Barack Obama to David Letterman: I Was Black Before

stuart;
This article by Darren Hutchinson presents an interesting point. Its conclusion about the media giving focus to violence at town hall meetings, the schism among Democrats, and now the supposedly racist tones of the Obama opposition being a distraction to the issue of reform is valid.

I agree this has been a distraction from the issues. The media have a job to do, but if they do not report what is happening they are accused of being "biased". Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.

Even more interesting than the press coverage is what followed on Mr. Hutchinson's article. This is what he says:

[Quote] "For over a month, conservatives have advanced gross distortions regarding healthcare reform. They have described it as socialism, Nazism and totalitarianism, and they have argued that it would establish "death panels" to decide whether to "pull the plug on Grandma." They have portrayed healthcare reform as an effort to harm seniors -- even though Republican John McCain proposed the very same cuts to Medicare that Obama has proposed. They have also condemned "government-run" healthcare, while pretending to support Medicare and TRICARE; these two programs, however, are forms of government-run healthcare.

Moreover, many of Obama's opponents have blasted "big government," but they want the federal government to reform tort laws in every state and to veto a doctor and patient's decision regarding abortion. Many of them also supported the unnecessary war in Iraq and the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. They also endorse governmental regulation of some of the most intimate human relations, such as sex among consenting adults.

Conservatives blame Obama for the financial sector and auto industry bailouts -- even though the Bush administration proposed both bailouts and ushered the legislation through Congress. Bush also sharply increased the rate of government spending -- while cutting taxes. That disastrous fiscal policy turned a surplus into a record deficit.

I am not even intrigued by Joe "You Lie" Wilson's racial mind-set. His prior work for Strom Thurmond and his reaction to the "unseemly" possibility that Thurmond had a "black" daughter indicate that Wilson is not the most advanced mind on issues of race and sex. But focusing on this obvious fact detracts from the content of Wilson's own "lies."

Wilson, for example, has rallied his conservative constituents against the inclusion of a public plan option in healthcare reform. Wilson makes typical Republican arguments regarding this issue, claiming that a public plan would interfere with doctor and patient relationships and reduce the level and quality of care. Wilson, however, has spoken quite fondly of TRICARE -- the government-run health system for military personnel, veterans and their families. Wilson and his children and their families are all on TRICARE. Wilson has said that TRICARE delivers "world class" medical care. Wilson has also noted that TRICARE receives high marks from participants.

TRICARE also establishes treatment options (just like private insurance) that define the contours of a doctor-patient relationship for patients who lack private insurance or the ability to self-pay. Wilson's contradictory positions on this subject are far more important than whether he hates Obama because he is black." [End of quote]

He then goes on with his conclusion, which I refer to above. I could not agree more with Mr. Hutchinson's article. It hits the nail smack on the head.

Stuart, thank you for the article.

Dirks:

when you add in his demeanor and his eloquence and intelligence then he officially becomes 'polarizing.'

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/768042,obhill013008.article
.
Remember when the Obama campaign's argument against Hillary was that she was "too polarizing"?

Obama: Hillary's too polarizing to win
January 30, 2008
FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
DENVER —
.
Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday said rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is too polarizing to win the presidency and she has taken positions shared by President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain for political expediency.
.
Obama depicted Clinton as a calculating, poll-tested divisive figure who will only inspire greater partisan divisions as she sides with Republicans on issues like trade, the role of lobbyists in politics and national security. At the same time, he elevated McCain, fresh off victory in Florida's crucial primary, as the likely Republican nominee.
.
‘‘Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change,'' Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.
.
‘‘It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed,'' Obama said

Underneath the almost total incoherence of that rhetoric --Hillary was polarizing because she voted with Republicans who hated her, like John McCain when he voted for the war, and the now laughable "principled opposition" to torture that Hillary did not share enough of with McCain-- lies the fresh grave of another presidential Democrat whose eloquence and intelligence also rendered him "polarizing": Bill Clinton.
.
When you add a Democrat to the White House, or to a campaign for the White House, then whoever that person is becomes "officially polarizing", Dirks.
.
Bush wasn't polarizing --he just made the left "angry"--and his opponents could be safely marginalized and ignored, right on up to the date this gem was produced by the genius-king Broder:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501271.html
.
Bush Regains His Footing
.
By David S. Broder
Friday, February 16, 2007
.
It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.
.
Like President Bill Clinton after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, Bush has gone through a period of wrenching adjustment to his reduced status. But just as Clinton did in the winter of 1995, Bush now shows signs of renewed energy and is regaining the initiative on several fronts.

.
When the next Democrat runs for president, another Serious argument against that candidacy will be the tea party protests --if Obama manages to survive un-impeached during his term. After all, nobody can polarize the country like a Democrat in the White House. The country is just too exhausted from all of that pointless fighting, it's just too much for everyone. "The American people long to come together with unity and common purpose", the centrist establishment will intone once again.
.
And, if there's a candidate who serves that business-as-usual centrism up on a silver platter to the political media class as well as the one who said of his political rival "[we] will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country", or the one who said in front of the Vice President who presided over the Senate's vote on the first impeachment trial in 100 years "I'm a uniter, not a divider!", that candidate will probably get the Beltway cocktail-party set's all-important vote.
.
No, Barack Obama's eloquence and intelligence did not cause him to officially become "polarizing", but his rhetorical acceptance of that frame from the very outset of his campaign virtually guaranteed that Democrats' escape from "polarization" would not be the goal of "a movement for change".