why an up-and-coming Barack Obama found nothing particularly wrong with rubbing political elbows with Bill Ayers, the Chicago university professor and onetime fugitive member of the revolutionary, communist Weather Underground.

Mr. Ayers, an unrepentant '60s domestic terrorist, is an academician in good standing and an active member of Chicago's progressive community. It is unremarkable that a rising star in Chicago Democratic politics would collaborate with Mr. Ayers, which tells us something about the soixante-huitard generation.

They may have failed at revolution, but they succeeded in changing the culture. (A famous soixante-huitard slogan: "Live without limits, and enjoy without restraint.") They did so in large part by, to use the Marxist Antonio Gramsci's phrase, "marching through the institutions." Pulpits. Professorships. Publishing and media. And in some cases, politics.

It's not "guilt by association" to inquire to what extent Mr. Obama – whose moral and political conscience was shaped by his education at elite universities, his street activism and his tutelage at Dr. Wright's knee – shares the views and assumptions of the soixante-huitards . In terms of style, he's plainly not one of them. But his deeply liberal voting record marks him as at least a fellow traveler. Besides, as Rolling Stone magazine put it last year in a sympathetic profile, Mr. Obama's is "as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from."

This may be of no matter to the left, but Mr. Obama is not running for mayor of Berkeley, president of Harvard or prime minister of The New York Times.

But if the '60s radicals went too far, they had ample cause to protest – especially against the war in Vietnam, which the U.S. government had been lying about and would continue to lie about. The radicals weren't all wrong about American power. Know why the terrorist team of Ayers & Dohrn never went to jail? The FBI broke so many laws trying to catch them that putting them on trial would have been futile.

"By any means necessary" was not just an ethic of the far left (ask Ollie North). Nor is it a thing of the past, as the Bush administration and its allies have so amply demonstrated in relentless pursuit of the president's prerogatives. If it's fair to judge Mr. Obama by the ideological company he keeps, Mr. McCain deserves the same. Meaning well is not exculpatory.

That said, Mr. Obama's radical baggage is more politically damaging because it deflates the hope many voters invested in him. He was once the man to deliver American politics from the storm and stress of the '60s generation – "Goodbye to all that," as The Atlantic headlined Mr. Sullivan's much-read pre-primary encomium to Mr. Obama's transformational potential.

Not yet, alas. Against his own conscience, the ambitious but insecure young Mr. Obama compromised with the malevolent spirit of '68 for the sake of worldly gain. For the consequences are not proving to be as little as he expected.

Said the Devil to Faust: "In the end, you are exactly – what you are." Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
The Dallas Morning News

Rod Dreher
The company Obama has kept

02:12 PM CDT on Sunday, May 11, 2008

Forty years ago this month, Paris exploded in left-wing student riots that led to a nationwide general strike. The revolutionary fervor of France's soixante-huitards ('68ers) spread widely, including to American campuses. If you're wondering when the Good '60s of peace, love and civil rights gave way to the Bad '60s of anarchy and violence, May 1968 is as good a historical pivot point as any.John McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton at the time. Barack Obama was 6 years old...

That was a good perceptive article, PA... in my opinion.

I do want to mention one thing it did conspicuously lack.

It is true that McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton in '68, and that Obama was 6 years old.

What is missing is what Hillary Clinton was up to in those days and years... her behavior in those days barely ever gets mentioned, and was (by some measurements) far more disgusting than anything Obama has done since he was 6 years old.

Like it or not, we are faced with a glorious defeat of Hillary Rodham-Clinton in coming days... thanks, entirely, to the candidacy and fortitude of Barack Obama and those who saw fit to vote for him. If he had not run in this race, she would have been the nominee starting in February.

McCain surely would have defeated her in the general, but Obama (at the least) may well have saved America from having to tolerate Billary jabbing their fingers at us and clapping for themselves for another six months.

At this stage, if all stays on course, we will be lucky to have a contest, one on one, mano y mano, Obama vs McCain... beginning already. It could become a true test of the will and vision of both sides, to the extent the standard bearers accurately represent those ideals. That is what a Presidential contest is meant to be... a collision of opposites, the eventual victor being entitled to our collective allegiance for their term.

Each of those fine men, will be exactly who they are. Yes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Michael S. Bell,

For the record, THIS is more likely to be what happens to Obama in November... which may or may not be enough to defeat him, and which definitely makes the least common sense of all.

We'll have to see who McCain and he choose for the VPs.

Source:
FT.COM 5.11.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides..."

quote:

"By any means necessary" was not just an ethic of the far left (ask Ollie North). Nor is it a thing of the past, as the Bush administration and its allies have so amply demonstrated in relentless pursuit of the president's prerogatives.

Hee Hee, I notice none of the GDR crowd had a comment on THAT little gem. How true.

What must gall people like PA is that Malcolm X or any of the radical black leaders from the 60's would fare better than a GD Republican this fall--hell, even Jane Fonda would stand a decent chance of getting elected after eight years of Bush. How the mighty have fallen.

a. Malcolm X or "any of the radical black leaders of the 60s" would not have gotten past the first primary, and probably could not have obtained sufficient signatures to get on a ballot. It's kind of an insult to him to include Malcom X with the rest of that bunch though... I gotta hand it to them however; they sure did a great job of guilt-trip sucking in the liberal old Left and contributing to the burning of a lot of property in America back then.

b. Jane Fonda, were she to miraculously have survived the primaries against Obama, would be demolished by McCain just as Billary would be... but not for the identical reasons.

If McCain doesn't drop dead between now and November, he will have the honor of having his ass handed to him by whatever piece of dung the Democrats nominate. There aren't enough ballot-box stuffers on the planet to get McCain elected. He's a good man, one of my Navy guys and a hero in my book, but he has a fatal flaw: he's a GD Republican, and they can't even get together behind him. He had to cater to the far right to knock off Huckabee and Romney, and he ruined any chance of gaining popular appeal by sucking up to Bush and supporting OIF.

You can do a candidate by candidate comparison all day, and it won't change the fact that most voters are going to pick anything that does not have an R following it come this November, and you can thank Bush for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:
... voters are going to pick anything that does not have an R following it come this November, and you can thank...

I'd be willing to bet that such a prediction will come true, absolutely, or very likely anyway... it doesn't speak well of our ability to respond to changing circumstances and personalities with calm intelligence, but it IS highly probable; unless the Dems run Billary.

That alone, will draw people from their mother's death bed to vote against her.

As for who is to be thanked for this situation, I'd say (with no fear of not being contradicted ) that the responsibility for that outcome was part of the propaganda campaign on the far Left since, roughly, the year 2000.

Congratulations! It worked!

I disagree. You had it easily, but not with Obama and Hillary. Not at all. You failed to nominate a candidate that wasn't radical.

Liberals may forgive Obama'a many problems but moderates will not. If there was anyone else except Hillary to turn to you all would have dumped Obama like a bad date (replace Donna Rice with Rev Wright). It's been rather embarrassing for you all which is funny!

Wright sets the tone for Obama; who he associates himself with, listens to, etc. You liberals will make this about race but the reality is Obama is the wrong candidate - regardless of his race.

If you want to believe the same polls that say Bush is the worst President ever, then Hillary has a better chance of winning the WH. I believe that as well. She is polarizing but she's a lot more moderate then Marxist-Obama.

But here lies another problem. You liberals have invested so much into tearing Hillary apart (finally) you feel it is too late to turn this around. How can you jump off the Obama bandwagon so fast and start building Hillar back up again! 'Why won't she just quit!' is the media's echo!! Seriously, this is GREAT!

....and in that respect that is why McCain is the best thing that happened to Republicans this election.

He wasn't my first choice, and I still have issues with him, but he can reach across the aisle and pull those votes away from someone as far left as Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
...If there was anyone else except Hillary to turn to you all would have dumped Obama like a bad date

a. False assumption based on equally false premise.

b. It would be a VERY serious error to depend on the perception that the ONLY people who have put Obama where he is today are liberals, socialists, Marxists , or insane.

That kind of reasoning is exactly what guides and inspires the likes of your nemeses Seth and Pete...

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
....and in that respect that is why McCain is the best thing that happened to Republicans this election.

He wasn't my first choice, and I still have issues with him, but he can reach across the aisle and pull those votes away from someone as far left as Obama.

Absolutely so.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
...If there was anyone else except Hillary to turn to you all would have dumped Obama like a bad date

a. False assumption based on equally false premise.

b. It would be a VERY serious error to depend on the perception that the ONLY people who have put Obama where he is today are liberals, socialists, Marxists , or insane.

That kind of reasoning is exactly what guides and inspires the likes of your nemeses Seth and Pete...

You will find, if you stay around long enough, that PA is the one who makes broad generalizations about groups of people, and prefers to tell people what they think. You know--if you aren't X then you MUST be Y....

I do agree with him that the Dems could have found better candidates than Hillary or Obama, and that it is not outside the realm of possibility they could blow what should be a gimme-putt of an election. I mean, the Democrats are like the Cubs--they always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:
You will find, if you stay around long enough, that PA is the one who makes broad generalizations about groups of people, and prefers to tell people what they think. You know--if you aren't X then you MUST be Y....

I agree with this.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:

I do agree with him that the Dems could have found better candidates than Hillary or Obama, and that it is not outside the realm of possibility they could blow what should be a gimme-putt of an election. I mean, the Democrats are like the Cubs--they always find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is all I am saying, no "broad generalizations." A lot of democrats aren't happy with their choices, and now they face a battle. It is no longer a 'gimme.'

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:

quote:

Originally posted by Proud American!:
...If there was anyone else except Hillary to turn to you all would have dumped Obama like a bad date

a. False assumption based on equally false premise.

b. It would be a VERY serious error to depend on the perception that the ONLY people who have put Obama where he is today are liberals, socialists, Marxists , or insane.

That kind of reasoning is exactly what guides and inspires the likes of your nemeses Seth and Pete...

My reply to Pete's post sums it up but I will add this, you yourself Michael said people will crawl out of the ground to vote against Hillary. What does this leave you with?! You have to except all of Obama's shortcomings if you are willing to support him - and I can guarantee there are a lot of people out there that are not happy about his 20 year relationship with Wright.