The Obama Tape . . . Not Quite a Yawn, but No Game-Changer
So for most of late Tuesday afternoon, the buzz was about a video mentioned, and increasingly touted, on Drudge, about a 2006 speech by one of the candidates — later revealed to be Obama. The tape can be found here.
There is a bit of irony to hearing Obama begin by demanding, “cut the bureaucracy, cut the red tape” when his presidency has featured so little of that phenomenon. And yes, the tone is different, more explicit and strident, than the Obama we’ve seen the past four years:
“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family.”
. . . This theme — that black Americans suffer while others profit — is a national problem, Obama continues: “We need additional federal public transportation dollars flowing to the highest need communities. We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs,” where, the implication is, the rich white people live. Instead, Obama says, federal money should flow to “our neighborhoods”: “We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don’t have to travel from miles away.”
AG Conservative: “So Obama basically had the same intelligent commentary on Katrina as Kanye West.”
Sister Toldjah sums it up: “It was a Democrat talking point that Bush let black ppl die after Katrina. Never heard Obama say it until now.”
Of course, we’ve seen Obama, his party, his Justice Department, and his allies insist that requiring voter ID is an attempt to bring back Jim Crow laws. Also, the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly,” if Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon, and so on . . . Remember, “In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent ‘Tea Party’ movement that was then surging across the country,” and plenty of Obama’s allies have charged opposition to Obama’s policies is driven mostly by racism. Heck, Eric Holder, within a few months of taking the job as Attorney General, labeled all of us “a nation of cowards” when it came to discussing race. The notion that Obama is willing to wade into racially charged topics and take a viewpoint that reinforces the deepest suspicions in the black community, and indict the “establishment” and large swaths of white America as driven by racial animosity and bias . . . well, nothing new.
As Frank J. observes, “So is that the accent Obama picked up from the mean streets of Honolulu? What did his typical white grandmother think of it?”
For the purposes of history, every bit of Obama’s past that has yet been unrevealed is worth exposing and examining. But for the purposes of beating him in November, his record as president will be the determining factor.
Americans, don’t judge Obama by a six-year-old speech. Judge him by four years of failed policies. As John Podhoretz puts it, “Tape. Snooze. 8.1 percent unemployment. Not snooze. Benghazi coverup. Not snooze.”
Guy Benson observes, “The video probably won’t move many votes, but it could have in the ‘07/’08 primary . . . had the attending media deigned to report on it.”
John Tabin: “There’s definitely something to the DC’s story, but it’s a story about media bias last cycle. Not sure it’s that relevant to this election.”
Josh Trevino: “Media isn’t reacting to protect Obama. Media is reacting to protect media.”
Richard Grenell: “Hillary Clinton is going to want a re-vote after seeing this 2007 video.”
The News Much Bigger Than a Six-Year-Old Speech
Reuters: “Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said. Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.”
It was a coverup, an attempt to lie to the public.