Why I Don’t Support Barrack Obama…

Posted: March 26, 2008 in barrack obama, democratic presidential candidates, democrats, obama, Politics

How can a man with who votes the Democratic Party line in the U.S. Senate 97% of the time genuinely claim that he will unify the country? He can’t.

How can a man who has attended an African Nationalist church for over 20 years claim to transcend race? He can’t.

For the above reasons, I just can’t buy the almost defied image of Obama presented by both his official campaign staff and his unofficial campaign staff (i.e. the members of the media who cry when they hear him speak). While Obama is intelligent, charismatic, and an effective public speaker, he isn’t the savior that many want to make him. [BTW, check out this interesting footage of people fainting during his speeches.] Moreover, the hope that many Americans have, a hope to find a racial savior that can wipe the slate clean has unfortunately led to a myopic vision on the part of Obama supporters to overlook the wildly overstated case for his presidency. Perhaps even more frightening is Obama’s own belief that he does live up to the hype.

Charles Krauthammer said it best in a column he wrote back in February called “Obama, The Platitude Salesman.”

“Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He’s going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can’t possibly redeem.

Moreover, Krauthammer has written two more columns that should give almost any Obama supporter  a reason to stop and think about their chosen candidate. The first is his response to Obama’s now famous (or infamous) speech in response to the controversy about reverend Wright’s comments. Wherein he writes:

“This contextual analysis of Wright’s venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It’s the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That’s why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination…”

Krauthammer concludes by asking:

“If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright’s rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?”

The second Krauthammer articles is a more general condemnation of the identity politics that we now playing out on the national stage.  It is a sad display that Krauthammer sums up brilliantly:

“The pillars of American liberalism — the Democratic Party, the universities and the mass media — are obsessed with biological markers, most particularly race and gender. They have insisted, moreover, that pedagogy and culture and politics be just as seized with the primacy of these distinctions and with the resulting “privileging” that allegedly haunts every aspect of our social relations.

They have gotten their wish. This primary campaign represents the full flowering of identity politics. It’s not a pretty picture. Geraldine Ferraro says Obama is only where he is because he’s black. Professor Orlando Patterson says the 3 a.m. phone call ad is not about a foreign policy crisis but a subliminal Klan-like appeal to the fear of ‘black men lurking in the bushes around white society.'”

To quote Rev. Wright, it seems the chickens are coming home to roost.  While it remains to be seen if the Democratic Party will nominate a white woman or a black man as its candidate for the presidency, it seems beyond question that the controlling factor in that choice has not been merit, experience, or ideology, but instead it has been identity.

To conclude, I will not vote for Obama.  I won’t vote for him because I refuse to vote for an image when I can vote for an ideology.  I won’t cast a vote for vagaries and speculative promises when there are candidates willing to offer actual plans.  I certainly will not vote for a candidate whose stock in trade is all too often old cliches, familiar bromides, and comforting platitudes.  Have we forgotten that answers don’t come from self-congratulatory hopefulness, they come from hard fought struggle and deep introspection.  Unfortunately, the Obama campaign is anything but deep.  In reality it is quite shallow.

  1. Sojourner Truthe says:

    [I accidentally deleted this comment. However, I rescued this comment via the update email WordPress sends me with each comment. Sorry Sojourner for deleting your comment- even if only briefly.]

    I find it hypocritical that whites attend all white churches (Irish
    Catholic, Episcopalian, German Lutheran etc) that promote the ethos of
    their ethnic origin but there is something wrong with African Americans
    celebrating their heritage in our own worship experience??? Give me a
    break. Get over it. You do not have the power nor right to control
    someone’s worship experience.

    Did I ask for such a power? Did I tell him where or when to go to church? I merely questioned the way he presents himself as someone who transcends race while attending an African nationalist church. Is that criticism unfair? Would you accept such a claim from a white man who attended a predominantly white church?

    The days of Master telling African American
    when we can worship and how we can worship is over.

    It seems almost pointless to respond to such a rhetorically exagerated point, so I won’t.

    You’re so blind to
    your own superiority complex you don’t even see the fallacy of your
    argument. The Episcopal Church, the religion of American Presidents is
    deeply steeped in British ethos but there is no criticism of this
    religion denomination, eh?

    So you think it is valid to compare the “British ethos” of the Episcopal Church with a pastor who claims that the U.S. government (i.e. whites) invented AIDS to commit genocide on black folks? By what standard do you equate the two? Keep in mind I am only asking you to defend just one of the odd and racially divisive conspiracy theories that Rev. Wright has lobbed out from the pulpit.

    You were not going to vote for him anyway and your excuse is racist

    Ah, reflexive racial politics at its best. Indeed, since I disagree with you I must be a racist, eh? Actually as a libertarian my vote was up for grabs this election cycle. However, if it makes you sleep better at night to think I am a horrible racist, then by all means don’t let me stop you. 😉

  2. in2thefray says:

    But the feelings and change are the reasons to vote Obama.
    As for the church thing. I go to a baptist church and I’m for sure going to tell the black members they’re going have to go. I know they believe in Jesus and the Bible and that’s why they are members but hey ! I’m white and that means I’m supposed to have a white only, white preaching church. You see that’s the truth about the church (TUCC) under Wright it preached non Biblical,race hating,class envy divisive not loving teachings and …Truth not so much

    I don’t mind that the man attends a black nationalist Church. Heck, I wouldn’t care if he attended Farrakhan’s church. It is that he portrays himself as somehow above the issue of race when he has attended a church for two decades that presents a worldview locked into a racial outlook. That is just plain disingenuous and downright silly. His speech on race is and will ever remain a simple exercise in nothing more than rationalization and equivocation that produced paroxysms of joy and self-loathing in liberal consumed with white guilt.

  3. Christian Prophecy says:

    Everybody is looking for Obama in all the wrong places. Look at his Marxist THEOLOGY. See:

  4. Teresa says:

    I thought Christians didn’t support him ’cause he’s the Anti-Christ. LOL!


    Oh, he so isn’t the anti-Christ. You are giving him far too much credit. Like I said, Obama is another intelligent and charismatic person who for some reason thinks that just because he is intelligent and charismatic AND has lots of hope he can do things like “unify” the country and heal racial division. Honestly, if he was elected would Republicans all of a sudden start thinking that adopting the Democratic Party platform was a good idea? Quite frankly I would put more faith in a cure-all tonic from a 1890s traveling carnival.

    BTW thanks for the comment Teresa. I don’t see you much ’round these parts.

  5. Israel says:

    So let me get this straight…You are not voting for Obama?

    Indeed, I think we do have that straight. Although it isn’t because I am a racist. If you ask some of my liberal friends they will tell you it is because I am not enlightened enough. 🙂

    As to who I am voting for…I am still not entirely sure. I might go crazy and vote 3rd party this time around.

  6. Teresa says:


    Just horned in on your invitation to Theo.

    Read what you said, and thought I would leave a link to a blog entry I did a while back about some funny people who are convinced he’s the anti-christ.


  7. Teresa,

    Shameless self-promotion by real people (as opposed to porn bots) is always welcome. Feel free to post other links if you feel such a desire. 😉

  8. John,

    Those videos of people fainting are great. Are they for real?

    Amazing. I thought Mexican politics were good…. But these Beatles like fainting videos are much better.

  9. isaacme says:

    Lol. The Democrats are ALL just about words. There’s nothing to back their words up. As far as your point on uniters vs. dividers, I would hate to think what would happen if Hillary became president. She is SOOO dividing/anti Republican.

  10. Randy says:

    I didn’t realize he had voted the party line 97% of the time. Makes me wonder if he has a mind of his own or if he sold that to the highest bidder.

    Obama comes across as highly educated and eloquent. I noticed him four years ago and realized he was a force to be reckoned with. I didn’t realize he was going to get this big this fast.

    He scares me.

  11. Angie says:

    Well, you know how I feel, now don’t ya? Just look at my posts. LOL!

    I am in total agreement with ya!

  12. Whoa, there’s an invite for me somewhere? Did I miss something?

    TT, dahlin, where are the Obama supporters? I thought you needed some back up. Ready, willing, and snarky. Where’s the fight? 🙂

  13. HA! Only one Obama supporter was kind enough to show up and comment, even though I know that many of them found the blog via search terms. I guess they can’t quite put into words an explanation for Obama’s promises of “unity” and “change we can believer in”- which I guess contrasts with change I can’t believe in, like if he promised to turn horses into unicorns?!

  14. BTW Bridget, that link I sent you. Well I guess he decided to simply delete my comments and his own. Wonder why?

  15. May I rant? Check out this *(&($@: http://twitter.com/petrock/statuses/786920987

    “Often left hanging.” Oh, poor baby! Does he need a pacifier? Or is he just too bloody stupid to use <A HREF = “”<google cache?

  16. As always you may, but I think I will need to clean up the above link.

  17. Akira says:

    It’s disturbing that someone would even feel compelled to add “it’s not because I’m racist” after stating they’re not supporting Obama.

    Everyone around Obama goes on and on about identity politics, or outright racism (e.g. Wright).

    There’s some real evil racist ju-ju around his whole campaign.

    I saw your post here:


    My comment still not showing up there:

    “Historian Elaine Frantz Parsons discovered,

    “Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen.”


  18. harold says:

    This website is retarded, i guess if you want george bush number 3 in office along with more bloodshed in iraq for no reason except for oil and greed,more high gas prices and big tax breaks for the big oil machine plus no healthcare extensions to underprivilidged children yet money to help rebuild georgia which is russias bullcrap not our responsibility.Yeah if you like feeding the rich companies and big oil and hurting the poor people of america then dont vote for obama,vote for bush # 3 “mcain” whats wrong for america.and what kills me is the best mcain can come up with is calling obama a celebrity.I havent ever seen obama on a talk show but what about mcain on the “tonight show” opp’s did i let that slip out.What a hipocrite.Yeah we’ll see just how smart weve become or how stupid we remain come election time.

  19. “This website is retarded,”

    Already, your comment isn’t going well and it is only four words long. You do realize that these kind of statements don’t reflect well on your ability to employ reasoned arguments, right? Plus, every knows the word “retarded” is offensive to the differently-abled community.

    ” i guess if you want george bush number 3 in office along with more bloodshed in iraq for no reason except for oil and greed,more high gas prices and big tax breaks for the big oil machine plus no healthcare extensions to underprivilidged children yet money to help rebuild georgia which is russias bullcrap not our responsibility”

    Aside from simply requesting you run spell check , I also hope you would broaden your reading. May I suggest you expand your online reading list beyond the Huffington Post; also, you might consider watching something on T.V. beside Keith Olberman’s show on MSNBC.

    “Yeah if you like feeding the rich companies and big oil and hurting the poor people of america then dont vote for obama,vote for bush # 3 “mcain” whats wrong for america.and what kills me is the best mcain can come up with is calling obama a celebrity.”

    McCain has far more against Obama than just his celebrity. But if you want to simply latch on to one plank of the McCain attack against Obama don’t let me stop you. As a matter of fact I mentioned several of my own problems with Obama above- which I might point out you completely avoided commenting on them aside from your witty “retarded” statement.

    “I havent ever seen obama on a talk show but what about mcain on the “tonight show” opp’s did i let that slip out.”


    “What a hipocrite.Yeah we’ll see just how smart weve become or how stupid we remain come election time.”

    Just because people disagree politically that does not mean that one side is smart and the other is stupid. Why must you make politics so deeply personal? Could it be that others share the same political goals as you (i.e. better health care, less bloodshed, etc.) but simply think there are different and better means to achieving those ends?

    BTW, did you plan on commenting on the substance of this post?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s