The Discerning Texan

Allah has a couple more observations about Obama's sudden need to engage in racial politics--which has stirred up many more questions than it did provide believable answers. Unfortunately many big media sites are still ignoring those questions:

My Messiah-supporting pal Steve Sherman notes a trend in our blogging lately. Honestly, I’m bored with writing about it, although e-mail tips about new angles continue to trickle in. Let’s see if we can close the show with this one. Not a rant, just a redirect to a rant — namely, Ace’s on CNN analyst Roland Martin’s hacktacular apologia for Wright’s 9/11 sermon. You need to read Bob Owens’s update here to appreciate how dishonest Martin’s selective quotation is, but laying aside the source, what exactly is the argument? That celebrating the glorious karmic payback delivered by St. Osama is fair game so long as you’re quoting Ed Peck, a Reagan official, when you do it? Old old old-school HA readers might recall that Peck has popped up on this site before. The Reagan administration wasn’t the only one he worked for, and the chickens coming home to roost isn’t the only “nuanced” opinion he holds when it comes to jihadist elements.

To come full circle with the quote from his speech that I found so irritating on Tuesday, if Obama sincerely believes the great national conversation on race can’t wait a moment longer, why didn’t he use the bully pulpit of being a presidential candidate to start it last year? Why now, if it’s not just a cynical attempt to distract attention from his own scandal? The obvious answer: Because to force a discussion of race then would have it made too easy for Hillary to ghettoize him as a “black candidate” before the primaries. He held off to preserve his chances. That’s fine, but contrast his approach to race with McCain’s approach to Iraq. As far back as eleven months ago, before the surge results were in and doom awaited any candidate who dared take a hawkish line, Maverick was telling audiences that he’d rather lose the election than lose the war. The issue came first, his own political ambitions came second. There’s a little character comparison worth mulling. And since we’ve already had one exit question today that’ll be asked forever, here’s another: If the Wright thing had never blown up, would Obama have ever delivered this allegedly urgently important, historically significant meditation on race? You think?

If you missed his classic post the other day, you might want to check out that one too.

Meanwhile, Karl over at Protein Wisdom also has some not so great observations about the dearth of objectivity about the Obama campaign in the in-his-pocket Media (emphasis mine):

McClatchy has now done more than most of the establishment media (and certainly more than TIME magazine’s new puff piece or the ignorant and inane ramblings of E.J. Dionne, Jr.) on the underlying issue, even as it hypothesizes Obama’s church membership is one of political convenience rather than reading Obama’s writings on the subject, which are consistent with the theology.

Given the chain’s general leftward slant, it is all the more notable that McClatchy is perhaps the first establishment media outlet to report some of the specifics of the Black Liberation Theology that is the vision of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama’s church — and to note (as already noted here) that Obama dodged the larger issue:

Obama’s speech Tuesday on race in America was hailed as a masterful handling of the controversy over divisive sermons by the longtime pastor of Trinity United, the recently retired Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright’s inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn’t address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

[....]

Most important, McClatchy sought answers from the Obama campaign on the issue:

It isn’t clear where Obama’s beliefs and the church’s diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology.

That is the standard response of the Obama campaign to any controversy, as anyone trying to report on Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko will tell you. Obama will not answer press inquiries until the establishment media turns up the heat to the point where he feels compelled to do so. That pattern should trouble people far beyond those concerned about the degree to which Obama susbscribes to Black Liberation Theology.

It damn sure troubles me.

On the subject of McClatchy's story, Gateway Pundit adds:

Uh-Oh... This wasn't supposed to happen.

An amazing article appeared in the mainstream news today.
McClatchy actually reported that Obama's church merges Marxism and Christian Gospel and preaches that the white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Does this explain why Obama lashes out at conservative Christians?