WHO REALLY WAS THAT MAN ? .....MASS MOUTHING OFF
Michael Freedberg -- The "Mass Mouth"

March 24, 2008 12:30PM EDT
Updated: March 24, 2008 03:41PM EDT
Tags: obama, politics, election_2008.

Here we are at March 24th, 2008, just four months into the Presidential election season, and already the tidal wave that was "Barack Obama" has receded -- with a vengeance. From idol worship to ill skepticism this phenomenon has gone, so over the top that you have to wonder now what it was all about. Who really WAS this man? WAS he a man, or just a craze ? I have seen crazes before in American politics, but usually they arise gradually, painfully. It took John F. Kennedy an entire election - and then some -- to achieve craze status. Ronald Reagan didn't really achieve it until after not two, but three entire national campaigns and one governorship race. Yet here was a craze that grew out of absolutely nowhere to such proportions that it almost swamped the Democrat party's all but designated nominee, a woman with a long and distinguished (if controversial) record.

Now, of course, the craze named "Obama" is over. We find that the man named Obama is a reticent, uncertain man who simply cannot make the hard decisions, whose gut reaction is to use silky words to explain away the hard choices in favor of a perfumed middle. Of course it does not compute. Presidential candidates are expected to take a stand. Especially over such basic issues as love of country and dislike of the opposite.

We also have come to see that, like the core "Obama" supporter -- I put "Obama" in quotes because I'm still not convinced that supporters aren't supporting the "Obama" idea rather than the man of that name -- Barack Obama the man really doesn't feel very comfortable about America. His wife let slip exactly that sentiment about six weeks ago. The comment was dismissed as a slip of the tongue, as it might have beem; yet it turns out now that the Obamas, man and wife, are both not happy with the country that he says he aspires to lead.

And you know what ? It's not just that Mr. Obama excuses a hateful, anti-American, anti-Semitic, racist pastor who he also calls family. Al Sharpton, after all, is pretty close to being that sort of pastor (though even he has never, to my knowledge, said such screaming hateful things as has Mr. Obama's preacher). No, the problem that I, and most Americans, have with the Obamas is that they are not proud of America despite being incredibly advantaged, with great educations, enormous salaries, a huge mansion, and political success beyond all expectation. One might perhaps understand rage coming from an African American who had grown up in poverty and/or segregation. One expects rage from an Al Sharpton, even from Jesse Jackson (formerly; these days, Jesse Jackson has mellowed). What we can NOT and should not abide is rage from children who have HAD IT ALL.

Yet you know what? The vast majority of African American leaders who grew up in poverty and/or segregagtion became leaders preaching reconciliation and love of fellow man -- Dr. King being the prime example but far from the only one. Conversely it has been children of privilege -- Black or white -- who have turned against their country. The MoveOn.org types and the "Earth Liberation Front" zanies are not very often working class kids or African Americans from the ghetto; they are Ivy-educated, $ 125,000 salaried "activists." That "Obama" became the rallying point for such is simply a case -- common in American politics -- of voters recognizing ONE OF THEIR OWN.

And there is more. Were you listening when Mr. Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person"? (Said because evidently she expressed some private thoughts about People of Color.) This may well have been Mr. Obama's "Mike Dukakis monent" -- I'm referring to the roboytic answer that the 1988 Democrat nominee for President gave when a questioner in a debate asked him how he'd respond if his wife were to be raped? That robotic, unpassionate response showed Mr. Dukakis to be not a person but a symbol (at best); immediately he dropped 17 % in the polls and was never again in contention. In Mr. Obama's case, as many people express anger at the "typical white person" remark, if not more, as are offended by Pastor Wright. And they should. Is that all that the woman who raised Mr. Obama means to him? A "typical white person"? It really is amazing.

But the elitists and educatees who have been riding the "Obama" wave see no isue here. To them, people aren't people, they are "subjects for further study." Just as to them issues aren't matters of life or death, they are "policies to be debated."

Thanks, but no thanks.

The folks who ride the "Obama" wave are the Howard Dean types from 2004. They are Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, sociology professors, actresses, Jane Fonda, etc. etc. They're the Ned Lamont voters from Connecticut's Democratic primary in 2006, the people who yell "peace" when what they REALLY mean is "American is the world's problem." These are the dislikers of America who have bedeviled America ever since the Viet Nam days. These folks were waiting for an "Obama" wave, and they got one.

Thanks, but no thanks.