Our heroic world traveller is meeting with Ahmadinejad of Iran. Outside, with cameras rolling, crowds are chanting "Death to the Great Satan!" Cut to Barack:
"This hatred of America has a long history. And it is part of Iran - I could no more expect Ahmadinejad to disown it than I could expect him to disown the Iranian community, or his blessed grandmother. Besides, I heard this stuff all the time in my church back in America, and I recognize it is a distraction form the real issue of better health care for all Iranians..."
OK, maybe not.

Poor Barack. He's toast!
And today is the day Hillary releases her WH schedule, or notes, or something we've been waiting for. Is she hoping all the attention to the Messiah will deflect that fact that she didn't bring peace to Northern Ireland? Will we suddenly realize she was home baking cookies and standing by her man? How many hours will go by before we realize that oh so many records are missing?
Or do we not even care cause the BO implosion is more fun to watch?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Jane | March 19, 2008 at 07:09 AM
Do you suppose he'll bring up 'perverse and hateful ideologies' during tea for two with Ahmadi-Nijad? Or with the right Reverend Jeremiah Wright?
===============================
Posted by: kim | March 19, 2008 at 07:10 AM
I'm waiting for Obama's grandmother to announce she is supporting Hillary.
And what about the bomber assembly plant in Leavenworth? I think he is dead wrong about that and I would like to be a fly on the wall when she next speaks to him. They assembled bombers in Wichita, because it was far from the coasts and already had endemic airplane manufacturing talent. Boeing is in Wichita, the Command and General Staff College in Leavenworth.
================================
Posted by: kim | March 19, 2008 at 07:18 AM
Compare and contrast BO's statements regarding Don Imus:
Posted by: capitano | March 19, 2008 at 08:12 AM
Guys:
You are setting yourself up for this:
REPORTER: Did Barack tell you about his speech?
GRANDMOTHER: Oh yes. We talked about it. He is a fine man, isn't he? Gonna be President.
REPORTER: Ma'am, Senator Obama compared you to his pastor, who has said...
GRANDMOTHER: Pastor Willie, just last week, said we're all going to Hell. And he's such a nice man too.
I know, I said some things around Barry. I just didn't think. We talked about this 20 years ago. We came to an understanding. I never understood before. Folks my age don't always understand...
REPORTER: But he compared you....
GRANDMOTHER: What is your point young man? Barry is family. You want me to talk bad about family?
REPORTER: Well, some people think Obama
GRANDMOTHER: Senator Obama, young man..
REPORTER: Senator Obama talked bad about family...
GRANDMOTHER: He was speaking from the heart, young man, and he talked to me about it first. I don't mind. I was wrong, just like his pastor was wrong, but he still has a Chrstian love for us both. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
REPORTER: But...
GRANDMOTHER: Young man, please leave. Your hairspray is making me want to sneeze. But please vote for Barry. OK?
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | March 19, 2008 at 08:18 AM
Of course, Jericho, is in Kansas, although not so near Wichita. On the best 'troofer' serial, they threw a little spin, once one gets past the references to Jennings & Rall (Halliburton)and Ravenwood (BlackWater) to the British East India Company & "Hessian mercenaries"; and "it's not a country, it's a company, it turns the great atrocity was provoked by one of those earnest reformers/
whistleblowers and it didn't turn out quite like he thought, leaving the British East India Company in charge. Of course, now the race is on, to prevent the earnest reformer,
"Al Gore" who nuked the village in order to save it, from decapitating Cheyenne, and plunging America back into darkness.
Posted by: narciso | March 19, 2008 at 08:23 AM
Now there is the "Obama-Wright escape" clause for those embarrassing situations where you can now say .. "I can no more likely renounce him/her than Obama could renounce Rev. Wright."
Wow. Doesn't that make the world a better place ?
Posted by: Neo | March 19, 2008 at 08:23 AM
Or .. I would like to invoke my "Obama-Wright escape" clause rights.
Ranks right up there with the 5th amendment.
Posted by: Neo | March 19, 2008 at 08:25 AM
Sheesh that Hit just keeps getting his star hoisted. Clarice and my beloved, Mark Steyn, publishes him at the link under my name.
Ya gotta scroll down.
Posted by: Jane | March 19, 2008 at 08:25 AM
Posted by: Neo | March 19, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Jane: thanks for the link to Steyn, which then led me to go check out VIMH. I just love Hit's homage to Clarice with the photo of the world record carp!
Posted by: centralcal | March 19, 2008 at 09:07 AM
From Lynne Sweet at the Sun Times:
A new kind of honesty.
Posted by: MayBee | March 19, 2008 at 09:12 AM
A new kind , indeed. He's as crooked as Hit is funny. And you know I think Hit IS funny.
A little morning sherbet. (The Washington Post rather uniformly reports Obama's speech as something just slightly less fantastic than the Gettysburg Address or the Sermon on the Mount. (Pheh)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/its_time_to_call_the_democrats.html
Posted by: clarice | March 19, 2008 at 09:37 AM
It depends on how you define "those."
Posted by: michaelt | March 19, 2008 at 09:40 AM
NPR comfirms that the policies of the Bush Administration on global warming are working.
Posted by: Neo | March 19, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Jay Cost this morning provides a sympathetic reading of Obama's speech, as well as a critique. More than most commentaries I've seen it provides a springboard to further discussion of some of the profound issues involved:
On Obama's Speech
Posted by: anduril | March 19, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I think this is an interesting question (imagining Obama abroad) because it gets to one of the core roles of the president, which is to speak for America to the world. Obama says he loves this country, but he won't wear a US Flag pin or put his hand over his heart when the national anthem is played. There are only two explanations for that which I can see.
1) He really isn't that proud of America.
Or
2) He is proud, but he is too embarrased of that pride to display it to his family and friends back home in Hyde Park and Kenwood.
If the answer is 1, then I don't see any way he can be an advoate for America to the world.
If the answer is 2, then I wonder how he can be an advocate for America to our true adversaries when he doesn't have the courage to be an advocate for America to his wife and friends.
Posted by: Ranger | March 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Obama is imbued with a Marxist style of thought, for whom truth (and honesty) is what works at the moment.
Posted by: anduril | March 19, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I don't think it's about pride, or love of country or anything like that. I think Obama wants to be at one with the world. If that means we give in a little to sharia law, well that's for the good of one world. There should be no borders, and everyone in the world deserves to have a piece of its richness.
Posted by: Jane | March 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Robert Tracinski has another outstanding article, The Meaning of Obama's Speech on Race, this time with the bonus of a substantial quote from one of my favorite social commentators, Stanley Kurtz:
I think this analysis does justice to the cleverness of the speech, but also illustrates why an Obama presidency would likely worsen race relations in the US--not because he's black but because he is the most extreme of liberals.
Posted by: anduril | March 19, 2008 at 10:41 AM
The Washington Post rather uniformly reports Obama's speech as something just slightly less fantastic than the Gettysburg Address or the Sermon on the Mount.
Of course the WaPo likes it. Their idea of honest discussions about race has heretofore been ruminating whether George Allen was a closet racist or an outright racist for saying "macaca".
Posted by: MayBee | March 19, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Andruil:
Jay Cost this morning provides a sympathetic reading of Obama's speech, as well as a critique. More than most commentaries I've seen it provides a springboard to further discussion of some of the profound issues involved
Cost's piece was interesting, and it gets to an issue raised by TM here -- what has Obama done to advance his overarching theme of unity when he has had the opportunity to do so?
(TM -- Think you have a post idea here. Sure beats complaining that Obama is a meany who hates his granny.)
Obama is imbued with a Marxist style of thought, for whom truth (and honesty) is what works at the moment
Technically, I think you mean Leninist rather than Marxist. And I don't really agree that Obama is doing any lying in his speech. He has engaged in some adroit changes of subject around personally uncomfortable subjects -- but this is taught in Politician 101.
The intellectual construct of Obama's speech is indeed rather reminiscent of Marx. He propounds two separate lines of thought, and suggests a synthesis which is said to be better than both. Also, that little bit of populism (instead of concentrating on racial grivances, white folk shuld direct their fire at rich people) has a bit of a Daily Worker feel.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | March 19, 2008 at 11:01 AM
AM, while I understand your preference for "Leninism" as the mot juste, I'll still insist on "Marxist" and will offer as authority Eric Voegelin's marvelous short work Science, Politics and Gnosticism. I certainly didn't accuse Obama of lying--his Marxism is no doubt sincere as far as it goes. "Lying" would require a very different definition of truth than the Marxist one.
Anyway, I'm glad you liked the article. I do think it's a good springboard for discussion.
Posted by: anduril | March 19, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Too many threads, anduril. I put my thoughts on it on the other of today's threads, I'm sorry to say.
Posted by: clarice | March 19, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Well, then, I'll concentrate on scare mongering.
Posted by: anduril | March 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Barack Obama should have condemned the hatred embodied by the Reverend's remarks. He should have condemned the racism of those remarks. He should have condemned the demonization of whites encouraged by his pastor.
Instead, Obama condemned the intolerance of people who were offended by Rev. Wright?
Posted by: MikeS | March 19, 2008 at 12:23 PM
At the risk of repeat posting, I'd like to share Steve Sailer's really excellent blog on the famous Throw Granny from the Train part of Obama's speech. Sailer, by referring to Obama's book, shows that he actually lies about Granny in his speech. Two interesting things here:
1. The role of Gramps--remember, he was the one who came up with that bar story where Papa Obama conned some evil racist out of money.
2. Notice the way Obama portrays himself so dramatically, like the young boy who grows up to be the hero--dare I say Messiah?--in later life.
Obama throws his own 85-year-old grandmother under the wheels of the BS Express
From Obama's Wright speech:
A careful look at this incident as Obama described it on pp. 88-91 of Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance shows that Obama is slandering his elderly grandmother to make Rev. Dr. Wright look better. Obama's white grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who was raising him and earning most of the money in the family while his own mother was off in Indonesia working on her 1067 page dissertation on peasant blacksmithing, rode the bus each morning to her job as a bank executive. One day, the 16-18 year old Obama wakes up to an argument between his grandmother and grandfather. She didn't want to ride the bus because she had been hassled by a bum at the bus stop. She tells him:
Then Obama drives over for counseling to the house of his grandfather's friend Frank, an old black Communist Party USA member, who tells him:
Man, what a family full of drama queens! And now Obama is equating his own grandma, who was the main breadwinner in this dysfunctional family circus (and who is still alive, living in the Honolulu highrise where this scene took place), with Rev. Dr. God Damn America.
Classy.
The Washington Monthly's liberal blogger Kevin Drum, who voted for Obama, commented about this scene and others:
So, in summary, let's look at how Obama smeared his own elderly but very much alive grandmother, calling her:
Well, no, according to Obama's 1995 book, it is not at all true that she "once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street." Instead, she once confessed her fear of one aggressive black beggar who didn't pass by her but instead confronted her, demanded money, and then gave her -- an intelligent, level-headed woman who had worked her way up to a mid-level corporate management position -- good reason to believe he would have violently mugged her if her bus hadn't pulled up.
Posted by: anduril | March 19, 2008 at 12:44 PM
andruil:
Sailer assumes that what Obama was referring to in this speech was only this incident. I don't see how that's a resonable assumption.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | March 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Wrong, AM. Read it again more closely. He focuses on the "black men passing incident" from his book, although there was only one, but notes the "more than once occasion" part, too. There is full disclosure. As in the bar incident, all this is seen through Gramps' prism.
Posted by: anduril | March 19, 2008 at 01:01 PM
I just read Obama's speech. It took several sittings, several paragraphs at a time, to be able to wade through it. Although I will compose a more thorough observation later, Obama's speech failed.
Obama didn't miss the point, the speech shows he doesn't SEE the point. He believes he can bridge the gap between cultures, doesn't know how to do it, but nevertheless believes he can. That is evident because nowhere does he show us he sees what needs to be seen.
Everyone lives in one society made of many cultures. That overriding society has few abiding considerations. Truth is one — and to help each other see it. Respect is another — to help each other and oneself.
His 20-year relationship with Wright and the church ignored the value of truth and respect, and nowhere in his speech did he acknowledge the importance of truth or respect.
To claim special ability to bridge a gap between one culture and another and, in so doing, ignore the abiding considerations necessary for all society is sad.
The platitudes of Obama's speech deflect, minimize, dissemble, and accuse. In the end, Obama doesn't give any answers because he doesn't understand the questions.
He doesn't know what is important and he doesn't know why.
Posted by: sbw | March 19, 2008 at 01:08 PM
By the way, in the book Obama after seeing his Gramps make a lefty ass of himself about Gramma being concerned about getting mugged at the bus stop goes and visits with a friend and mentor. Its all in the book.
Who is this guy Frank?
Apparently Frank Davis, known Communist Party USA member.
Apparently this guy is also touted as being a mentor to Barack during his formative years.
Sure seems to me to be a whole lot of Marxists rattling around in this guys attic. Momma Moonbat, lefty grampa, Frank Davis CPUSA member, William Ayers and another Weather member ( whose name escapes me ) who is an acknowledged CPUSA member and Rev Wright of Black Liberation Theology fame.
But socialism is really just communism without the violent revolution now isn't it?
Posted by: GMax | March 19, 2008 at 01:22 PM
He doesn't know what is important and he doesn't know why.
True that. The fundamental essence of his blindmess is this:
No. I call BS on that. Cue Replay:
Anger at Southern Democrats would be "understandable". Forgiving today's benefactor Democrat party is "understandable". What is not understandable or acceptable is forgiving the Democrat party while white liberals stand in the presence of Jeremia's rage nodding their heads and pointing their fingers at the rest of us.
Posted by: boris | March 19, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Scott Rasmussen reading tea leaves:
While the full impact of Obama’s speech will not be known for some time, early indications are that it may have helped Obama more in the Democratic Primary competition than in a potential General Election match-up.
Ya think?
Posted by: GMax | March 19, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Ouch, ouch, ouch, Tom.
You've been beating the crap out of Obambi. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you weren't very fond of him.
YOU RACIST!!!!!
Posted by: JB | March 19, 2008 at 01:38 PM
may have helped Obama more in the Democratic Primary competition
Doubt it. Probably just skews the polls because BHO sez taking offence at Father Jeremia makes you a racist.
Posted by: boris | March 19, 2008 at 01:39 PM
"Imagining Barack Abroad"
? You mean like The Crying Game? Metrosexual, sure, but he's a bit tall for the other isn't he? Plus the ears.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 19, 2008 at 01:52 PM
A big wig would fix that up.
Posted by: boris | March 19, 2008 at 01:53 PM
but he's a bit tall for the other isn't he? Plus the ears.
Amy says he looks like a Q-Tip.
Posted by: Jane | March 19, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Posting on the run, and in haste--this time from the computer of the dreaded mother-in-law in PA.
The first post on this thread (Jane's) had it right: the man is finished, and he cannot and will not be elected. Forget about his speech; only a sliver of the November electorate was watching anyway. A huge slice of the swing voters simply will not vote for a guy who sat in that church for twenty years. Forget about which particular sermons he heard--if he didn't know everything all of us now know about Preacer Wright long ago, he's a dunce.
McCain wins in November. Cut this one and save it. The election of 2008 is over, and your friend Other Tom told you who would win on March 19 (actually, the fine fellow did it a few days ago, but in the interest of modesty he will only claim March 19 as the Date of the Epiphany).
Posted by: Other Tom | March 19, 2008 at 02:42 PM
Harummph!
I beat you by 6 days. (well really a few hours before you proclaimed it on the 13th.) That's what you get for visiting the relatives. Stop stealing my thunder. (Altho it's possible I only proclaimed the demise of Obama and not the election of McCain. If so, I bow in homage.)
Posted by: Jane | March 19, 2008 at 02:47 PM
OT & Jane, and if you win bragging rights, why do you need 'em?
[Puncturing two big balloons with one pin. ;-) ]
Posted by: sbw | March 19, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Jane and OT:
Never underestimate the stupidity (and cupidity) of an Oprahfied electorate.
Obama represents, on many levels, and escape from responsibility. And Americans are always up for that.
I will breathe easier in November, but not until.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 19, 2008 at 02:53 PM
AN escape
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 19, 2008 at 02:54 PM
The news reports say Obama wrote the speech mostly by himself. It shows. Everybody needs and editor.
Posted by: sbw | March 19, 2008 at 02:56 PM
sbw, that is--as usual--a very good analysis and so much more civil than mine. I just assumed he did know what the questions were and figured he could and would soft shoe it...and that seems to have worked on most of the media.
Posted by: clarice | March 19, 2008 at 02:59 PM
Example that everybody needs an editor: But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea...
"Seared, seared." Nobody in politics who doesn't want to associated with Kerry "remembering" Cambodia should use the word "seared."
Posted by: sbw | March 19, 2008 at 02:59 PM
and so much more civil than mine.
Thanks, Clarice, but I have no doubt your analysis -- did I overlook it on a thread -- would be much more powerful and entertaining.
Posted by: sbw | March 19, 2008 at 03:02 PM
sbw,
That is the first thing I thought when I heard him use the word seared.
Posted by: Sue | March 19, 2008 at 03:04 PM
Sailer assumes that what Obama was referring to in this speech was only this incident. I don't see how that's a reasonable assumption.
Sure. How can you expect him to cram all the details of his 46 1/2 years into the mere 1,051 pages of biography he's written? Probably he's saving up stuff for his epic, Remembrance of
ThingsRacial Slights Past.But don't think you have to vote against Obama because he slurred his grandmother. You can vote against him because he's a hypocrite (Wright vs Imus), because he's a liar (I never heard the statements at issue/of course I heard stuff like that), because he seeks out the company of angry black separatists, or because he seeks out unreformed terrorists, or because he is a typically dirty Chicago machine politician, or because he's a leftist, or because his resume is so thin....
Or you can do what the rest of us are doing and vote against him because he's black.
Posted by: bgates | March 19, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Date of the Epiphany
You would dare to blaspheme on this holy week? Watch out for lightning bolts.
Posted by: GMax | March 19, 2008 at 03:07 PM