Matt Naugle provides us with a link to a video of a young Barack Obama when he was the President of the Harvard Law Review back in 1990. It’s actually not a newly surfaced video though. If memory serves, I saw this video of Obama introducing the late Harvard Law professor Derrick Bell perhaps on The History Channel for some biographical program about Obama . I remember the video because of the blue shirt and the humorous quip about Bell’s good looks and charm. Bell passed away last October. But the Obama video I would really like to see is one of more recent vintage. Specifically, I’d like to see what Barack Obama had to say in 2003 during a tribute to Rashid Khalidi, an anti-Israeli academic who has justified Palestinian suicide bombings . The Los Angeles Times refused to release the video during the 2008 campaign and to this day it keeps the video under lock and key. What could have Obama said that is unfit for public consumption? What do they have to hide? The Obama-Khalidi video was recorded a year before Obama rose to national prominence at the Democratic National Convention and five years before he was elected President of the United States. If Obama made unfavorable statements about Israel in this video they cannot be dismissed in a way one might dismiss something said two decades after the fact. If the folks at Breitbart can somehow unearth the Obama-Khalidi video before November it would be a miracle.
See more here:
The Obama Video I’d Like to See
GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan — Rick Santorum lost Tuesday’s primary here in Michigan. All the spin in the world can’t change that fact, and if Mitt Romney goes on to win the Republican presidential nomination, political historians will point to Feb. 28 as his watershed moment. Exactly how Santorum or any other GOP rival can beat Romney now is an increasingly difficult scenario to describe. The best way to understand the significance of Mitt’s win in Michigan is to imagine the opposite result:
Unless I missed something, I agree with EVERY…. SINGLE…. WORD uttered by Rick Santorum in his interview on Face the Nation yesterday. Bob Schieffer was remarkably hostile, but Santorum kept his equanimity, kept smiling, didn’t back down, but never got peevish (although he did, rightly, insist on correcting a misstatement by Bob Schieffer about his child being “stillborn”). Santorum is right that mandated amnio tests are a horrible idea; right that federal intervention in education is a bad idea; and right that some environmental extremism amounts (in a CLEAR attempt at metaphor rather than direct meaning) to a kind of “theology.” Indeed, he took time in his Ohio speech (at issue on Face the Nation) to explain that he was NOT talking about Obama’s theology of “the Bible,” in other words not talking about his actual religious faith, but instead saying that the belief system in extreme environmentalism was a sort of theology. This is absolutely standard political discourse. John Pitney explains it here. Of course, the double standard here is the same as the one existing on so many other topics: The Left can use language against the right without any heads being turned, but if a conservative uses the exact same language , the establishment media goes bonkers in a paroxysm of utterly false, utterly cynical outrage. Look, I have no problem questioning if the black liberation theology to which Barack Obama listened from Jeremiah Wright for 20 years (!!!!) has next to nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, it has nothing to do with love; all it is, is hatred, from a man Obama identified as his mentor. But Rick Santorum did not question Obama’s Christianity. He compared Obama’s environmental worldview to a “theology,” in the sense of deep-seated belief without empirical proof (as the natural sciences consider empiricism). All of that said, if I were Santorum, I would for now back off any voluntary social-issues discussions other than those currently in the news independently of his comments (i.e. the Obama Admin’s assault on religious liberty). Every time he goes there, the establishment media will take his words out of context — and, worse, since he talks without a prepared text, he often leaves a little room for misinterpretation, just enough to get himself in trouble. (Almost always, even a semi-careful parsing of his words makes absolutely clear what he really meant, even without his subsequent explanations, but the establishment media can’t be bothered with being even semi-careful.)
[Posted by Karl] That doesn’t sound quite right, does it? As Erick Erickson noted: In South Carolina exit polls, Romney wins only the “moderate or liberal”, those with incomes in excess of $200,000.00, those with postgraduate education, those who oppose the tea party movement, and those who think religion does not matter at all. A number of those have been consistent through Iowa and New Hampshire too. Fairly or not, Romney seems to have have a wealth problem , exploitable by his rivals now and Team Obama if Mitt gets the nomination. Oddly, I find myself in agreement with both Erickson and John Heilemann that Romney needs to: (a) “refine his message, not sharpen his knives”; and (b) get comfortable, and quick, in talking about his money issues. In particular, I would advise Romney to go beyond defending the free market in response to the Bain Capital issue. That approach appeals to the right, but the abstract principle may not move the casual voter, particularly the blue-collar casual voter. Romney’s plan to compare Bain’s work to the GM bailout if he becomes the nominee still puts him in the role of “bailout guy,” which is probably not the best frame this year. Perhaps Romney should compare his role at Bain to being a doctor. Sometimes, doctors get to deliver babies or cure sick children who go on to live full and productive lives. In those cases, the doctor gets to feel great. So it is with some companies, like Staples or Domino’s Pizza. In other cases, the patient is so injured or so sick that they have to lose or limb, or even die. The doctors try as hard as they can, but sometimes all the lifesaving measures known to mankind are not enough and the doctors feel terrible about it. So it is when companies get rightsized or go bankrupt. Some may think doctors are overpaid, but no one would want to live in a society without them. Mitt Romney is never going to seem like Mitt Sixpack, but he may be able to come across as caring more about more blue-collar families. –Karl
Follow this link:
Mitt Sixpack
I am watching Ron Paul’s speech and am distracted by his blue sweater. He looks like Mr. Rogers. Frankly, I would find it preferable if Paul were to abandon his speech, flip off his shoes and sing,” It’s a Beautiful Day in The Neighborhood.” I suspect that Paul would scare far fewer people if he engaged in such whimsy.
Continue reading here:
Mr. Paul’s Neighborhood
