Unfortunately that won't happen. He will inherit a huge economic mess from the Hoover-like George W Bush, and once the inevitable recovery comes (assuming he doesn't do a New Deal II and turn it into a Depression), he will get the credit. This will bolster economically harmful socialist policies, not harm them.
The Audacity of Rhetoric By Thomas Sowell Wednesday, March 26, 2008 It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious. Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it. It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny. Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father." These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator. Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture. In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard. Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says. The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together. The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability. There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together? Is "divisiveness" defined as disagreeing with the agenda of the left? Who on the left was ever called divisive by Obama before that became politically necessary in order to respond to revelations about Jeremiah Wright? One sign of Obama's verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother -- "a typical white person," he says -- with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright. Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world. Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community. There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored? While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come. Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.
Obama is a bit of a teflon candidate. If he makes enough slipups some will stick, but it will be like trying to pin down Clinton in his sexual history or corruption whilst in Arkansas - much more difficult than his opponents think. I agree Obama is a very scary candidate on domestic policies. Hillary is very scary on foreign policy too. Incredibly, McCain may actually be the most moderate and reasonable candidate on a policy basis for most Americans.
Wright is a Minister. This whole debate revolves around remarks made in his church. Hence the religious theme by Buchanan. Now if Pat wrote that Monica Lewinsky should get on her knees..... Yes, American blacks-the descendants of slaves-are better off on the streets of Detroit than the jungles of Africa. I'm sure Buchanan "has bothered to look" and by any measure American blacks live longer, are more literate, earn more ect. than blacks in Africa or the Caribbean. I'm mean jeez Cutten, get a friggin' clue. Someday perhaps we can have a drink together in South Beach. You know what? As white guys we'll probably be the minority. Black vacationers in SoBe out number whites. The federal government, state and local governments in states and cities that have higher black populations, those governments are the domain of black workers. I haven't had a white postman in decades. You're right in deriding the welfare system but is it any different in Europe or the U.K.? Keep in mind the U.S. Congress has 42 black members. Of course they use their political clout to expand social programs in their home district. Besides it's not clear that welfare breeds social problems. Fatherless households are the culprit. Welfare is needed to bail out single moms. Albeit women with 6 kids from 5 different men.......
How many senators are black? A half? If blacks are well treated, why aren't they happy? Americans should worry more their internal problems instead.
Yes, fatherless households are part of the problem. No one should be told how many children they are allowed to have, BUT to have one child after another when a person is already struggling shows huge lack of responsibilty and education. The men who father these children and the women who bear them only dig their hole deeper and put obstacles in front of themselves. So instead of blaming whites for the poverty of blacks, it is time for people to take a look at the decisions they make for themselves and realize they made those choices and were not forced to have many kids. Less kids mean they have more TIME AND MONEY to educate themselves and get a better job. Children are wonderful, but why have many children when you cannnot take care of their needs?
Don't forget even this half is not from American blacks. It is from Kenya. So African Americans hold zero senator position. Does this tell something? African Americans account for 15% of the whole population and no senator, while Jews 2% of the population. Of the 100 Senators, 11 are Jewish. This equals a percentage of 11%. From these numbers, you can get the reason why Rev. Wright is not happy.
Blacks account for 15% of the population but 98% of the NBA is Black...Jews account for 2% of the population....and 0% in the NBA....now you know why jews are so angry