Obama—a pathological liar, or a Clintonian liar?

In his speech on race in Philadelphia on March 18, Barack Obama said:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely—just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Asked about the hosts of The View yesterday about the Rev. Wright, Sen. Obama answered:

I never heard him say some of the things that have people upset.

Of course, one could argue that Obama has not necessarily contradicted himself, since perhaps the statements he heard that he has condemned “in unequivocal terms” are not the same statements that he never heard and that have “some people”—but not Obama himself—upset. And therefore Obama is not lying. But one would have to be a Clintonian liar to make such an argument.

- end of initial entry -

Richard B. writes:

Clintonian. It depends on what your definition of the word “heard” is.

“I never heard him say some of the things that have people upset”

Is that actual auditory perception at the time it was spoken?

Is that “heard” as in perceiving it in the same context and with the same understanding as others?

Is he not admitting he has heard “things” that have upset (white) people. Just not some of the things

He is from the Clinton school of “verbal wiggle room” where you can never be held accountable for your spoken words..

LA replies:

Yes, it’s obviously Clintonian. But given his recent speech saying he condemned Wright’s statements, for him now to reverse that seems pathological.

Let’s face it. The people in the leading positions of our country are bad people: Bush. The Clintons. Obama. McCain. Condoleeza (“America was born with a birth defect and only now is partly redeemed because I’m secretary of state”) Rice. They’re bad people, pursuing their own narcissistic and ideological agendas. They don’t believe in truth. They don’t believe in America.

Adela G. writes:

I don’t think we can overestimate the extent of the “blanket immunity” of Obama’s free pass given him by the left.

However disingenuous his remarks or lame his defence of his own statements and positions, he will not be condemned or even seriously criticized for them by the media. Instead, it will be his critics who are condemned. Reasonable criticisms of him will be deliberately recast as racist smears. Lacking any other retort, the media and other leftwingers will announce that he has answered his critics and in the interests of the national unity he’s trying to bring about, we should all “move on”.

Contrary to his claim that he will be a “uniter”, he has already deepened and widened the racial divide in this country. He has solidified the positions of various factions—but those factions are farther apart from one another than before his campaign got underway. Even this failure will be looked upon by the left as a failure of conservatives and that favorite target of leftwing contempt, the citizenry of the “flyover states”, to pull together for the sake of our country.

Obama is about feelings, not thoughts. The left’s positive response to him is emotional, not rational. Indeed, he can only garner irrational support for there is no valid reason in terms of his character or accomplishments to support his candidacy for POTUS.

Obama is a typical politico, with more personal appeal than integrity, a hunger for power and an overweening ego (two autobiographies already and he’s only in his 40’s). The main difference so far as I can see is he has not just one but a whole deck of race cards to play.

LA replies:

Even if the left keeps backing him and now blames whites for his troubles, one thing has been won for our side: No one will call Obama the “post-racial” candidate any more, or at least no one will plausibly call him that. Now he’s the candidate of racial leftism.

Michael N. writes:

“Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy?”

My suspicion is that Wright was not “occasionally” a fierce critic, but a constant, unapologetic “critic” in the most offensive manner imaginable.

Also, I notice that no one has yet asked Obama if he supports black liberation theology, which is hateful and anti-American at its core.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 28, 2008 09:51 AM | Send