Let me say this clearly so there are no misunderstandings: some of the protests against President Obama are howls of rage at the fact that we have an African-American head of state. I'm sick of all the code words used when this subject comes up, so be assured that I am saying exactly what I mean.
Got that?
Well, in case you're at all confused, Kelley made things crystal clear in her article published Saturday amazingly titled, "Play the Race Card" (h/t Tim Graham):
When "Tea Party" leader Mark Williams ap-pears [sic] on CNN and speaks of "working-class people" taking "their" country back from a lawfully elected president, he is not just protesting Obama's politics; he is griping over the fact that this country's most powerful positions are no longer just for white men.
You believe this nonsense? But it got worse:
Did anyone think it would be otherwise? There were always going to be aftershocks in an Obama presidency. Landmark events that change the paradigm between black and white people don't happen without repercussions—some are still complaining about Brown v. Board of Education. Black skin has meant something very specific in this country for hundreds of years. It has meant "less than," "not as good as," "separate than," and even "equal to." It has never meant "better than" unless you were talking about dancing, singing, or basketball. Obama represents "better than," and that's scary for people who think of black people as shaved gorillas.
Amazing. But then Kelley went from merely offensive to downright silly:
This hesitancy to even speak of racism widens the divide between readers and the journalists who are supposed to be covering the world as it is, not as they want it to be.
Are you kidding?
From the moment Barack Obama gave his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, American media have been falling over themselves at the thought of him becoming the first black president.
Racism was at the heart of Obama's campaign since he tossed his name into the ring in February 2007, and so-called journalists were never shy about it.
On the other hand, Kelley wrote, "[T]his reluctance [to openly discuss racism] doesn't help the effort to achieve racial equality, it hurts it."
I quite agree, but highly doubt Kelley and her ilk really want an honest discussion about this.
After all, if Obama hadn't have been black, he would have been far more fully vetted and scrutinized by media members, and therefore wouldn't have had a prayer of defeating Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
The Democratic nomination process would have been over by last February's Super Tuesday if Obama was a white junior senator from Illinois with the exact same qualifications and background. Even Kelley herself would likely have voted for Hillary if Obama was just another white guy from Chicago.
But folks like Kelley don't want to discuss that, for it would indeed mean that Obama was elected largely because of race.
In fact, his entire candidacy was always about race. Even former President Bill Clinton pointed it out on several occasions during the campaign.
And now that it worked and he's run into a bit of a snag as Americans come out from under the ether to recognize the absence of clothing on the man they blindly elected, Obama-loving media want him to continue to play the race card.
For her part, Kelley said that keeping quiet about racism "allows the lunatic fringe to fill the vacuum in the public debate."
Maybe so, but playing the race card allows the lunatic fringe on the left to stifle the public debate.
I highly doubt Kelley and her ilk would like to honestly discuss that either.
