Obama's Lost years

<p>Obama moved to Chicago in order to place himself in what he understood to be the de facto “capital” of black America. For well over 100 years, the Chicago Defender has been the voice of that capital, and therefore a paper of national significance for African Americans. Early on in his political career, Obama complained of being slighted by major media, like the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Yet extensive and continuous coverage in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald presents a remarkable resource for understanding who Obama is. Reportage in these two papers is particularly significant because Obama’s early political career-the time between his first campaign for the Illinois State Senate in 1995 and his race for U.S. Senate in 2004-can fairly be called the “lost years,” the
period Obama seems least eager to talk about.</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>What they portray is a Barack Obama sharply at variance with the image of the post-racial, post-ideological, bipartisan, culture-war-shunning politician familiar from current media coverage and purveyed by the Obama campaign. As details of Obama’s early political career emerge into the light, his associations with such radical figures as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend James Meeks, Bill Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn look less like peculiar instances of personal misjudgment and more like intentional political partnerships. At his core, in other words, the politician chronicled here is profoundly race-conscious, exceedingly liberal, free-spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan. Elected president, this man would presumably shift the country sharply to the left on all the key issues of the day-culture-war issues included. It’s no wonder Obama has passed over his Springfield years in relative silence.</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>Any rounded treatment of Obama’s early political career has got to give prominence to the issue of race. Obama has recently made efforts to preemptively blunt discussion of the race issue, warning that his critics will highlight the fact that he is African American. Yet the question of race plays so large a role in Obama’s own thought and action that it is all but impossible to discuss his political trajectory without acknowledging the extent to which it engrosses him.</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>When it comes to issues like affirmative action and set-asides, Obama is anything but the post-racial politician he’s sometimes made out to be.</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>Obama’s intensely race-conscious approach may surprise Americans who know him primarily through his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention of 2004. When Obama so famously said, “There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America-there’s the United States of America,” most Americans took him to be advocating a color-blind consciousness of the kind expressed in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that his children would one day be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Anyone who understood Obama’s words that way should know that this is not the whole story. In an essay published in 1988 entitled “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City,” Obama tried to make room for both “accommodation and militancy” in black political engagement. He wrote</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>Throughout the 2008 campaign, Obama has made a point of refusing the liberal label. While running for Congress against Bobby Rush in late 1999 and early 2000, however, Obama showed no such compunction</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>The most interesting characterization came from Obama himself, who laid out his U.S. Senate campaign strategy for the Defender in 2003: “[A]s you combine a strong African-American base with progressive white and Latino voters, I think it is a recipe for success in the primary and in the general election.” Putting the point slightly differently, Obama added, “When you combine  .  .  .an energized African-American voter base and effective coalition-building with other progressive sectors of the population, we think we have a recipe for victory.” Obama consciously constructed his election strategy on a foundation of leftist ideology and racial bloc voting.</p>

<p>[Barack</a> Obama’s Lost Years](<a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=1]Barack”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=1)</p>

<p>He told Charlie Rose that if he run for the Presidency he will get about 90% of the black vote. </p>

<p>There is nothing post-racial about Obama, this narrative was created by his campaign, and his media choir helped him to spread this persona.</p>

<p>Nobody could listen to Rev. Wright’s Black Liberation Theology hatred for 20 years, exposing his own children to it, and legitimately claim even a shred of “post-racial” philosophy.</p>

<p>If you can find 10 statements of Hate speech, which shouldn’t be hard if he was preaching it for 20 years, one statement every two years should be easy to find, I will admit that you validly came to that conclusion and aren’t just the ignorant prey of the republican slime machine. </p>

<p>Note which ones you had to look up.</p>

<p>You are more than welcome to view me as “ignorant”. It seems to be a widespread characteristic of The One’s disciples: viewing the rest of the world as ignorant.</p>

<p>And those who hate THE ONE have a distinct characteristic of viewing the rest of the world as ignorant. :slight_smile: I personally like THE ONE … perhaps I AM ignorant. Alas.</p>

<p>I’ve never offered a negative opinion or ad hominem attack on any supporter of The One except for elected public officials, such as John “Liveshot” Kerry who support him in direct opposition to the strongly expressed views of their constitutents.</p>

<p>I never attack a private citizen for their political views, nor do I attack anyone’s views as illegitimate.</p>

<p>Is it really that difficult to find evidence to back your claim that Obama has exposed his own children to racial hatred. </p>

<p>You two, I’m not going to generalize, get exceptionally defensive when anything you say is challenged. This victimhood approach is telling. Of course, who needs evidence to support a viewpoint when you can just blindly believe what is told to you…</p>

<p>Your criticism is implied. When discussing THE ONE with others who support–and even like him–your level of vitriol tends to dismiss all others as ignorant. :D</p>

<p>^Untrue, </p>

<p>I think that statements lacking any basis in fact are ignorant. </p>

<p>If the McCain campaign told you Obama ate children would you believe them? Then why believe him when he talks about this with scarce, and no concrete, evidence.</p>

<p>The (here unacknowledged) source of this article is The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol’s mouthpiece – makes it rather suspect regarding its accuracy.</p>

<p>I’m pretty sure Hindoo was speaking of Idad’s vitriol, Tyler.</p>

<p>poetsheart–You are both smart and intuitive. Indeed I was referring to id’s vitriol. :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Notwithstanding its right wing slant, the article is actually quite well-researched and an interesting read. The author essentially goes through all the published articles about Obama during his years as a part-time legislator. It is vastly more detailed on specific political issues than the pablum in the mainstream media.</p>

<p>Wow! A post sans-vitriol.:eek:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[The</a> Weekly Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard]The”>The Weekly Standard - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>AKA propaganda. </p>

<p>Rule one for thinking people: Always consider the source.</p>

<p>“Rule one for thinking people: Always consider the source.”</p>

<p>Rule 2 of thinking people: Don’t always believe what feels good to your heart.</p>

<p>Rule 3: Always pay attention to what feels good to your heart, otherwise you might lose it.</p>

<p>All media is propoganda. *The Weekly Standard *no more or less than the *New York Times *or NBC News, neither of which has published anything even remotely has well-researched about The One.</p>

<p>The Weekly Standard and other media (NYTimes, WaPost, Times,MSNBC,CNN,FOX, ABC,NBC etc) are all propaganda machines for left-wingers, right-wingers, communists, socialists, etc.</p>

<p>No objectivity whatsoever. I take whatever they report with a grain of salt.</p>