Hitchens: It’s Mrs. Obama’s fault

From Slate:

What I won’t be told is that Tawana Brawley was right, or that AIDS is the fault of the government, or that Jews were behind the slave trade, or that there is a secret Masonic code in the dollar bill. And the apologist for murder “Minister Farrakhan” and his big-mouth Christian friends flirt with this kind of half-baked garbage every day.
Nettled at last by the way in which this has upset his campaign, Sen. Obama last week cut the ties that bound him to his crackpot mentor. Well, high time. But those who profess relief at this should perhaps revisit what they thought (and wrote) about the earlier Philadelphia speech in which Obama was held to have achieved the same result with less trouble. If he was right last week, then the Philly speech was a failure on every level, and if it was a failure on every level, and thus left Obama hideously vulnerable to the very next speech made by his foaming pastor, then that must raise questions of eligibility for the highest office.
What can it be that has kept Obama in Wright’s pews, and at Wright’s mercy, for so long and at such a heavy cost to his aspirations? …
Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?…
I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama’s 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be “read” at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language. Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she’s much influenced by the definition of black “separationism” offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America.

LMFAO at that last paragraph.
H/T: Nelson

2 thoughts on “Hitchens: It’s Mrs. Obama’s fault”

  1. Here’s another good piece on Mrs. O:
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQ1MzFkMWU4MmYxMjhkZmNiZGE5YWY3NWUzNGMyMmY=
    Her talk about the bar continually being raised and how unfair it is certainly sounds like she’s just mad at life. I thought change and the hope of change was a good thing. Are we just hoping to change the way change changes? If change stagnates then we could all reach the same miserable low bar.
    It’s also telling that she doesn’t lists his and her’s, beating the odds success, as proof of the greatness of America. In her twisted point of view it’s actually proof of how unfair America is because they’re not the norm.

Comments are closed.