I must confess that while I'd read about Obamamania I hadn't quite grasped its depth and the hold that it has over Obamamaniacs until I read the comments on my "Obama's big speech" post.
Obama is brave to give this speech. Obama's talking about unity and I should only judge him by his words and not his actions. I'm stupid. I'm silly. I broke up his speech into paragraphs but didn't understand what he was saying. I can't comprehend what Obama is saying unless I listen to the speech -- reading it is insufficient.
Those complaints are all indicative of some weird cultish group think. The last complaint was especially amusing, it makes me think that Barack Obama's voice does have the power to drive the wits out of some people's brians and that the best way to prevent your mind from dribbling out your ears as he speaks is to mute the screen and read the closed captioning.
Barack Obama did two things in his speech. First, was to propound a level of moral equivalence that should seriously make you wonder if he's got the moral fortitude to be an adult, let alone president of the United States.
According to Obama, the following things are all morally the same.
Are those three things equivalent? Are they even close?
Obama can say again and again how he deplores the comments made by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He can tell us again and again how he condemns those sentiments.
But the facts remain. For 20+ years he was unwilling to take a stand against them. For 20+ years he tithed to that church and financially supported that "ministry." He's exposed his daughters to that poison for their entire lives.
And we're somehow supposed to believe that as president, he's going to stand up for America? He'll stand up to terrorists and dictators who would do us harm when he won't even stand up to his pastor?
The second part of his speech was nothing more than the standard liberal stump speech. We need more money for A, B, C, tax the rich, affordable health care, a chicken in every pot, etc. I've heard it all before -- from Hillary.
But, once again, judging from the comments, there are a lot of true believers out there. As Thomas Sowell wrote over at National Review Online earlier this week:
Someone once said that a con man’s job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.
Accordingly, Obama’s Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now “move on,” even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush’s 2000 election victory.
Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.
I also encourage those who might be questioning their allegiance to Obama to read this article by Charles Krauthammer.
It's not too late to step away from the Kool Aid pitcher.