Swinging wild against Obama

John of Powerline shows a clip of Barack Obama being interviewed by Terry Moran of ABC and then comments:

This was, I think, a moment of candor. To explain his seemingly-shocking response, Obama immediately referred to political considerations. Opposing the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, even if that opposition turned out to be wrong, was a necessary ingredient in Obama’s securing the Democratic Presidential nomination. That being the case, how can Obama, a purely political animal, regret a decision that advanced his own career?

But on the clip, asked by Moran why he stands by his past opposition to the surge given its success, Obama says: “At that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I disagreed with.”

In short, Obama may have been wrong about the surge, and he is b.s.-ing his way around the issue now. But, contrary to Powerline’s characterization of the interview, Obama did not say, hint, or imply that “political considerations” compelled him to take that position in order to get the nomination.

I consider Obama thoroughly atrocious (and think the same about McCain). But conservatives have become overwrought in their attacks on Obama, and are swinging wild.

- end of initial entry -

James W. writes:

It is certainly possible to accuse an extremely deficient individual of things that he is not guilty of. But I do not think people are near to understanding that this man is truly a fool; ignorant of many remarkably basic understandings of history and geography, not to mention things of much greater weight. I’m certain he could not put half the states on the map correctly of the country he wishes to rule—although he must know the correct number now after fumbling it before. He speaks so appallingly badly once off a teleprompter it must be seen to be believed. And all this with an adoring press.

I believe I’ve just given fools a bad name. This fellow is a bad movie script, and I’m just now beginning to see the humor of it. Him, all his handlers, terrorist, race pimps, the fawning press, and yes, the public. Far better, considering the awful choices we face, that we may discover hope through being thoroughly embarrassed and revealed rather than manipulated by a master. He has a poor brain and a good ear. So his ear ends by taking the functions of the brain, and that makes him ever weaker.

LA replies:

Is that your observation of Obama? I haven’t seen it. As in the YouTube clip I linked today, yes, he starts by saying, “uh” several times, but then he came out with a serviceable articulate answer. (Yes, it was b.s., but that’s not what you’re accusing him of.)

I just don’t see how one can reasonably accuse a person who has all the moves and skills Obama has of being an “extremely deficient individual.” I don’t get it. He’s appalling. But appalling is not the same as deficient.

In fact, I think you are swinging wild in the same way that Obama’s conservative critics are doing. Thus you write: “‘I’m certain he could not put half the states on the map correctly of the country he wishes to rule.” The statement is absurd on its face. In addition to living in the United States his whole life except for four years when he was a child, he has spent the last year and a half incessantly traveling around the country as a candidate. Do you really think he doesn’t know the relative locations of the states by now? Such criticism of Obama discredits itself by its own excess. When opponents of a candidate start swinging this wildly, that is an indication that they have lost touch with reality and are going down.

On another point, some readers may think that “b.s.” is an inappropriate expression for me to use at this website. The problem is that I can’t think of any other term with equivalent meaning. Indeed, Obama is not just a b.s. artist but a supreme b.s. artist. If there is some way to convey the same idea in proper language, I hope someone will point it out to me.

James W. replies:

Talent and intelligence are different things. Talent is a form of intelligence, but is not by itself intelligence. Think of idiot-savants, or parrots for that matter. Twenty years ago I heard two parrots sing at the San Diego Wild Animal Park. One was excellent, the other, fabulous. He left his heart in San Francisco, and I hurt myself laughing. That is more talent than I have, and he was a bird-brain.

So that’s talent.

Whatever Obama’s intelligence, he has not developed it, so it does not exist. We are only extended by challenge, and black people are simply not challenged any longer; they are patted and passed—unless they pointedly make it clear they expect to be treated exactly as anyone else. He surely did not qualify for Columbia on his grades, and why would Harvard Law be different? We have not seen any hard data from standard tests. LSAT’s? Numbers? We have seen some of his wife’s work from Yale, and it was indeed sub-standard.

I am not a great fan of intelligence, or of higher education as it exists today. It is not those things that I require of Obama. Churchill was not a terribly gifted man, but he had great character and the ethic to become truly great. Obama has faked everything with the talent of a narcissist, and has even faked being educated. But this is all the more possible because we have been very willing subjects and easy marks for him.

You will see the worms coming out of this apple during the campaign. Two major liberals traveling with this weeks road-show volunteered to being unnerved by it already. Some of his voters will be affected as it gets worse, but I don’t expect most of his fans will care.

If the time comes that we break out laughing at President Obama, that will be a good thing. I don’t believe I would ever break out laughing at McCain.

Bismarck thought there is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United Sates of America. I sure hope he was right, because we are four for four there now.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 22, 2008 06:46 PM | Send