Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election and the 2012 reelection 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 cliches 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.

It is what we call the byproduct of MTV, white guilt, multicultural curriculums in our public schools, Political Correctness, a MSM that is in bed with progressives, generations on welfare and food stamps that do nothing more than vote more money into their own hands.

Rock the Vote!

Sad times we live in

good read... very true

Had Obama been white, he would have had zero chance of ever getting elected.

He never served in our military, he never ran any business, and he had zero leadership experience. he was a junior senator with a record of voting "present". He never penned any legislation. His ties to Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky’s play book, Jeremiah Wright, mentoring by Frank Marshall, and back ground in community organizing would have sunk any white politician from the start. America has been hoodwinked into believing that you have like anything that is black. It was Multiculturalism at its best.

It is amazing that just for showing up, this man got handed the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ronald Reagan literally brought down the wall between East and West Germany and saw to the breakup of the evil Soviet Union, and he did not even get considered.

I guess all we can do is try to inform people that are not informed. It seems like people with to much pride like guidry will not admit it was a mistake. Possibly even would vote again for the same policies.

I will say, he reminds me of one of Phil Robinsons beavers!! He builds a dam, yet he dont quite know why, he just keeps building.....

Tchauvin

I think you are pissing in the wind on thinking you will ever change the mind of a die hard liberal.

Generally, those that vote democrat fit into two categories. There are folks who vote democrat with a clean conscience. They truly care about the poor, the environment, world peace, health care, equality..... They believe in these causes and are fooled into thinking that the democrat has the best interests of the people in mind.

The second camp are those who are truly educated, and know the score. In their heart of hearts, they hate God, they hate Bible truth, and they worship their own minds. They want government to replace God, and to have total control. They view the masses as two stupid to care for themselves, and feel the elitists with the Ivey League School degrees need to make all of the decisions. These are your progressives. Do not be fooled though that all progressives are democrats. There are plenty of republicans in this camp.

These progressives do not have a moral compass that is set on anything solid. It free spins to fit their agenda. Thus the reason democrats do not have a problem with immorality in their politicians. They do not care when a Clinton has a scandal in the White House with a 19 year old intern. They do not care that Obama has ties to know terrorists. They hate the Bible anyway, so why would they be concerned about immorality in their leaders?

These Progressives view our constitution as a flawed and evil system. They know our form of government was designed for a "religious and moral people" (John Adams), and thus the reason they want to tear down any laws or customs that can be tied to judeo-Christian values. They promote homosexuality and other sexual deviations, they support abortion, and while they are agnostic and atheist, they are generally quick to side with Islam over Christianity. The enemy of their enemy becomes a bit of a friend.

Logic, history, facts, critical thinking is not going to change the minds of a true progressive. They tie their beliefs to their Marxist agenda, and they are patient in accomplishing their goals.

You can never change the mind of a true liberal. Your best option is when chaos begin, take out as many of them as possible before a cease fire is agreed to.

"Zombie" is just a politically correct way of saying "welfare recipient".

There is a reason people are preparing to defend against them.