Obama's Media Surrogates Continue To Race Bait--Call For "Race War"
for 24-Hours of Propaganda
While New York State Opinion Polls that in June had Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama ahead by as many as 18 points continue to slide and currently hover at a lead of just over 4%, a dangerous trend of racial blackmail is being used by Randall Kennedy, Gov. David Patterson and the Obama campaign, who are doing their best to shame America into voting for Obama with subtle race-baiting tactics.
Whoopi Goldberg attacked Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain by asking him the preposterous question, ""Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change?", on The View Friday. Whoopi Goldberg obviously could not ask the question, 'lose the right to vote because I am a woman?', because that would not be devisive or bitchy enough for The View.
Fatimah Ali, Philadelphia Daily News columnist said in her recent column, "We don't have to wait until after the election for a race war. We're in one now."
Also trying to seal the support that seems to be hemorraging out Sen. Obama's campaign, Mary Mitchell has said, "I wouldn’t label as racist every white Democrat who switched to McCain after Hillary Clinton was dispatched, but acting as though racial prejudice no longer exists in this country is also wrong. Obama tries to avoid talking about race, as do his surrogates, staffers and supporters. Indeed, it says a lot that McCain, who dumped his first wife to marry a wealthy heiress, is perceived to possess more of the values that resonate with voters than Obama does, according to some polls.
"But in this election, race trumps the economy, an unpopular war and a dull candidate.
A poll taken in Florida found Obama and McCain in a statistical tie, with Obama at 46 percent of the vote and McCain at 44 percent, with a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points.
How Floridians summed up the potential first ladies was especially telling.
Voters there said Cindy McCain — a former drug addict and thief — better fits their idea of a first lady than Michelle Obama, someone who has not had a hint of scandal attached to her name."
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Barack Obama, April 13, 2008
The, Sunday, Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove - the man who held the previous record - said McCain's ads have gone too far."
Rove, The former Bush chief strategist, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said that John McCain had stretched the truth in his recent round of attacks against Barack Obama, in the process opening up the Arizonan to a round of effective counter-attacks.
"McCain has gone in his ads one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100-percent-truth test," said Rove. "Both campaigns ought to be careful about... there ought to be an adult who says: 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad? Don't we make our point and get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don't include that one little last tweak in the ad?'"
“I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my Mother's race...The emotion between the races could never be pure...The other race would always remain just that; Menacing, Alien and Apart.” from Dreams of My Father, by Barack Obama
Even more directly, however, was the Sunday Opinion piece by Randall Kennedy for The Washington Post titled "What If Obama Loses", which in the end akins itself to a sort of Racial Black-Mail.
"Whether black onlookers believe that this election was decided “on the real issues” and that Obama was “judged fairly” will be shaped in part by future developments, including the nature of the campaign in its closing weeks (will race-baiting intensify?) and the demographics of the final voting tally (will people who have traditionally voted Democrat vote differently this time around?).
"I anticipate that most black Americans will believe that an Obama defeat will have stemmed in substantial part from a prejudice that robbed 40 million Americans of the chance to become president on the day they were born black. They will of course understand that race wasn’t the only significant variable — that party affiliation, ideological proclivities, strategic choices and dumb luck also mattered. But deep in their bones, they will believe — and probably rightly — that race was a key element, that had the racial shoe been on the other foot — had John McCain been black and Obama white — the result would have been different.
"This conclusion will be accompanied by bitter disappointment, and in some quarters, stark rage. In the early stages of the Obama campaign, his rival, Hillary Clinton, outpolled him among blacks in part because many didn’t believe that he stood a chance of prevailing. Then came Iowa. And the near-victory in New Hampshire. When blacks realized that Obama’s candidacy represented a serious drive for electoral power with an appreciable chance of success, they gravitated overwhelmingly to the Illinois senator."
The Wall Street Journal recently reported, "Black talk-show hosts and black-themed Web sites are being flooded with callers and bloggers reflecting a nervousness -- and anger -- over the campaign. Bev Smith, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, devoted her entire three-hour show Monday night to the question: "If Obama doesn't win, what will you think?"
"My audience is upset," she said in an interview. "Some people said they would be so angry it would be reminiscent of the [1960s] riots -- that is how despondent they would be."
So is this what we have to look forward to now with the rest of the election? Subtle hints and surreptitious threats that if the nation were to choose Sen. John McCain, a war-hero and 22 year public servant, over the junior senator from Illinois, that racial riots can be expected and civil unrest certain?
Near the end of his piece, Randall Kennedy concludes, "If Obama loses, I personally will feel disappointed, frustrated, hurt. I'll conclude that a fabulous opportunity has been lost. I'll believe that American voters have made a huge mistake. And I'll think that an important ingredient of their error is racial prejudice -- not the hateful, snarling, open bigotry that terrorized my parents in their youth, but rather a vague, sophisticated, low-key prejudice that is chameleonlike in its ability to adapt to new surroundings and to hide even from those firmly in its grip.
"If Obama is defeated, I will, for a brief time, be stunned by feelings of dejection, anger and resentment. These will only be the stronger because the climate of this election year so clearly favors the Democrats, because this was supposed to be an election the Republicans couldn't win, and because in my view, the Obama ticket is obviously superior to McCain's."
Superior? Obviously superior? How is it obviously superior? Is it because it has the one thing that you are looking for, and the other does not? I'm sure the Hillary Clinton supporters who the Obama ticket has been vexed trying to attract felt the same way. I'm sure Ohio State felt the same way before Saturday Night.
Is not the superiority of the ticket the subjective choice of all people individually?
The statement being clearly: Vote for Obama, or you are a racist!
Kevin Ferris of the Philadelphia Inquirer says ,"Don't cry racism if Obama loses".
But they already are.
October 26, 1967. John McCain being captured and brought ashore of Truc Bac Lake, Hanoi, after his aircraft was brought down by ground fire.