Category Archives: racism

OBSERVATION: Obama bombed on Burris

Belatedly, President-elect Barack Obama has fallen silent on the issue of Roland Burris as his successor in the U.S. Senate. Had he thought things through a bit more clearly in the first instance, he could have left the issue to Governor Rod Blagojevich, Secretary of State Jesse White and Senate President Harry Reid. Or, he could have given the appointment a pass. Instead, he bought into the specious argument that while Burris is a good man and very well qualified, the perceived sins of his sponsor fatally tainted the appointment. Obama ignored both the law and common sense.

This puts the first half African-American President in sync with the legally dubious and arguably racist posture of Reid. Suddenly, Obama is a partisan in a strategy that risks reducing black membership in the World’s Most Exclusive Club to zero.

Obama was a follower when he should have been a leader. Had he accepted the appointment as legal and Burris as qualified, there would have been a junior Illinois senator sworn in with the class of ’09. He also would have prevented Reid from looking arrogant, stupid and racist.

Now, the drama will continue on the edge of the national spotlight, casting a discernible shadow across the historic inauguration festivities. Oh, the irony of it all.

Advertisements

>OP ED: Skinheads and William Ayers

>Thanks to good police work, it appears that two racist skinheads were arrested before they would unleash their heinous terrorist attack on the black community and on democracy, itself, by murdering more than 100 African-Americans, including Senator Barack Obama.

One should keep in mind, however, that the only difference between these degenerates and William Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, is that the latter actually implemented their deadly plans. Their bombs went off, and people died.

I wonder if these hate monger skinheads will also wind up as “distinguished college professors” at prestigious universities one day.

>OP ED: It’s not racism, stupid

>Barack Obama’s standing in the poles is testimony to the fact that non-black America is not nearly as racist as the Jesse Jackson’s of the world would contend to maintain their relevancy. Having now shown the significant racial tolerance of the non-black communities, it is time to focus on Barack Obama, the man. Should HE be the next president? (<– The "he" is capitalized for emphasis, not for the purpose of deification, as many might assume.) Had it not been for the economy tanking, and panic running amok, that answer would have been a decided “no.” The non-racial reasons for rejecting the Obama candidacy are still valid, however. He possesses five qualities that are totally wrong for America.

1. Despite the sweet talk and pleasant demeanor, Obama is among the most radical left-wingers to be seriously considered for the presidency. His proposals for massive government programs, here and abroad, and redistribution of the wealth from the productive sector to the non-productive community is a socialist agenda by any measure. It sets America on the terminal path most recently traveled and abandoned in failure by the old Soviet Union and cold war China. His redistribution of wealth comments are distrubingly akin to the language of Karl Marx — and why not? The policies are disturbingly similar pure communist ideology.

2. He is a radical internationalist, who would realign our foreign policy toward greater accommodation with the America-hating Islamic fundamentalist at the expense of Israel, yield elements of our sovereignty to international agencies and withdraw from the Reagan-launched era of dedication to world democratization. There is a reason why those who wish to ring down the curtain on “the American era” have expressed universal hope and encouragement for an Obama presidency.

3. Obama’s personal history of associations with radical anti-American extremists, from childhood to just before his pole numbers started rising, is significant to understanding what drives his thinking. From the early education at the knee of his proclaimed American-loathing Communist family and childhood mentors, to the racist political foundation of liberation/revolution theology preached by his father figure pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and to the propaganda-as-education philosophy of unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, Obama has been consistently cradled and influenced by the haters of the successful American capitalist system – those who would rather wage class warfare on the rich than bring a just war to the doorsteps of murderous tyrants.

4. He brings to office, albeit in a polished form, the lust for raw power exemplified in the Chicago political machine — the wellspring of his political life. He is a graduate of arguably the most corrupt political environment in America. The support he has received from, and the support he has given to, friends and allies wallowing in local political chicanery strips away the flimsy mask of reform he dons on the national stage and belies the scripted lines in his stage role as a small “d” democrat. The Chicago way of political control is to constantly change the rules to increase partisan power and advantage, and if that is insufficient, to simply break the rules to maintain power. Obama’s arrogant radical liberalism — characterized by a twisted sense superiority and noblise oblige — coupled with a Chicago-style contempt for citizen participation, gives him an already discernibly unhealthy lust for personal power — and the instinct to pursue it.

5. Obama would come to the presidency as the most woefully inexperienced and untested candidate in American history. His simplistic idealism is at once charming and dangerous. In addition to his misguided instincts, Obama brings a naïveté to the presidency that makes America more vulnerable — politically, diplomatically and physically — to the advances, actions and assaults of our avowed adversaries. Voting for the recordless Obama is an act of faith. He is the proverbial “pig in a poke” – lipstick notwithstanding.

6. Finally, there is a matter of integrity. With enormous financial advantage, Obama has been able to undermine the credibility of the Republican team. Yet, much of his image is founded in lies. He would have us believe that after 20 years of intimate association with Trinity Church, and the fiery Jeremiah Wright, he had never “heard a disparaging word.” His latter day answers, on such matters of abortion and taxation, stand in stark contrast, yet he is not challenged on these discrepancies. He denies his days as a slum lord in partnership with the now indicted Tony Rezko. Obama is not what he appears.

Hillary Clinton got it right when she said that Obama’s national launch was on the basis of one skillfully crafted and presented speech. He has remained aloft on the same vacuous propellant. He is a spellbinding orator, as any snake oil salesman must be. A President Obama will undoubtedly be a great disappointment – either to those who did not fully appreciate his commitment to a radical world socialist agenda or to those who will watch the malleable Chicago machine President again re-invent himself to accommodate the moderating influence and pragmatism of the American system. Is he a Roosevelt or a Clinton? Stay tuned.

>LMAO Say What?

>I had to break out in that special laughter of disbelief when I read the recent offering by Chicago Tribune columnist Dawn Turner Trice. Okay. I will first tell you what she wrote, and see if you catch the line that produce the guffaws in me – and a number of others with whom I shared the column without any hint of my reaction. Here goes.

“(Sarah) Palin is only attractive to women (and men) who appreciate her conservative views; her life-time membership in the NRA; and her anti-abortion stance. But she’s not fooling women who don’t. Women aren’t just blindly going to vote for a sister. Just like blacks won’t blindly vote for a brother.”

Say what?

I don’t even think I had to add my own emphasis to the last two (almost) sentences for anyone to get it.

According to polls, Barack Obama is getting close to 95 percent of the black vote. This is not issue driven. This is racism in action. They ARE voting “blindly” for a brother. The black vote is an extreme example of what Trice claims is not even happening.

As a secondary note, you will see that Trice’s main point is her belief that those supporting Palin are only those who agree with her. Duh! Now there’s a startling piece of insight.

>REACT: Olympic Gold Medal Grumps

>

In a tongue-in-cheek publicity photo, the Spanish Olympic basketball team posed pulling back their eyes to get a faux Asian look, humorously reflecting their chinese hosts. Weeeeeell, as you can imagine these days, the political correctness Nazis launched into a rage befitting Olympus, himself. Nothing more than racism, say the narrow minded, pursed-lipped critics.

AP reported:

International media criticized the photo. London’s Daily Telegraph said Spain’s “poor reputation for insensitivity toward racial issues has been further harmed” by the photo. “This was clearly inappropriate, but we understand the Spanish team intended no offense and has apologized,” Emmanuelle Moreau, a spokeswoman for the International Olympic Committee, said in an e-mail. “The matter rests there as far as the IOC is concerned.”

What is with these humorless human androids? It is a funny photo. This isn’t racism. Its what people do. We ham it up for photos. It is not mean spirited. In fact, I think it is more a geature of affection and respect for the Chinese. It is good humor between friends.

When are we going to be allowed to enjoy a good laugh again?

>OP ED: Obama: Looking good while losing.

>The Democrats and the Barack Obama team should know better, but I am thrilled that they do not. They appear to operating under the assumption that they on the verge of a tsunami-level election victory.

The liberal pundits and radio gabbers are orgasmic in their political fantasy of the post-GOP world. Everyday, they wax on and on about the misfortunes of John McCain and his doomed quest. They mock his age. They make fun of his physical handicaps. They brutally lambaste his wife. (Tsk! Tsk! Where is their political correctness now?) They speak with certainty that Obama WILL be the next occupant of the oval office.

They cite polls that show Obama far ahead in all kinds of esoteric comparisons. Likeability. Good for education. More trusted with the economy. They are bewildered, however, by head-to-head polls that keep McCain within the margin of error – and certain that these samplings of public opinion are merely lagging indicators of a future victory.

No doubt Obama is riding a crest of positive exposure. He is the charismatic barnstormer – appropriately dubbed the “rock star” candidate. The ever-biased media has lost their last measure of professional dignity in their zeal to put Obama in the White House. The press has become so imbalanced in their reporting, in both coverage and slant, that even editorialists, columnists and commentators of all hues are chastising their newsroom colleagues.

How can Obama possibly lose, the progressives rhetorically ask?

Easy. This ain’t November.

First and foremost, Obama would have to overcome the enormously significant reality of a very racially divided electorate. (Shhh! We’re not supposed to talk about this). His parochial message that is likely to garner him more than 80 percent of the black vote is naturally going to create a racial backlash in the white community. We can argue about the extend of its impact, but not its existence.

While liberals charge “racism,” it is not racism to vote against a candidate who appears to represent the narrow interest of a group of which one is not a member. But, forget the academics. The reality is that Obama is not producing the kind of showing in the non-African-American communities he needs to win the election. This does not take into account the “Bradley Effect,” which basically suggests that a lot fewer whites will vote black than the polls indicate. Why? First, becasue early polls are almost never right. Second, because a significant number of those interviewed do not like to say they are voting agains the black guy — they lie. This is especially true if the interviewer is black, or sounds black.

Liberals like to think that all designated minorities are part of a unified progressive bloc. In reality, Obama has a problem with Hispanics. Even if he gets a better share, their numbers in the voting booth are not that great. Obama has no universal appeal to Asians, who will again show a high degree of independency in their voting patterns. He will not do as well as a Democrat should with Jews — all his talk about protecting Israel notwithstanding.

These and other reasons explain why all the hoopla is not letting Obama break away from McCain. I would think Obama needs a good 10 to 15 point lead today to even be in the running in November. If he is in a dead heat now, how can he win when his fortunes begin to descend — as they surely will. Okay! Yeah, he will get a short term boost after the convention, but then it is all down hill.

For the most part, the events and impressions of today will not mean much to the all important undecided voters. It is the post-convention period that is critical in shaping opinions that will finally result in a voting decision. In other words, Obama is having a hot run of great publicity when it doesn’t mean much. Conversely, McCain is being beaten down before it matters. He will have ample time to shore up his exposed weak points.

McCain has a future advantage. To some measure, the press will recognize enough guilt to start balancing off their coverage. McCain will get more and better reporting. Also, the public tends to get tired of unending “over the fold” coverage of one candidate. They will be more sympathetic and response to the future McCain messages. Too much exposure leads to a backlash. It would be hard to argue that Obama is not overexposed at this point.

Outside of a few terse retorts, Obama have not been subjected to the issue debate. The fact is, Obama is much more liberal than the American public. He is counting on novelty, charisma and lkeability to trump the issues disparity. The Republicans are withholding their fusalage of counter advertising for a more critical time. Once the battle is engaged, Obama is going to see his numbers slipping.

The junior senator from Illinois, and his supporters seem to want to win the election every day. Listening to the liberal (hot) Air America, it is astonishing how they analyze every daily event and opinion poll as if they are doing Election Day coverage — and always projecting Obama as the winner. The GOP national establishment, for all its faults, is better at strategy – recognizing that there is only one day when winning matters.

As I often disclaim. The course events can change in the face of dramatic disclosures or blunders. The Republicans are more susceptible to making such blunders, and theirs are more likely to be amplified by the media. But for now, this race remains McCain’s to lose.

Footnote: Oh! The picture of Obama. Yeah! It has been a while since I used one of him smoking. Just using it in the spirit of full disclosure. There has not been a better kept presidential secret since the public had no idea Franklin Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound. And yes, the McCain photo is among his best. Since he has been getting beat up so badly in the press these days, I thought I would put the thumb on his side of the scale for a change.

>REACT: Father Pfleger’s return to his throne … ah … pulpit?

>Father Michael Pfleger is back at the pulpit. Cardinal George, who suspended the priest errant for two meaningless weeks of abstinence from the Saint Sabina sacristy, has given more evidence of his disappointing reign as the bishop of the Chicago Archdiocese.

The mini-banishment was the result of the brouhaha that followed Pfleger’s sexist and racist over-the-top performance at Obama’s former church, where “Trinity” refers to Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Michael Pfleger. The latter’s mockery of Hillary Clinton was only the vehicle for a larger rant against non-black America.

Shortly after his satirical impersonation of a black preacher hit You Tube, the very Arian looking Pfleger issued a less-than-apologetic mea culpa. I am sure Pfleger was sorry that he caused Barack Obama to resign from Trinity. I am sure he was sorry he received a personal rebuke from Obama. Even in regret, however, Pfleger never took responsibility for his actions, expressed sincere remorse, or demonstrated a firm commitment not to repeat his transgression – the three requirements for Catholic confession and forgiveness. He gave no evidence that he was sorry for the thrust of his message. His sorrow was more like the regret of a bank robber over getting caught — not the crime. The only people who accepted his apology were those who thought he was right to do what he did, in the first place.

It should have been the last straw, but Cardinal George treated like it was a unique lapse. The punishment was less than the slap on the back of the hand that nuns applied in the days of the old Catholic Church. Perhaps he was intimidated by the lavish media praise the press traditionally bestows on religious apostasy – especially by left-of-center preachers.

Oh, Perhaps it was the zealous demonstration of support from Pfleger’s followers at Saint Sabina, who each Sunday absorb and endorse Pfleger’s homilies of racial paranoia and divisiveness. Their You Tube-captured applauds, cheers and “amens” demonstrated a disturbing resonance with Pastor Pfleger’s anti white diatribes. It would appear that those who take up the pews function more like a cult than a congregation devoted to a good and greater God. Like many other narcissistic, egomaniacal and charismatic personalities, Pfleger has his following.

That is what is so disturbing about his triumphant return. Yes, triumphant. Pfleger returned to HIS throne to the rapturesque cheers and hosannas of HIS congregation. These are clearly HIS people. There was no sense of embarrassment over Pfleger’s statements and rebukes by both Obama and George. Absent was the humility of a true penitent. So powerful is his messianic message that many “members’ of Saint Sabina are not even Catholic. They are there for the political, not the priestly, Pfleger. Every exuberant alleluia was a proverbial fist in the face of Cardinal George.

Pfleger, has been allowed to remain pastor at Saint Sabina’s for more than 25 years – well past the time church policy normally requires a move. He is a good example of why that policy is a good one. It is designed to remind the parishioners that the pastor is NOT the church. It is designed to prevent the cult-ification of a congregation. George had a great opportunity to restore Saint Sabina to the communion of the Catholic Church. Carpe Diem! The Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago failed. Though his stature outside the parish may be deservedly diminished by his antics, Father Pfleger returns to Saint Sabina the clear victor.

>REACT: Obama and the religious Wright

>The sound you hear is the hot air escaping from the Barack Obama’s presidential balloon as it descends to earth.

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but … Why do we always say that? Actually, I’m grinning from ear to ear. I love being I-told-you-so. Who doesn’t?

So, here it is.

Long before the Obama’s religious mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, ignited the ammo dump of racial politics, I predicted that the “racial thing” would sink Obama – if not for the nomination, certainly for the general election. (Check out my blog items on South Carolina Mississippi … and the campaign in general.)

Keep in mind that it was Obama who first pulled the switch that sent his campaign train, the Unifer Express, off the main line and onto the African American Limited sidetrack. The beginning of the end for Obama came when he decided to run as the candidate of black aspirations in South Carolina, were the African American bloc represented about half of the primary voters. Prior to that, Obama was pulling 50 to 70 percent of black voters — not enough to win in future primaries.

To get the needed 80 to 90 percent majorities to carry him over the top in places like South Carolina and Mississippi, and give him a greater share of distributed delegates in places like Texas, he had to offer himself as the black political messiah. It worked. His subsequent victories resulted from overwhelming black turnout and vote.

Bill Clinton was not wrong in comparing Obama’s South Carolina victory to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. It was a demographic inevitability based on racial politics. So long as Obama made it a black crusade, he could command the lead in the Democrat primaries, where black votes enjoy a disproportionate advantage.

In high school science, we learned that “for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction.” This applies to politics, too. As Obama solidified black support for his candidacy, he created a countervailing coalition of wary whites. In invoking ethnic solidarity among his adopted people, he naturally provoked solidarity among his other people. Though half white and half black, Obama chose to be a black candidate for all the obvious reasons. Geraldine Ferrarro was not wrong either.

Obama’s introduction of racial politics showed in the numbers. For the big gain in the black vote, he was suddenly losing 75-plus of the white vote in many key states. His hope of increasing his percentage with the Hispanics also was dashed by his Afrocentric campaign. That may have cost him a clear win in Texas. As time went by, racial polarization became more of a factor. That trend continues.

Though Obama first played the racial card, the Clinton campaign saw their opportunity on the white side of the racial divide. Clinton matched the racial card with the surrogate comments of Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferrarro and others, but they did not trump it. The advantage was still Obama’s. He was taking a calculated risk, and so far the calculus looked good. His zigzag racial strategy was working, with gains outpacing loses. But then, the joker turned up in the person of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor, close friend and self-proclaimed religions mentor.

At a time when Obama was trying to deflect suspicions of radical Muslimism lurking behind his Harvard-bred image, he was more than eager to brag of his strong ties to the Christian United Trinity Church of Christ and his close relationship with Pastor Wright. For more than 20 years, the Obama family had been among the congregants. Barak and Michelle were married at Trinity by Pastor Wright. The Obama children were baptized there. He attended regularly, and supported the church with is donations. In more recent years, Obama was among the church’s most prominent attendees. Obama titled his book, The Audacity of Hope, after the sermonic themes of Pastor Wright. Though perhaps less appropriate, it was a better title for a presidential campaign than “God Damn America.” He offered up Pastor Wright to the public as part of his campaign network of informal advisors. Obama was the first Democrat presidential candidate to wear his religion on his sleeve, refusing to let the right-wing lay exclusive claim to God.

Now however, Pastor Wright’s well-publicized racist, anti-Semitic and anti-American rantings — and his endorsement and honoring of Nation of Islam black supremis Louis Farrakhan — have inflicted a body blow to the Obama campaign. In a matter of days, Obama shifted from a tacit defense of Wright to outright repudiation. This has put Obama at odds with his church members, who accuse the press of character assassination. Apparently, Obama has joined the assassins out of necessity.

Beyond the bounds of credibility, Obama claims to have never … repeat “never” … heard such rhetoric when he was in attendance. Not once in 20 years. (Why does that sound like, “I never once had sex with that woman?”) Sounding a bit like an old school marm, the senator claims that had he heard such hateful rhetoric from the pulpit, he would have talked to Pastor Wright to express his disapproval. Tsk! Tsk!

Lincoln once said that “widely held beliefs, whether will or ill founded, have the impact of fact.” For Obama, this means his excuses cannot dissuade the public from a now widely held belief that he is … lying. For the first time his denial lacks plausibility.

In attempt to bridge the racial gap, Obama sites the racism of his grandmother – calling it white “inbred” racism. Well, that sure backfired. Now a lot of non-racist white folks are highly insulted. The accusation of pandemic inbred racism among whites sounds like black paranoia and an affirmation of deep seeded racism on the part of Obama. Sounds like something Pastor Wright might have bellowed from the pulpit – but of course, Obama would not have been there to hear it.

One way to execute damage control is to inflict some of the same damage on the opponent. So, the Obama folks dropped a photo of Pastor Wright standing with President Clinton for one of those get-in-line photo ops. How pathetic. Rather than expose the Clintons with this sophomoric stunt, Obama exposed the beads of desperation sweat on his political brow. His handlers are smart enough to know that their candidate could be marching to the convention with an already inflicted mortal wound. This is just the kind of situation that argues for the super delegates to exercise independent judgment at the time of the convention.

None of this will have much impact on the black vote. He is their guy. It does, however, continue affect white voter thinking. Obama is no longer the post-racial unifer. Having dodged the less credible case of being a stealth Manchurian candidate for radical Muslimism, he now appears to be more credibly pegged as a latent adherent of black racist theology. Furthermore, his tenuous hold on the largely liberal Democrat Jewish vote is being undone by Pastor Wright’s anti-Semitic homilies. Suddenly, Michelle Obama’s statement that she was never proud of America in the past takes on a more ominous meaning.

As he did with the Rezko affair, Obama sought to use a public relations platform to purge the demons of negative public opinion with a grand statement of conscience – a speech. This was his latest moment to “come clean.” While his supporters have branded his oration in Philadelphia as seminal, and the liberal press touts his success in rising above the racial muck, polls suggest that most Americans are less awed..

No one would question Obama’s speechifying talent. His racial manifesto was well written and well presented. An A+ in any speech class. The only problem, it did not stem the flow of white voters into the Clinton camp — and to the McCain camp, if Obama should turn out to be the candidate. It seems to me that the amount of exuberant praise the speech is receiving from his supporters reveals the fear more than the joy. I think they doth praise too much.

Whatever assurances are offered up, it is clear that THE speech did not bring the Pastor Wright problem to closure. Clinton will be necessarily restrained in taking advantage of Obama’s religious crisis, and the issue may ebb between now and the convention. But rest assured, the church affiliation brouhaha will have its effect, and you can bet it will be played out again before November. Already, it is on endless loop on the Internet.

And don’t you have the feeling that one of these days there will be yet another nasty revelation involving Pastor Wright?

>REACT: Missing the point in Mississippi

>As expected, Barack Obama cruised to an easy victory in the Mississippi Democrat primary, picking up about 20 of the states 33 delegates, with the remainder going to Hillary.

His victory, however, is more evidence that he will be an extreme underdog in the General Election. Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any state in the nation. They represented and overwhelming 70 percent of the voters in the Democrat primary. They gave Obama more than 90 percent of their votes as an expression of racial solidarity. (Dare we call it racism?) Conversely, Hillary took the vast majority of white votes. (Dare we call it ethnic pride?)

And yes. There is irony in the fact that the Mississippi flag (pictured) incorproates the old confederate “stars and bars.” Even more so when you consider that a new flag proposal was soundly defeated by two-thrids of the voters in 2001. That referendum could foretell Obama’s future in a general election. His impressive victory in the Democrat primary may be counterintuitive in terms of November.

Whatever you call it, racial voting has floated Obama’s campaign to the top – and it will sink it in a general election if he is the Democrat standard bearer.

As I have previously written, as soon as Obama picked up the racial cudgel in South Carolina, he began to position his campaign on the great American racial fault line. Race — not the audacity of hope or the promise of change in the White House, other than skin color — is the underlying defining issue.

It is not unheard of for a candidate to do what is necessary to win a nomination, only to find the winning formula in the primary is a receipe for defeat in the general. Obama finds himself in that position. After running as the son of his father in the primaries, can he run as the son of his mother in the General Election? That takes a lot of hope — and more change than one can believe in.

Footnote: I have been hearing a lot of my conservative compatriots a’hopin’ and a’prayin’ for a Clinton nomination in the belief that she is the more beatable of the two candidates. I disagree. Without a monumental disaster in the McCain camp – never to be discounted —
I think Obama is predestined to be an also-ran. I think it is dangerous to underestimate the Clintons, just as the Democrats always underestimated Ronald Reagan when they were a’hopin’ and a’prayin’ that he would be the opposing candidate.

>OBSERVATION: President Obama? I think not.

>Okay, I will risk being made the fool. I don’t think Barack Obama can win a general election, short of some catastrophic political event or campaign stupidity that would wipe out McCain. (Hmmm! Perhaps I should not be so bold in my prediction)

Obama has a powerful message, which resonates with the Democrat voters. However, his rise to front-runner status is also due to the unique demographics and sequencing of the Democrat primaries. He gains momentum, in some measure, because the early primaries were his turf to begin with, and his brand of politicking is especially effective in caucus situations. He also gained by having the “white guys” (including Hillary) divide up the white vote.

With fully one-fifth of the democrat primary voters being African-American, Obama had a solid core of dependable votes. Oh sure, there was a lot of speculation about Clinton’s potential strength in the black community – after all, she was married to the first black president according to some agonizingly twisted logic. Bottom line, black candidates generally get 70-plus percent of the black vote. Spare me the “ethnic pride” baloney that somehow does not apply to whites. At the theory goes, blacks vote FOR a black candidate out of racial pride (a good thing). Whites vote AGAINST a black candidate out of racial prejudice (a bad thing). Forget the bogus theory. It is racism, pure and simple. I won’t even buy “reverse racism,” as if it is only reactive to a more malignant white racism. A rose … is a rose … is a rose.

Some commentators note that Obama even did well in the “southern state” of South Carolina – failing to mention that the Democrat vote in the Palmetto State is 50 percent black. The also noted that he “crushed” Clinton in the District of Colombia, Maryland and Virginia. Again the black percentage is high (overwhelming in D.C.) and the high percentage of federal bureaucrats again gave Obama, as the big government programs candidate, the edge. The more liberal states, such as Minnesota and Wisconsin, are good ground for Obama. He gets Illinois by virtue of being a “favorite son.”

So, Obama is now the front runner. He is the glamour boy of the press. He is sold to the public in almost messianic fervor. Television opinionator Chis Mathews talks about the feeling that rises in his legs when he hears Obama speak. (Oh, the things we could say about that. Nope! Not going there. Too freaky.) Former hippie Senator and presidential candidate bad boy Gary Hart sees Obama as a transcendent personality. Maybe he meant “transcendental.” A lot of pundits, especially the far left variety, talk about Obama as an inevitability.

So, what shunt will side track Obama in his quest for the Oval Office? Just about everything.

While the sun shines brightly on Obama at the moment, Clinton can still wrestle him to a draw for elected delegates, and secure the nomination thanks to her fragile advantage with the so-called super delegates. Or, maybe she loses to the Illlinois senator because of the super delgates. Either way, it could be a Pyrrhic victory. Such a scenario would mean that Obama and Clinton will spend several months blooding up each other in a serious of primaries, while McCain stands outside the center ring goading them with verbal prods.

Then there is the messy convention fight should neither one of them seal the deal before the convention. Instead of the convention being a grand public relations launch for the Democrat nominee, viewers will watch a bitter credentials fight to restore the Michigan and Florida voting delegates stripped away by the national party for moving up their primaries. Debates will rage of the role of the super delegates. Should the simply endorse the candidate with the most popular votes or delegates (presumably Obama), or should the vote their prior commitments (presumably Clinton).

Obama will show his crass political undergarment by arguing for the endorsement of the super delegates based on democratic principles, while arguing to disenfranchise the Democrat voters in Michigan and Florida. It doesn’t wash.

To see the party which so sanctimoniously condemned the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the entire state of Florida and half the people in America for allowing George Bush to “steal” the 2000 election shred their party over similar issues is the most entertaining of political theater. God invented irony for just such moments.

Obama could be what I like to call the “cotton candy” candidate. As delicious as it seems on first lick, by the time you get down to the paper cone, you discover that there really was not much there – and your sort of sick to your stomach from the sugar-only diet. Because of the uniqueness of his candidacy, a carefully crafted charisma, and a rather pleasant personality, Obama gets away with platitudes. Sure, he alludes to fixing everything from world poverty to my computer, but there is no substance, no detailed program and no legislative initiatives. Just nice words, well delivered. His campaign offers the “audacity of hope,” and audacious it is. The empty rhetoric will not hold up in the more intense evaluation of a general election campaign.

Primary election combatants tend to play by their version of the overly polite Marquise of Queensberry rules. This is partly due to the fact that it is a family feud. Underlying is always the understanding that unity is going to be needed after the victor is crowned. Also, candidates in a primary often represent similar views – offering up differences without distinctions. Once the General Election begins, the gloves come off and the contest is more like kick boxing. Obama is not tested for such a battle.

Because of the nature of the Democrat constituency, where all the candidates are slightly different hues of liberal, Obama’s extreme leftist record and rhetoric has not been challenged. “Too liberal” is not an effective Democrat campaign mantra. McCain will, no doubt, define Obama as far left as credibility will allow. Despite self claims to the contrary, issue by issue Obama is beached on the port side bank of the political mainstream.

Many of the tarnishes on Obama’s media buffed shining armour that have been minimized in the primary could become significant issues in the general election. Does the name Tony Rezko (right) come to mind? In all likelihood, his political padrone will be on trail during the campaign, and the Obama name will come up in testimony. There is a lot more to be said about Obama’s early rise in the thoroughly corrupt Chicago political machine. And said, it will be.

Another major obstacle on the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is race. With addressing the morality of racial voting (read that “prejudice”), it is a reality. Within the Democrat party there is a pretty significant strain of racism – on both sides. Obama will receive at least 80 percent of the black vote, and that is not an outcome that can be explained by anything other than racial prejudice.

However, in the general election, a lot of those white Democrats who prefer a white candidate will be crossing over to the GOP. Since the black community is almost totally in the donkey party all the time, there is hardly a black Republican who will cross over the other way. Furthermore, blacks in the Republican party are so conservative that they will vote their philosophy a lot faster than their race. That is obvious by their very presence in the pachyderm party.

Even with the angst over McCain, those who think conservatives will let Obama be president by default (not voting) are about as silly as those Republicans who think they can appeal to the black vote based on issues. Helloooooooo! Race is the ONLY issue.

Because of party rules and skewered demographics, the Democrats are engaged in a fight between the least likely candidates to win a general election. Because the conservative vote was divided, giving the relatively unpopular McCain a plurality victory, the Republicans have all but nominated the candidate with the lesser general election appeal. This means that November will be a contest to determine who is truly the least popular of them all, with the second least popular person becoming what I predict to be a rather contoversial president.

At this moment, it appears to be McCain’s to lose. But then again, he is a Republican, a party with a long tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.