The NYT Apology for the Obama Bitterness Speech Squeaks Faintly in an Ocean of Leftist Racism and Bigotry.

The fate of the Party of Democrats has always depended upon race [1] [2]or class conflicts and the exploitation of the frictions thus generated when such groups collide. Racism is good politics. Marx has successfully brainwashed their little minds with the notion that class struggles are eternal and than the worker class can seize the opportunity to control all facets of society and bring some kind of Golden Age to humanity. The simple math shows us that the splinter group known as African Americans is a vital component to winning elected seats, but the concept is frustrated by the notion that a black candidate might not be able to win because of the race factor.[3] Blacks have kept their place until Obama arrived on the scene. Now, the game pivots on black-on-white and white-on-black racism. Hillary could solve this by dropping out. She will not.

Bill Clinton[4] and Geraldine Ferraro[5] have been soaked with the flotsam that has broached the gunnels of their boat as it brushes the shoals of this treacherous political tsunami. Both politicos have been labeled as racists because of their characteristic display of ‘logic’ on the question of race and voting. To be fair, they have both embraced ideological racism for decades as any good leftist must do to survive. Without the rubber-stamp votes of the black community the Party of Democrats would be finished. Here are some examples of their racist remarks:

Ferraro said:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Ferraro told a California newspaper. “And if he was a woman [of any color], he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.”

After this set off the proverbial and predictable firestorm, Ferraro responded by saying: “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”[6]

Bill Clinton said:

“Bill Clinton postulated that his wife might lose SC because: "As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender," he said. "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning.”[7] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes unless otherwise stated.]

Ed Rendell has his input:

““I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”[8]

Senator Obama said:

“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 they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"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."[9]

 The buggers hate Mexicans too.

This reminds us of Howard Dean when he said:

“"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," the former Vermont governor said in a telephone interview quoted in Saturday's Des Moines Register. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."[10]

That must mean rednecks.

Or Dick Gephardt’s comment:

“"I don't want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," Gephardt said in a statement. "I will win the Democratic nomination because I will be the candidate for guys with American flags in their pickup trucks."[11]

Kerry pipes in:

“"I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA," Kerry said in a statement.””

Then Al Sharpton:

“Candidate and civil rights activist Al Sharpton — who has accused Dean of having an "anti-black agenda" — said he was "surprised and disturbed" by the Confederate flag remark. "If I said I wanted to be the candidate for people that ride around with helmets and swastikas, I would be asked to leave," Sharpton said.”[12]

So, how does the New York Times navigate this swamp? In an article by Herbert entitled: Some Perspective on ‘Bitter’ [13] we read:

“There is no mystery here. Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it’s pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere — will not vote for a black candidate for president.”[14]

Clinton’s reputed view as envisioned by the NYT by Bob Herbert:

“This toxic issue is at the core of the Clinton camp’s relentless effort to persuade superdelegates that Senator Obama “can’t win” the White House. It’s the only weapon left in the Clintons’ depleted armory.”[15] [16]

What can we conclude from this mess? Can we say that the Party of Democrats avoids the use of labels and stereotyping and racist slurs and innuendos? There is too much documentation in this essay alone to entertain  any such notions. I am not sure Hillary’s armory is yet depleted.She has a lot of scalps on her war belt.

Herbert then glosses over the problem with:

“In his San Francisco comments, Senator Obama fouled up when he linked frustration and bitterness over economic hard times with America’s romance with guns and embrace of religion. But, please, let’s get a grip. What we ought to be worked up about is the racism that still prevents some people from giving a candidate a fair chance because of his skin color.”[17]

 Really?? Well, now we know.

Apparently, we can assume that the NYT can make ample excuses for Senator Obama for remarks made off camera regardless of the context or breadth. They will hold him blameless as he is the choice candidate. Their ability to make apologies for Marxists, traitors, murderers, perverts, terrorists and others is noted as manifold and enviable. 

Extending Herbert’s logic, can we wonder if other people [white or black or whatever] with certain religious or moral beliefs can be given a ‘fair chance’ on any political matter because of their views? Didn’t we just struggle through some moral epistle from Herbert about ignoring skin color, but that those voters with views that conflict with liberalism are still to be condemned if they cannot vote for a black person? Can a candidate who opposes abortion be judged on other issues by liberals? How about welfare or gun control opposition?

It seems that Obama can echo the long-term, stereotyped negative views of many country style ‘typical’ white Americans with reams of criticism as long as we insist that these same white people embrace liberal-endorsed color blindness on important matters like voting. NYT Paraphrased: We understand that you are ignorant, unwashed, inbred cultural zombies lacking the cognitive skills to understand why major tax hikes would be of great advantage to you. We understand that you are gun-toting racists that murder innocent animals, ignore the ecological tenets of civilized society and use too much toilet paper in a given session, but you should accept all this abuse and vote for the elites anyway. We are right and you are dim-witted. You are too stupid to cast a reasonable vote anyway and need to have your guns confiscated. Go ahead and vote for Obama nevertheless as he is not racist, not bigoted, has no hint of elitism and still loves Jeremiah Wright and refuses to condemn him.  At least, he has no ties to Marxism like Hillary does.[18] If you don’t vote for Obama after he insulted you and trashed your culture you are just ignorant racists.

Reality check:

The elites who have driven the Party of Democrats into the political latrines seem to think that one of their stars can state that these white, uneducated, crude and coarse troglodytes can retain their social status and subculture and tolerate their sorry image being dragged through the dump yard, but that they must retain their objectivity with those elites who are black or half black and vote as instructed.

This Herbert Theory would work if there were only one Democratic candidate. Hillary and Bill, no strangers to racism, crime and sleaze are desperate and Pennsylvania is the last frontier in their political careers. If Obama wins, the Clinton Era will be finished. Clintoonery stands to make another 300,000,000 dollars with 8 years of Hillary astride the political levers. Is that enough to risk some party disintegration along racial lines? Sure. Rule or Ruin may be the Clinton slogan.

As we expected, the NYT comes down on the side on mandated racial equality while they practice overt racism. History predicts no other avenue. The wildcard here is that there are two racist elites who are playing the game. Jeremiah Wright may be the person who determines who wins in November. His rants are welcomed by blacks and, yes, Ferraro you are a racist simply because you are white.

All white people are racists[19] according to some university elites.

So, Pennsylvanians crawl out of your caves, take a bath, learn to read so you can vote for Obama.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com