“Civil War”? Give Me A Break

What a helluva weekend Barack Obama had, sweeping Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska and the Maine caucuses, and besting Bill Clinton for a Grammy Award last night (spoken word). With news that Hillary Clinton “swung the ax,” firing her campaign chair and replacing her with a longtime aide, it would seem Obama was on his way to a big victory this Tuesday (expected to sweep Virginia, Maryland and D.C.) and a seeming lock on the lead in delegates.

And while I’m excited, I’m also troubled by the seeming “cult of personality” that seems to be springing up around Obama’s supporters, particularly those in the MSM as they jump on the Obama bandwagon and do what they can to slam the Clintons.

I’ve already noted MSNBC and its long-running thread of “white man’s burden”. Now you can add the former drama queen, er, critic Frank Rich to the mix, as he slips whatever credibility he had in Sunday’s op-ed with this laughable assertion regarding Democrats’ “civil war”:

“Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.” It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists.”

He then provides flimsy “evidence” showing rare instances where Latino voters have supported black candidates, none of which refutes the assertion made by the Clinton camp, and backed up by about 150 years of evidence, that African-Americans and Latino-Americans don’t like one another very much, and have a high degree of suspicion towards one another.

Carrying water for the “white man’s burden” crowd, Rich falls into the same trap that the other over-paid, white media dilettantes do: if we can over come our racism and vote for a black guy, what’s wrong with these brown people? Doesn’t being a minority automatically make you blood brothers with other oppressed minorities?

Uh, no, Frank, it doesn’t. African-Americans have a long history of suspicion and discrimination against Latinos (not to mention gays and Asian-Americans) going back to pre-Emancipation and the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), when “conquered” Mexicans on our side of the newly drawn border were granted full citizenship, while slaves continued to toil in the fields. And from there, with 150 years of immigration (legal or illegal), the “jobs war” and so forth, the two groups have loathed one another since.

Moreover, Rich doesn’t seem to even read his own newspaper, which a few weeks ago ran this article citing the “history of often uneasy and competitive relations between blacks and Hispanics.” As I’ve said repeatedly on this blog, Obama has really got to reach out, over 150 years of history, to win the Latino vote if he expects to beat Clinton and win the presidency. But having morons like Frank Rich use the term “civil war” to describe their fight for the nomination, in that sense, is itself a “racist and bigoted lie.”

As Paul Krugman points out today, this “hate springs eternal” coming from Obama supporters like Frank Rich, the entire crew at MSNBC, and other MSM sycophants (see Bill Kristol’s extolling of Obama today as well) makes one want to puke. In fact, when Rich and Kristol are “pimping” for the same candidate, you know the four horsemen are on their way.

Take a breath, Obama people. I want dude to win too, but there is no “civil war”, nor “dirty racist tactics,” nor any of the other hysterical pablum coming out of the “death to the Clinton’s” MSM quarter.

It’s a race between two fine candidates, both of whom are fighting like hell for the nomination. Yes, it might get dirty, but that’s hardball politics. Stop acting like such full-diaper toddlers every time someone dares to slam our guy. If he can’t beat the “Clinton machine” ultimately, wtf do you think is gonna happen to him when he goes up against the Republican smear army?

Let’s take our victory, keep hope alive, and stop acting like such sore winners.

Cross Posted From AoF 

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to “Civil War”? Give Me A Break

  1. J. Diamond says:

    bill kristol gave the NYT 1500 words of mundane, common wisdom analysis to make one single point: the Clintons must die! what a joker! why doesn’t he stick to what he’s good at (not diagnosing democratic intra-party politics)? he can map out the neocon plan to destroy america and everything she stands for! now that would be a valuable contribution to the NYT Op-Ed page!

  2. Strong win for Obama on the Chesapeake. I wonder when those folks finally relax and start getting magnanimous?