Were The Fears Of 2008 Realized?
Victor Davis Hanson Nails It
By Dell Hill
Hat Tip - Ace of Spades HQ
Victor Davis Hanson does a victory lap (for all of us) on the 2008 case against Obama, proven disastrously true. -
The words of Ace in highlighting this outstanding analysis of one
Barack Hussein Obama in his quest for the Democrat nomination - and
ultimately the Presidency of the United States. The piece by Mr.
Hanson, in total, is much longer and more in-depth that what I’ve posted
here. Please read the entire analysis by clicking here.
The Right-Wing Complaint of 2008
In 2008, the following was the general right-wing argument against Obama’s candidacy:
The self-professed “uniter” Obama had, in truth, little record of
uniting disparate groups. From community organizing to politics, his
preferred modus operandi was rather to praise moderation, but politick
more as a radical, and sometimes go after opponents as unreasonable or
illiberal. Thus the most partisan voting senator in the Congress, who
talked grandly of “working across the aisle,” also urged supporters to
“get in their faces” and “take a gun to a knife fight.” Acorn, Project
Vote, and SEIU were not ecumenical organizations.
Obama knew very little about foreign affairs, or perhaps even raw human
nature as it plays out in power politics abroad. At times, he seemed
naive about the singular role of the U.S. in the world, especially his
sense that problems with Iran, the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia, and
others were somehow predicated on American arrogance and unilateralism
(and neither predating nor postdating George Bush) — to be remedied by
Obama’s post-racial, post-national diplomacy.
c) In truth, Obama, for all his rhetorical skills and soft-spoken charisma, had little experience
in the private sector outside of politics, academia, foundations, and
subsidized organizing. Consequently, he did not seem to understand the
nature of profit and loss, payrolls, how businesses worked and planned,
or much of anything in the private sector.
Obama at times seemed to lack common sense, and perhaps even common
knowledge. He appeared confused about everything from the number of
U.S. states to the idea that air pressure and “tune-ups” might
substitute for new oil exploration. He seemed assured when reading a
teleprompted script, and yet lost much of his eloquence when it came to repartee and question and answer.
Obama saw race as essential to his persona and his success, rarely
incidental. Collate the writings and rantings of his triad of pastors
and friends — Rev. Wright, Rev. Pfleger, and Rev. Meeks — and one sees a
common theme of racism (sometimes overt), anti-Semitism, and class
warfare. It was considered irrelevant to remind voters in 2008 that
Michelle Obama had alleged that the U.S. was a downright mean country,
or that she had confessed to never heretofore being very proud
of her country until it gave consideration to her husband as a
presidential candidate — though both sentiments would seem rare for a
potential first lady.
Obama, it was also felt, counted on a sense of entitlement. His
admissions to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard were alleged not to have
been based on the usual competitive test scores or grades — and such
charges were not refuted, but considered ancient history. As Harvard
Law Review editor, he seemed to assume, quite rightly, that he did not
have to publish an article. As a University of Chicago Law School
lecturer he also rightly assumed that Chicago — and later Harvard as
well — would, if he had wished, granted him tenure, again, despite
nonexistent publication. Sen. Clinton argued, without much refutation,
that as a state legislator Obama had both authored very little
legislation and voted present on any vote that might be considered
problematic for a higher political office — a charge that later
disappointed supporters would come to echo, along with admissions of prior inexperience on Obama’s apart.
Obama, like many on the elite left, had an ambiguous attitude about
affluence and its dividends. The more, as a community organizer, he had
railed about bankers and unfairness, the more he had enjoyed a
mini-mansion and dealt with the soon-to-be criminal Tony Rezko.
The current Wall Street protests take their cue not just from
presidential anger at “millionaires and billionaires,” but also from the
idea that affluent young people are exempt from their own rhetorical
in 2008, to suggest “spread the wealth” meant anything important was to
be either racist or a rank partisan. But Obama in 2001 in a Chicago
public radio interview could not have been clearer about the need for
government to redistribute income and his unhappiness that the
Constitution seemed to prohibit that. Here is a telling excerpt in all its half-baked Foucauldian vocabulary:
the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice
in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to
characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break
free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding
Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren
Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties. … I think, the tragedies of the civil
rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court
focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and
community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put
together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about
Continue reading this outstanding work by Mr. Hanson by clicking on this link from Pajamas Media.