Obama Campaign Encounters Racism -- and Valid Questions About Ties to Radical Muslims

There is some serious racism left in this world, and the Washington Post has pointed out that Obama's campaign has encountered some of it.

As, I'm sure, Hillary Clinton's campaign has encountered sexism, and John McCain's campaign has encountered the triple challenge of trying to overcome ageism, anti-militarism and conservatism.

Without detracting from the truth that there are indeed a few racists left in this country (not all of them white -- racism can be found in all racial groups), may I respectfully suggest that Obama's campaign refuse to cooperate with further stories like the Washington Post piece, at least prior to the election.  Obama can try to be the standard-bearer of Hope and Change (as long as he stays away from associates whose fervent wish is to "God d*** America"), or he can wrap himself in the Mantle of Victimhood -- but trying to do both at the same time makes for a very confusing image.

Americans want and need a strong president, and strength is incompatible with victimhood.  If Obama and his supporters can't handle a few pockets of lingering racism in America, wait 'til they see what Iran, Al Qaeda and the worldwide Islamic jihad are dishing out.

And spare me this kind of sniveling, dishonest condescension from the Washington Post:

In a letter to the editor published in a local paper, Tunkhannock Borough Mayor Norm Ball explained his support of Hillary Clinton this way: "Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don't know about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him.

"No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office."

Obama's campaign workers have grown wearily accustomed to the lies about the candidate's supposed radical Muslim ties and lack of patriotism.

Here's a clue for the Washington Post:  It is not a "lie" that Obama has radical Muslim ties.  His father was a radical, a socialist, and a supporter of communists if not a communist himself.  Obama's closest spritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright (until a month or so ago when he became a glaring poltiical liability) is both a former Muslim (we hope -- he still uses bodyguards from the Nation of Islam) and an extreme anti-American radical.  As we just discussed yesterday, Obama was himself a Muslim as defined by Muslims:

As the son of the Muslim father, Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion.

Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.

Of course, as most Americans understand it, Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad" or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with connotations of rebellion and treason.

Thus, Obama's "radical Muslim ties" are fact, not myth, and certainly not racist myth.  His ties both to radicals and to Muslims are strong and deep. 

For its blatant and slanderous lie against those who note Obama's radical Muslim ties, the entire Washington Post article forfeits its credibility.

Update:  Just in time to further prove my point (via Uncorrelated)-- though using this example is like using a cannon to shoot a mosquito -- Palestinians in Gaza are phonebanking for Obama.  Although I have to question the utility of Arabs lobbying for Obama in (presumably) broken English, it does tend to underscore the point that -- why yes! -- Obama does have "radical Muslim ties."  All over the place.