Obscuring Clear Statements with "Clarifications"

Print
Thomas Sowell continues his brilliant insights into the current presidential campaign.  Speaking of Barack Obama’s comments on how average folk in small towns are “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion,” Sowell points out:   

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a “clarification,” when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy “clarifying” Jeremiah Wright’s very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to “clarify” Senator Obama’s own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama’s words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.  (Read the complete column here.)

Perhaps Obama made those statements– which were given at a supposedly private function–  because he actually believes them.  His voting record and associations seem to suggest that is the case.  I have not heard him clearly apologize or retract the sentiment behind the statement.  If he believes what he said, at least we know the truth.  No further “clarifications” are necessary.

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit

Facebook Comments