Obama Watch: If a Liberal Calls a Black Man Inexperienced, Is It Still Racist?

If a Liberal Calls a Black Man Inexperienced, Is It Still Racist?

At the recent Forum on the Presidency, Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama which Supreme Court justice he would not have nominated. Obama replied, “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he, I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.”

He then added that he also wouldn’t appoint Justice Scalia, but that there is no argument over his “legal brilliance.” In other words, the black guy is dumb.

The Wall Street Journal responded to Obama’s outrageous claim that Justice Thomas lacks the proper credentials. The Journal editors wrote:

“So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist…”

“Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama’s story look like easy street.”

Obama: I’m Right Even When I’m Wrong

Pastor Warren asked the candidates “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make and what was the process you used to make it?”

Obama answered that it was his decision to oppose the war in Iraq. He said, “I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction…”

Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light points out that Iraq’s supposed lack of WMDs was not the reason he gave in his speech on the Illinois Senate floor in 2002. At that time, Obama acknowledged that Saddam Hussein has WMDs. He said, “He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.”

However, all of that didn’t matter. Obama’s 2002 opposition to the war put him squarely in moonbat territory. He said, “What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to.”

Radical leftists like Obama are either confused or outright liars. It was President Clinton that put U.S. troops in harm’s way to distract Americans from his criminal indiscretions.

Pelosi Praises “The One”

During a fundraising haul that brought in nearly $8 million at three California fundraisers, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke at the last. She told the adoring audience of 1,300 that Obama was “a leader that God has blessed us with at this time.”

Yeah, We’re Biased, So What?

The Washington Post’s ombudsman Deborah Howell reported this week that front page coverage of Obama outnumbered McCain by 3-to-1. Howell wrote, “In overall political stories from June 4 to Friday, Obama dominated by 142 to 96. Obama has been featured in 35 stories on Page 1; McCain has been featured in 13, with three Page 1 references with photos to stories on inside pages.”

Howell also notes that The Washington Post isn’t the only outlet where Obama dominates. The Project for Excellence in Journalism monitored several outlets including medium and large newspapers, websites, broadcast news, public radio and other radio, and cable news. “Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain,” wrote Howell.

As expected, Post editors were on the defensive. Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, told Howell:

“We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody’s quota. That means as editors we decide what we think is important, because that’s what our readers look for us to do — not to adhere to some arbitrary standard.

“The nomination of the first African American presidential nominee after a bitter primary campaign and his efforts to unite a party afterward were simply more newsworthy than a candidate whose nomination was already assured and who spent much of that time raising money.”

Howell concludes, “Numbers aren’t everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates.”

10,000 Votes: A Space Odyssey

The Houston Chronicle reports that Obama has taken an “evolving” position on funding NASA and the space shuttle program, the Constellation initiative. This week Obama endorsed a plan that would add $2 billion to NASA’s budget. However, the Chronicle says that Obama told their editorial board in February 2008 that “he was not convinced that human exploration was worth the cost.” The Chronicle also reports that in 2007, Obama a statement on his website suggested cutting the Constellation initiative in order to pay for an early education initiative.

“Let’s be honest: Obama is only embracing NASA now because of his political problems in Florida,” said Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant.

The Kennedy Space Center, located in Florida, has been the departure location for every manned spacecraft and employs more than 10,000 votes, I mean, people.