Jim Bramlett (30 March 2012)
"The Washington Post on Obama"


(Do I hear any "amens" out there?)

The Washington Post is the most widely "liberal" circulated newspaper published in Washington, D.C. and oldest extant in the area, founded in 1877.

The Washington Post January 8, 2012

Obama: The Affirmative Action President
by Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)


"Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as

an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria

akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did

a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking

he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful

military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered

into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores

along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as

a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid

of his attention, so often did he vote "present") ; and finally an unaccomplished

single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to

his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored

no signature legislation as a legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating,

America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor";

a real life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor.

It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth

was such a man elected president?"

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed

the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

"To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken

hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers

would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore

entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various

American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because

of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so

articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which

gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay

the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon --

affirmative action . Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating

sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed

primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about

themselves.


Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back.

Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take

no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which

follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to

witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist

policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.

Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin --

that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And

that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why

would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for

Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good

enough for the U.S. Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he

was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life,

every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step,

in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of

empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless

raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people --

conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks

and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in

front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not

one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism

of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything

else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is

embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so

comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The

man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act

responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament

nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you

understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could

not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office."