He told his daughters (via CNN) “You try to explain that people were willing to degrade others because they APPEARED DIFFERENTLY.”

But the facts came out in a Chicago Tribune article that the people who sold/sell Ghanans into slavery are parents, uncles and others who look JUST LIKE the children they sold!

Here are the two citations:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/17/obama.slavery/
and
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-africa-slavery-0713-07jul17,0,7118237.story

Then liberals would hemorrhage voters. There’d be no point in ACORN or the race pimps who wanted to cut his balls off.

But if tribalism and patronage and nepotism are bad for African countries, are they not also bad for this country?

Tribalism seems to be job #1 for politicians (wise Latinas, the black vote, the white vote, the women’s vote, angry white males, the gay vote, soccer moms, the Hispanic vote, the rich, the poor, the middle class…). I’ve long held that tribalism and the attendant pandering to demographic groups may well attract votes in the short term, but, in the long term, will be our ruin.

Sonia Sotomayor was born in the Bronx (last I checked, the good old US of A) and all we’re supposed see as relevant is that she is of P.R. descent and female. Why not just “US citizen”?

And for patronage and nepotism – Chicago politics anyone?

“what was wrong with wanting that in places like, say, Iran?”

I cannot say what big O wants in this regard, or what the administration is planning in regards to Iran. Yet given our history with Iran, I think his response was very appropriate. Any strong statement is just going to give the Supreme Leader there a basis to say “this uprising is a Western conspiracy!” And that kind of paranoia will crush any hopes that their society will become more free. As you said, it is tough love, and that is painful to watch.

“Which brings me to this: Why is the president willing to prod Africa to pull itself up and take some responsibility for itself, but won’t say the same thing to his own constituents?”

What’s good for the goose won’t get you re-elected by the gander. Instead he talks about ’sacrifice’ like a substitute for taking responsibility. The way he talks about sacrifice strikes me as a bit of feel-good Mercerism. Politically that is brilliant, as there is a portion of his ‘base’ which is so tormented with guilt, and this gives them a touch of absolution.

In other news, this story is worth some consideration: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12814603

If he doesn’t mean it to apply here, why would it apply there?

I’d like to be able to disagree with this, but alas I cannot.

On the surface, it’s a wonderful speech. If he means it, and has a plan (I was going to say a concrete plan, but really at this point I’d take nebulous & theoretical) to see it through, then it’s a good thing.

But I think TGC is right. It’s too far afield from his domestic agenda. Either he is just saying what he thinks will fly the best to his audience, he is legacy-building already a la Bill Clinton, or he’s got one heckuva cognitive dissonance thing going on where he doesn’t even realize the dichotomy.

If he doesn’t mean it to apply here, why would it apply there?

Tribalism and nepotism are part and parcel of the Obama administration.

Read: Cronyism, special interests and unions.