Perhaps I am mistaken, but this seems to be the basis of his appeal. On November 8 last year, I was walking back from St. Peter's to the office and saw a group of US tourists, all black, holding US flags. They were taking pictures of each other in front of St. Peter's Dome, as you do, and chanting "ObamaObamaObama..." I passed quickly on, but the image of this man's joyful face stayed with me. (ObamaObamaObama...)
As many more sober thinkers have pointed out many times, Obama is one of the least experienced politicians ever to hold such a high office. He is also one of the most evasive about his past.
As Binky put it the other day:
When you look at a leader like Winston Churchill, he’d been leading and doing real things and handling very serious responsibilities for years. Of course he made mistakes of various sorts, but not from inexperience, or noob-itis. He’d been military, Head of the navy, politician, and so much more in th years before he became Prime Minister of Great Britain and her remaining Empire. A very, very full CV indeed– and he came from a long line of famous and impressive people.
What, exactly, had Obama done before becoming president? Got a couple degrees. Got a pile of radical friends & mentors & groomers. Got an ambitious wife. Got in ith the Chicago Democratic mafia machine, got on a spending-spree radical education program that did very little, helped ACORN extort questionable mortgages from banks. Got into the Senate, where he was notable for nothing. Got to be president. Not much of a CV.
Someone recently, examining the bizarre goings on at Notre Dame this weekend, said that the equasion is simple. One honours a person for his accomplishments when one approves of them. Notre Dame gave Obama an honourary law degree. Does this mean that Notre Dame, the alma mater of some of the most accomplished people in the US, believes that Obama's accomplishments (see above) are worthy of a high honour? Perhaps the highest honour the institution is capable of bestowing.
Notre Dame chose to bestow an honor on the most pro-abortion President the USA has ever seen. You honor those whose positions and actions you believe are laudable.
Does this make sense? Does this equasion equate?
Notre Dame, I understand, even in its diminished post-moderne condition, is jammed with people who can think rings around most politicians. Who have degrees coming out their pores, who have published, lectured, devoted their lives to a single subject, who have contributed with their thought, their architecture, their engineering, their medicine, their governance, some of the most important gifts the US posesses.
Why would they think this man, apart from his having been elected as President, is their equal?
Haven't they met politicians?
I have, lots, and I wouldn't invite one home for tea, never mind give one an award.
Could it be that there is really only one reason that the Catholics at Notre Dame were so extremely keen not only to give Obama the platform, but to be seen doing so?
Could it be that Notre Dame honoured him ... well...
because he is black?