Virginian Pilot Editors: To Paraphrase Obama = "Typical White Liberals"

Barack Obama was asked about his use of his white grandmother as an example of white racism. He replied

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society."

Obama typical white person
by dollarsandsense123


Obama shamelessly uses his grandmother and compares her to the racist rants of J. Wright.

During his speech on race Obama said his grandmother was "a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world," but he then qualified that description by noting she was also "a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Charles Krauthammer critiques Obama’s speech HERE and the reaction to it.

White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then proceeds to do precisely that. And what lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. .

The group who loved it?

That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

What was delicious was that the Virginian Pilot's editors then printed an exact illustration of the sort of Liberal mash note that, when analyzed is fully as satisfying and designed to rot your intellectual teeth as cotton candy for the mind.

Detailing the racial make-up of the Tidewater Virginia area, the Pilot's cracked editors bleat again for a "dialog" on race. Well, J. Wright certainly revived the talk of race. Is that what they want? Well, no.

That conversation isn’t just about finding a way to get past our own bigotries, small and large. It’s about finding our way in a smaller world.

What? What does that mean?

Embracing differences — and leveraging them to compete — is already a key characteristic of successful corporations across the world; as that globe shrinks, it will also be the defining characteristic of its most successful nations.

So the racism and hatred of America expressed by Reverend Wright should be leveraged (how?) to make us a more successful nation? Wright's diatribes should be used to appeal to America's haters throughout the world to show that they are not alone in their hatred of America, we have our very own America haters right here in the United States? I'm confused, will that make them hate us more or hate us less?

As Americans, we may not like Wright’s bombast, but that neither makes it disappear nor leaves it without a significant audience. Such views are as much a part of our world as religious leaders blaming homosexuals for 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, or dismissing the Mormon and Catholic churches as cults.

Ah, yes, Wright is simply bombastic when he accuses Americans of inventing aids to wipe out blacks. When he accuses (FDR's) America of knowing in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor. If I may paraphrase J. Wright "NO! NO! NO!" That's not bombast, those are racially charged lies. That is blood libel.

Newt Gingrich has it right when he says:

For 20 years, he was a member of a church where he now says his pastor, a public figure, was saying things ... forget that they were hateful, forget that they were divisive: They were wrong. They were fundamentally, factually wrong."

And let me point out to the Pilot's cracked editors that when certain preachers blamed homosexuals for 9/11 and Katrina they were not invited in for a dialog, they were denounced! Would the Pilot like to call for a dialog those who call Mormons a cult? Regarding Catholics I have never heard anyone call them a cult, although I could imagine certain members of the looney atheist Left do so.


The Pilot then pauses to accuse those who question J. Wright's racial hatred and Obama's cynical opportunism of wishing to divide us:

Some — churches and ethnic groups, universities and politicians — are trying to take up Obama’s invitation to a larger conversation on race in America. Obama’s opponents refuse to hear his message because they choose not to, because a dialogue rooted in common hopes unwinds their hopes of dividing the nation for political gain.

Tell me, Pilot, what common hopes do I have with J. Wright and his cheering parishioners as he asks God to damn America? What common hopes do I have with the man who supported that hate speech for twenty years with his attendance and his money? I know he hopes to be president; I fervently hope he does not.

Right now, this nation is undergoing an enormous demographic earthquake. In a few years, whites will no longer make up the majority. In a few decades, they may no longer be the largest ethnic group.

It seems as if the Pilot's editors are looking to make their peace with race baiters whose skins are not white. The Pilot's staff wants to be on the side of the coming majority and if that majority wants to have God damn America, the Pilot will find a way of being there for them.

Well folks, that was the windup, here's the pitch:

We’re on that road. We got there, in part, by knowing this isn’t entirely about race and racism. It’s about citizenship. At its core, the contention over Obama’s pastor is about something deeper to our experience, our history, to our health as a nation now and to come: Who is an American? And what does that have to do with the color of our skin?

The poor Pilot; the poor, poor, pitiful Pilot. You may not like them, but there is something pitiful about people whose analytical skills arrive at this piece of intellectual detritus.