ACTION

The Washington Post hits Obama 

Finally, the Washington Post speaks out on Obama! This is very brutal, 
timely though. As I'm sure you know, the Washington Post newspaper has 
a reputation for being extremely liberal. So the fact that its editor 
saw fit to print the following article about Obama in its newspaper 
makes this a truly amazing event and a news story in and of itself. At 
last, the truth about our President and his obvious socialist agenda 
are starting to trickle through the “protective wall” built around him 
by our liberal media. 
 

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, the result of 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 liberal Dom 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 US 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 Teleprompters 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.