NYC Letter: What Mr. Obama Meant To Say

Countdown 99 days to go

We do not think you have to like Mr. Obama to recognize his real attainments in seeking the presidency. Last year at this time some of the most astute pundits thought the upcoming Democratic primaries would be a for-show-only contest between understood losers and the understood winner, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton. She was owed and the Democratic party was owned. [Pause.] But she wasn't, it wasn't.

If for nothing else, Mr. Obama is to be commended for doing the near impossible -- exposing the two-fer fairy tales of the Rodham-Clintons. It is because of Mr. Obama that we discovered, in tandem with a gobsmacked press, that the Rodham-Clinton's enormous popularity was somewhat less than enormous, more the medium-sized sort that $212,000,000 give or take anyone can buy. An astonishing amount of money spent by a miles-ahead frontrunner in a primary.* Even a bewildered press had to report Mrs. Rodham-Clinton's losses. Slowly, one or two at a time, the press came to embrace a theory that correlated these loses with her appeal among the voters.

And Mr. Rodham-Clinton, who going in was touted as a shrewd and effective campaigner, a former black president, and a babe magnet (on a leash), put in one strident inflammatory performance after another on the campaign trail. It is a sure bet if Mr. Obama wins he will expropriate Mr. Rodham-Clinton's black president title. So that only leaves him the fabled title of babe magnet. And its leash. [Pause.] And the memories.

For all this, we commend Mr. Obama. Not that we recommend him, but it would be ungenerous to deny his considerable achievements thus far.

He generates a lot of excitement among his following. Many people are excited about electing the first (real) black American president. Some feel inclined to elect a black American president just to have done with it. Others hope electing a black president will put paid to Jesse "Nuts" Jackson's blaxploitation. But these are not serious reasons to elect Mr. Obama. No matter the salutary throw-off, we do not want someone elected predominantly because he is black. We want someone elected who is up to the job of president and with whom we share a preponderance of agreement on the issues.

As a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, we find Mr. Obama, well, weak. With this little series, we will let Mr. Obama explain his position on an issue and after a few days give his customary different explanation. Today's issue: Bilingualism. [Pause.] Well, apparently it's an issue.

I — uh — I don’t understand when people are going worrying about “We need to have English only.” They want to pass a law — “we just — we want English only”. Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But — but understand this. Instead of worrying about whether, uh, immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish! You should be thinking about how your child can become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup.Right?

Mr. Obama
July 9, 2008 (YouTube)

We had been led to believe all that is expected of an American in Europa is thanks. We'll make an effort to learn a few more phrases. Hhmmm. Êtes-vous en grève ?

This is an example of some of the problems we get into when somebody attacks you for saying the truth, which is we should want children with more knowledge. We should want our children to have more skills. There’s nothing wrong with that! It’s a good thing.

I know because I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!

Mr. Obama
July 11, 2008 (ABC News)

Lucky for Mr. Obama Spanish is not yet a requirement of presidential office.

[Hat tip: Hot Air]

------------------------------------
* Mrs. Rodham-Clinton's garnered 17,493,836 primary votes, which costs out at about $12.12 a vote. Compare that with the 1992 presidential run of Ross Perot, who spent $65.4M and received 19,741,065 votes, or $3.29 a vote.

Let's assume Mrs. Rodham-Clinton would need some 60M+ votes to win the White House, extrapolating her primary per vote cost to the general election would put her back about ¾ of a billion dollars.