To a hammer, everything is a nail (or, let’s talk racism)

Our world view determines how we process new data.  If your world view is bounded by race, every new bit of information is going to be run through that racial filter, and divided into “racist” or “non-racist” categories.  If you only have two intake bins, the information has to go into one of them.  For Obama and his supporters, with their two bins, the logical approach after new data is run through their narrow filter is to dump anything negative into the “racist” bin.

We’ve seen this happening for a while, and the S.F. Chron (which is one of those binary “everything is racist (or not)” hammers) has a very good article on the subject.  Not “good” because it’s objective and intelligent, but “good” because it is the perfect paradigm of the identity politics paranoia that permeates this campaign. I’ll just quote and fisk a few paragraphs to give you an idea of what I mean:

While Obama’s campaign has fended off racially rooted attacks since its inception [Absolutely no racist attacks have come from the Republican party or from McCain.  Instead, Obama has been fending off potential racist attacks that live only in his imagination.], analysts say the ones surfacing in the past few days have been more overt, arriving as many undecided voters are making their final decision. They are part of a recent stream of attacks on his background, including his religion and his connections to a former ’60s radical.  [I lived through the 60s.  Radicals came in all colors.  The only black ones were the Panthers.  The vast majority were, like Ayers and Dohrn, white.]

[snip]

Instead of using a grainy photo of a grizzled convict as Atwater did, the current attacks, analysts say, are embedded in “coded” language. They cite as examples Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin portraying Obama as a cultural outsider and friend to terrorists [Two factual words:  Arugula and Ayers.]  and the dismissive way his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, referred to Obama at their Tuesday night debate as “that one.”  [That wasn't about race, that Freudian slip was about Obama's delusions of Messiah-like grandeur, and a journalist who was not blinkered by the binary racism filter would have realized that.]

[snip]

Then there have been the speakers at McCain-Palin rallies who continue, unchecked by the candidates, to refer to “Barack Hussein Obama” – the emphasis on his middle name is an implication that Obama, who is a Christian, is Muslim. [I hate to say it, but Hussein is, in fact, his middle name.  Nobody got upset when we referred to William Jefferson Clinton.  When I'm mad at my children, I emphasize that fact by calling them by all three names.  It is a way of calling them out and making yourself heard.]  The latest occurred Wednesday in Pennsylvania, when Bill Platt, the Lehigh County Republican chairman, mentioned Obama’s former reluctance to wear an American flag lapel pin and said: “Think about how you’ll feel on Nov. 5 if you see the news that Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, is president of the United States.”  [Yeah, let's call Obama out for being un-American.  Call him out, by all three names, to make sure he listens.]

‘Nuff said.  You get the point.

As for how we should respond, I think we should ignore them and do what we need.  A little anecdote might be useful here.

About thirty years ago, I got my hands on the autobiography of Maria von Trapp, she of Sound of Music fame.  While most of what I read in that book instantly went down my own personal memory hole, one anecdote stuck with me forever.  von Trapp described herself as something of a deliquent growing up.  Whether she was in a home or a school or an orphanage, I don’t recall, but it was a place that assumed that all children were doing bad things.  The policy therefore, was to beat the child daily on the assumption that, even if the caregiver hadn’t seen the naughty acts, the child had certainly engaged in such acts, making punishment appropriate.  Maria von Trapp drew the logical conclusion:  if she was going to be beaten regardless of whether she was good or bad, she might as well have the fun of being bad.

In this case, since the McCain campaign is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn’t — no matter what it says, it’s racist — it should stop trying to edit itself, and just say what needs to be said.  The one thing I’m absolutely certain of is that the McCain campaign does not now and never has had any intention of being racist in the traditional mode of saying that Obama is defective because of his race.  So, free yourself little McCain birdies and fly.  Whether you’re in the nest or in the sky, the media vultures will be watching.

(Oh, and if you really want classic racism, in the form of a statement that assumes that most blacks are inferior, with a few significant exceptions, check this one out.)

And I’ll remind you once more that I’m a racist and proud of it — so long as I, like the Democrats, get to define the term to suit my own purposes.

Laer also has thoughts about this “code” we’ve all suddenly learned how to speak and interpret.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ Helen Losse

    Bookworm, A few days ago when I brought up McCain’s connection to the Keating Five, you dismissed it as “old news.” Any association Obama had with Ayers et al. is equally old. The difference is, 1) Republicans; just found out and 2) plan to use it against Obama.

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    I think George Bernard Shaw said something to the effect that if you can’t keep your skeletons in the closet, make them dance.

    Todays Racist Question: What’s Black & White and Red all over?

  • Oldflyer

    Helen, surely you know that the Chief Counsel for the Senate Committee investigating Keating has stated repeatedly that he recommended that McCain be dropped from the investigation because he did not engage in any wrong doing. The Democrat Senate would not drop him because then only Democrats would have been involved in the scandal. So, they came up with the phony concept of criticizing him and John Glenn, while reprimanding three Democrat Senators.

    That attornery was Robert Bennett, a life-long democrat and the attorney who represented Bill Clinton. I heard Bennett repeat those statements on the radio just a few days ago.

    That is why Bookworm called it old news. But, you knew all of that didn’t you?

    Racism.

    If Obama continues he may win 96% of the black vote rather than only 95%. On the other hand, I believe a large number of Americans are sick of having race thrown in their faces continually. Even a few liberals might react negatively. There could be a large backlash to this.

  • McLaren

    Helen, the Ayers news is not old. In fact we very recently were graced with the privilege of reading the activities of the Annenberg Project. Obama and Ayers were closely aliied on that board that sent $milions into liberal, activist “education” projects. When given the chace to focus on math and science, it was Ayers and Obama who rejected that idea in favor of ideological indoctrination instead.

    And Obama launched his political career at the home of Ayers and Dohrn. This while Obama claimed Ayers was just “some guy who lives in my neighborhood who teaches English.”

    So, Obama is either stupid or a liar. Take your pick.

    Please excuse my racism.

  • Mike Devx

    My own opinion is that Helen is correct that referring to Keating 5 as “old news”, to dismiss it, would be incorrect. I doubt Book stopped there though; the relevant “old news” part of it is that McCain clearly was included in the prosecution because they needed a Republican; the Democrat in charge of the investigation (Bennett) admitted that there was no there there.

    I still think the use of “Barack Hussein Obama” is in fact a sly insult. But it’s not racist, it’s anti-Muslim. I don’t use it.

    What’s important about William Ayers and Bernadine Doern is that we are defined by our allies (NOT our “associations”, but our “allies”, and that’s a critical difference.) Ayers is not just “someone in my neighborhood”, as Obama disingenuously, with profound sneakiness, tries to claim.

    I won’t go into it except to note the critical moment here is when Ayers and Doern hosted Obama’s political kickoff meeting in their house, with Obama attending and the woman he was replacing showing up, albeit only briefly in her case – that woman is MUCH smarter than Obama! And of course, she and Obama ended up splitting, so Obama forced her off the ballot with legal maneuvers.)

    Rev. Wright remains valid, in that Obama sat in those pews for twenty years, and disinvited the noble reverend from giving an invocation at his Presidential launch in Springfield, Illinois, saying: “You can get kind of rough in the sermons,” Wright said Obama told him. “Rather than have you out front, we thought it would be best to not have you do the invocation.”

    This calls severely into question the very idea that Obama didn’t know the extent to which Wright was preaching sermons whose content Obama found despicable. He didn’t know? My answer: Oh Please. Surely it’s relevant to bring it up; but no, that would be racism.

    How in the world bringing up Ayers could be racism is simply beyond any understanding.

    It’s about deception, out and out lying, and judgment. It’s about a history of allying with the far-far left, which in the case of Ayers, he still believes he should have done more bombings. (“We didn’t do enough” certainly isn’t referring to anti-Vietnam bake sales.) In the Rev. Wright case, those sermons are simply damning for those who feel patriotic toward America.

    Both are highly relevant.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Even if there was something to the Keating Five issue (which there isn’t, thank-you Oldflyer), I don’t understand how “Keating Five” equates to consorting with know terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn or vicious African despots and mob inciters like Raila Odinga. Charles Keating was corrupt, but he was no terrorist dedicated to the destruction of his country.

    Would it make any difference if, instead of Ayers, it was Timothy McVeigh consorting with Obama?

    What is the difference between William Ayers and Timothy McVeigh, other than body count?

  • suek

    >>Ayers is not just “someone in my neighborhood”, as Obama disingenuously, with profound sneakiness, tries to claim.>>

    Or how about “our children attend the same school” claim? Ayers children are adults, Obama’s are about 10 and under.

    Ayers is a communist. Obama is a Marxist. They had an association because they shared ideals. That’s why it’s important – and that’s why Obama is trying to deny it. Now that his signature has shown up on the DSA document though, his association with Socialism is pretty clear and undeniable. Whether there are enough people knowledgeable enough for it to matter is another question.

    Back to the Banana Rupublic issue…!

  • Tiresias

    Well… no, Helen. You’re trying to compare apples and oranges again.

    The Keating Five was never even determined to a certainty to be a species of corruption – which is why McCain was exonerated, and he, Glenn, et al weren’t summarily bounced from the congress.

    But, even if it were indeed representative of corruption rather than improper reportage, the doings at Keating Bank were:

    1. An episode, not a way of life. It happened, it ended, it was investigated. William Ayers, to this day, in his position of “educational consultant” to the Chicago schools is doing whatever he can to bend the curriculum to radicalize young minds. To this day he is a pal and advisor of Obama’s. (Forgive me for disbelieving that Barry has disavowed him too, like Wright, Pfleger, etc.)

    2. The Keating Five, to my knowledge, never blew up anything. Not one person was ever killed by the Keating Bank. This strikes me (don’t know about you) as being a rather substantive difference between the Keating Bank and the Weather Underground.

    3. The Keating Bank is gone. Bill Ayers continues to write, speak, and advocate the overthrow of this society.

    4. The Keating Bank, being an institution rooted in the institutions of this country, never had any intention of tearing the system down around everyone’s ears. The same cannot be said for Bill Ayers, or that thing he married. (At least she washes these days, I’m told. When I met her, it had been a while since her last bath.)

    5. Bill Ayers, Bernie, ACORN, and Obama all seem to be students of Saul Alinsky. This would make them what most of the world refers to as: “communist-oriented radicals, with no objection to violence.” (Hillary Clinton too, come to think of it. At least she’s bright enough to try and keep it hidden. Hell will have long frozen solid before that thesis of hers on Alinsky ever sees the light of day.) Back in those days, we all played with such ideas. Most of us who’ve struggled through Alinsky (aside from the dumbness of the ideas, the man is just a godawful writer. Karl Marx is a better writer, for God’s sake!), once we stopped laughing, didn’t buy it.

    6. ACORN is, right now, today, under investigation for phony voter registration in… how many states is it up to now? Nevada just raided them day before yesterday, and I don’t kow how many states that gets it to. About time. Alinsky, Ayers, et al have always said cheating is perfectly fine, in pursuit of their aims. Obama worked for ACORN – he’s well experienced at fixing it so people could get away with voting eight or nine times: that’s what ACORN does. And they do it now. It is not old news, it is today’s news.

    The Keating Five is old news because it was a singular event. It ended. McCain was exonerated. The Obama-Ayers connection is not old news, because it hasn’t ended (except perhaps for public consumption), and because the ramifications of these old fellow “community organizers” continue to this day.

  • Tiresias

    Sorry for exposing you to my own shorthand – it’s of course the Lincoln Bank, but I tend to just shorten that to Keating Bank. Just shorthand – but sorry: it’ll undoubtedly be considered confusing by some!

  • http://ruminationsroom.wordpress.com Don Quixote

    Helen says, “Any association Obama had with Ayers et al. is equally old.” I love the word “had” in that sentence. Try “has”. Today, Ayers believes the same old terrorist doctrine he has espoused for 40 years. Today, Obama has an association with Ayers, though, of course, he (and you) are trying to downplay it for the election. We all have our youthful excesses, foolishness and/or radical ideas. Most of us grow out of them. Ayers has not. By Obama’s acceptance of Ayers’ support and friendship, he indicates he has not. Today.

    What matters is what people are like, what people believe, how people act now. Today. Ayers makes it clear what he thinks even now. Today. Obama refuses to repudiate Ayers even now. Today. That’s what’s important.

    McCain admits that before Vietnam he wasn’t a very likeable or responsible person. He asserts that this should not be held against him because he has changed. He has grown up. Assuming we believe him, it makes no sense to hold his past against him.

    On the other hand, for all of his emphasis on change, Obama never suggests that he has changed. He has never repudiated his past statements, beliefs, friendships, etc. It is fair to hold him to a past that he does not repudiate.

  • Mike Devx

    Hi all,
    Just wanting to be clear. I’m certainly not saying that Keating 5 is comparable to Ayers; the comparison is ridiculous! I’m simply saying it’s within the bounds of politics for the Obama campaign to *try* to use it. It’s pathetically weak, of course, which creates a very nice thought envisioning how the Obama campaign must be tied into knots, wildly thrashing, behind the scenes over this right now. I can’t imagine the Keating 5 rejoinder sticking.

  • McLaren

    I agree, it is fair game. But the Obama campaign might as well bring up the Tea Pot Dome Scandal.

  • Ymarsakar

    Any association Obama had with Ayers et al. is equally old.

    It is not Republicans and McCain that refuse to talk about the issues, Helen. It is you and Obama.

  • Oldflyer

    Interesting Danny.

    Just this morning I rhetorically asked my wife; “what is the difference between William Ayers and Timothy McVeigh?”. My answer, of course, is that McVeigh was 1. a more efficient bomber and 2. he was executed.

    I keep hearing from certain quarters that the American people don’t really care about Ayers any longer. I don’t really believe that; but, I wonder how anyone who might think that way would react if Ayers were routinely juxtaposed with McVeigh.

  • Ymarsakar

    The one thing I’m absolutely certain of is that the McCain campaign does not now and never has had any intention of being racist in the traditional mode of saying that Obama is defective because of his race.

    This is the same argument as to why America can undertake, openly, extreme, harsh, and ruthless policies towards both civilians and enemy illegal combatants.

    The US will be damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. It might as well get the benefit of ruthlessness if you are going to get the negative perceptions of it anyway, regardless of how kind or nice you are.

    Even the SUnnis in Al Anbar only ever changed their view because of ruthlessness. AL Qaeda’s ruthlessness in this respect. How it is used, when it is used, whether the cause you are using it for is just or not, that is very important in the end.

    But if you just stand back and let things happen to people because you are afraid of being blamed for it, then your fate will be in everybody’s hands except your own.

  • Ymarsakar

    I don’t really believe that; but, I wonder how anyone who might think that way would react if Ayers were routinely juxtaposed with McVeigh.

    Helen speaks about white privilege. If a black man had done as Ayers did, would that black guy be around still alive?

    You see, Helen covers up for the people perpetuating the privilege of whites. And she does not approve of attempts to hold whites accountable, same as blacks, in, for example, Timothy McVeigh’s execution case.

    These people think they can fight white privilege? They are deluding themselves. Those people are the people that ensure white privilege continues to exist.

    If you just hammer this home to the AMerican people, the Leftist indoctrination of racism and white privilege and institutional racism will go into a cognitive dissonance state. They will become conflicted, the same as when Sarah was nominated VP. The hate will then start spewing and if it hadn’t been for the Democrat engineered financial collapse with Fannie May, the Democrats would STILL be left adrift in self-hatred.

  • expat

    Like Bookworm, I was around in the 60s. In fact, I was a caseworker in a poor black inner city neighborhood. I clearly remember when the radicals started to say that learning to read was acting white. They have much to answer for, as do their radial chic enablers. And today Ayers is still pushing his despicable ideology.

  • Ymarsakar

    Those radicals didn’t happen to be white themselves, did they?

    Were their funds also sourced from rich white fake liberals?

  • Oldflyer

    Ymarsakar, your quote ofe to my comments about Timothy McVeigh and your response to it, completely confuses me.

    Helen did not bring up Timothy McVeigh. Danny did, and I chimed in. You do know Timothy McVeigh was white? The point being that McVeigh was an extremeist who was part of one horrific bombing and no one covered up for him. He was executed for his crime, and anyone who associated themselves with him by word or deed would to this day be immediately suspect.

    On the other hand, Ayers, an anti-war radical, who was part of a sustained bombing campaign against the U. S. got off on a technacality. Now the MSM thinks we should just forget his past.

    Still, I do not think Ayers, taken in isolation, is the issue here. I think the issue is the pattern of close associations with radicals of different persuasions with one common thread–their hatred of American society. Obama speaks fine words now, but he has a history that is more than troubling. We ignore it at our risk.

  • Ymarsakar

    Helen did not bring up Timothy McVeigh. Danny did, and I chimed in. You do know Timothy McVeigh was white?

    Why would he be anything else? Blacks used McVeigh as “proof” that profiling of Middle Easterners were crap in anti-terrorism ops. They wouldn’t have done that if he was black, now.

    The point being that McVeigh was an extremeist who was part of one horrific bombing and no one covered up for him.

    The Left saw him as a Right Wing Extremists, a wing nut, so they had no reason to cover him up. The Republican party were focused on morality and being decent, so they had no reason to cover up Tim, either, or slow down his execution like the Left tried to do with Tookie.

    Ymarsakar, your quote ofe to my comments about Timothy McVeigh and your response to it, completely confuses me.

    Did you read the white privilege links Helen gave us?

    Do you remember the part about white privilege where it says whites, because of the advantages they have, are naturally creating racist conditions for Blacks that disenfranchise blacks? Advantages that need to be offset with affirmative action, electing Barack, and so forth.

    So when Helen says a black man’s working relationship with a white terrorist is old news, is not Helen sustaining the same systemic racism that Helen claims she is trying to stop? For how did Ayers get off on a technicality, if you believe as helen does about white privilege? She doesn’t believe a black man could have gotten off like Ayers, not with white privilege in effect, but suddenly Ayers is no longer something important.

  • Ymarsakar

    Since helen is against the death penalty, all but certain if you ask me, she would naturally have been against executing Timothy McVeigh.

    I mention this because it is another mark against the people who claim to be fighting racism. For they will not support the execution of white terrorists and they support the defense of people like AYers, while at the same time talking about how we need to elect Barack because we have an Original Sin because Americans are white and advantaged.

  • Zhombre

    He is muslim too. His father was muslim. And his Indonesian stepfather. As I understand muslim religion, it is very patriarchal. You are what your father is, and there is no exception. Very likely Obama studied Koran in an Indonesian madrassa, as a child. However, I have no doubt, that when Senator Obama professes his Christianity, that is sincere. I’m sure Reverend Wright brought him to Jesus. But for Senator Obama to deny his Muslim background, because it won’t play well with voters, is simply another example of evasion and deception. We are on the verge of electing a man President, an articulate man with a cool demeanor, who conceals or misrepresents or denies much of his past life and many of his past associations. That is troubling, oldflyer.

  • Ellie2

    In Dreams From My Father Barry describes how he would handle his mother when she asked him if he was doing drugs (which of course he was): I’d smile and shrug and say “I’d never do anything that stupid.” and she seemed satisfied.

    He goes on to say “It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: (White) People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved — such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn’t seem angry all the time.” — Barack Obama

    And it seems to me he is still using the same strategy to answer questions about his background. I would say “just a little shuck and jive” but that, of course, would be racist, dotcha know.

  • Mike Devx

    Oldflyer (#14),
    I keep hearing from certain quarters that the American people don’t really care about Ayers any longer. I don’t really believe that

    I agree, Oldflyer. People in general knew about the street clashes in the 60s and the bombings. But if I were to ask my parents about the Weathermen/Weather Underground or the SDS, they’d give me blank stares.

    There are a LARGE number of traditional Democrats who still recoil at the deliberate violence of the progressive movement of the late 60’s. (What started out as Peace and Love in the early and mid 60’s degenerated quickly when the radical activists seized control of the movement.)

    Isn’t Obama the first movement liberal to come from directly from academia since Woodrow Wilson? We may have been focusing on the wrong item in the Obama history: It’s not that he was a community organizer, it’s that he was a University professor (of sorts). The University systems are filled with the idealogues from the 60’s, including Ayers and Doern.

    What we’re getting with Obama may simply be the restoration of power of the 60′
    s intellectual liberals, as their chance to “reform the system from within” finally reaches full fruition. Tying this all into the Weathermen and their bombings could have a real effect in relatively conservative Democrat areas in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. Especially if McCain succeeds in tying it all in to Obama’s intellectual, ivory-tower snobbery concerning the rubes’ clinging to their guns and their religion.

  • Mike Devx

    Just ran across a supporting story in AmericanThinker.com. Basically there’s no such thing as truth in our universities anymore, just slant and bias.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_communist_connectio.html

    I excerpted the part I found fascinating, below.

    If Obama wins, we will have plenty of opportunity and examples to expose all this. Four years of proving our case to the American people. Even in defeat, there would be great hope! Sometimes Americans need the concrete to be staring them right in the face.

    I’m not being pessimistic in looking at an Obama victory, just wondering. I still think this election is a nail-biter, right on the edge.
    ~mike

    Excerpt from the link:

    Of all the lectures that I do around the country, none seem to rivet the audience as much as my discourse on the horrors of communism. In these lectures, which are usually connected to my books on Ronald Reagan, I do a 10-15 minute backgrounder on the crimes of communists-from their militant attacks on private property, on members of all religious faiths, and on basic civil liberties, to their total death toll of over 100 million bloodied, emaciated corpses in the 20th century.

    As I do these presentations, the young people, especially on college campuses, are locked in, amazed at what they are hearing. I think they are especially struck that I always ground every fact and figure in reliable research and authorities — books published by Harvard University Press and Yale University Press, quotes from the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev and Vaclav Havel and Alexander Yakovlev, anti-Soviet appraisals from certain Cold War Democrats like Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy and even early liberals like Woodrow Wilson. I rarely use right-wing sources because I don’t want the professors of these students to be able to later shoot a single hole in my presentation — a potential tactic to undermine the overall thesis.

    And speaking of those professors, that gets to my point here: As the young people in my audience are fully engaged, hands in the air with question after question — obviously hearing all of these things for the first time in their lives, from K-12 to college, as they are eager to inform me after my talk — the professors often stare at me with contempt. In one case, a British professor, who could not step sighing, squirming, and rolling her eyes as I quoted the most heinous assessments of religion by Marx and Lenin, got up and stormed out of the room.

  • McLaren

    I’ve had countless professors like that intolerant woman who stormed out of the room. You can finish their sentences for them. They hate that.

  • BrianE

    Is this racist?
    At a time in history, like never before, when this country needs to unite to solve new and looming challenges, Barack Obama stands to one side, sharing the ideals of a gnarled domestic terrorist who has traded the bombs he threw in the 1970’s, with ideas even more dangerous to America by undermining our children’s education. Rather than seeking to improve our children’s schools, seeking progress through increased knowledge, radical educator Bill Ayers seeks to destroy America by replacing the concept of education as a means of preparing children for responsible adulthood, with one of turning children into young radicals seeking not jobs, but social justice.
    Barack Obama has endorsed Bill Ayer’s books, helped Bill Ayers funnel tens of millions of dollars to corrupt Chicago organizations that failed their neighborhood schools, and even allowed the former Cuban supported terrorist to sponsor Barack Obama’s initial foray into politics.
    What does Barack Obama owe Bill Ayers? What sympathies does Barack Obama share with these radical education concepts of dividing class and race? How will we know if Barack Obama really supports uniting the racial divide in this country when, given a choice, Barack Obama consistently sided with those whose hatred of America, like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, is evident in their ideas that by being white in America, you are racist. Are we supposed to believe Barack Obama when he says that for 20 years, none of this really mattered to him?
    Look at the record of John McCain, firmly in the middle of American life. It is John McCain that has shown for decades a reliable record of bringing Americans together.

  • Mike Devx

    BrianE,
    Of course it’s racist! I mean, just look at what you wrote!

    At a time in history, like never before, when this country needs to unite to solve new and looming challenges, Barack Obama stands to one side, sharing the ideals of a gnarled domestic terrorist who has traded the bombs he threw in the 1970’s, with ideas even more dangerous to America by undermining

    Typical conservative evil. Your words are twisted, indeed, I believe you are both conservative and psychologically twisted, but then, I repeat myself.

    BrianE, allow me to take what you wrote and fix it up a bit. Just a few words, here and there.

    At a time in history, like never before, when this country needs to unite to solve new and looming challenges, Barack Obama stands before you, halo shining, arms opened toward you with palms open, welcoming, welcoming. His eyes aglow, the warmest, most empathetic eyes you have ever seen, is it not clear that all your troubles are over? Though an adult, do not your eyes brim with tears?

    “Mommy! Daddy!” you cry out helplessly! “Now I’m safe! And warm and secure. Forever!” Run to Mommy-Daddy-Obama. Feel the warmth. See? Snuggle. Now you’re safe. And warm. And secure.

  • BrianE

    I’m OK now!

  • Zhombre

    And just to make you feel extra special better, Brian, here’s some adorable pictures of the Messiah with babies. Suffer the little children to come unto Him:

    http://litbrit.blogspot.com/2008/10/babies-for-barack.html#links