Monthly Archives: March 2008

Liberals to Hillary: Drop Dead!

The wonderfully wicked Ms. Ann Coulter examines the “swiftboating” of Hillary.

An excerpt:

…The reason no one claims Hillary is being “swiftboated” [over her phony description of her trip to Bosnia as First Lady] is that the definition of “swiftboating” is: “producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying.” And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media’s honorary Republican.

In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are “swiftboated”; Republicans are “guilty.” So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn’t being swiftboated; she’s just lying.

Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary’s uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.

I’ve always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.

It’s such fun watching liberals turn on the Clintons! The bitter infighting among Democrats is especially enjoyable after having to listen to Democrats hyperventilate for months about how delighted they were to have so many wonderful choices for president.

Now liberals just want to be rid of the Clintons — which is as close to actual mainstream thinking as they’ve been in years. So the media suddenly notice when Hillary “misspeaks,” while rushing to make absurd excuses for much greater outrages by her opponent.

Liberals are even using the Slick Willy defense when Obama is caught fraternizing with a racist loon. When Bill Clinton was exposed as a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar, his defenders said that everybody is a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar.

And now, when B. Hussein Obama is caught in a 20-year relationship with a raving racist, his defenders scream that everybody is a racist wack-job.

In the Obama speech on race that Chris Matthews deemed “worthy of Abraham Lincoln,” B. Hussein Obama defended Wright’s anti-American statements, saying:

“For the men and women of Rev. Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table.”

So in the speech the media are telling us is on a par with the Gettysburg Address, B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts.

…And …what about Wright’s wanton anti-Semitism? All the liberals (including essence-besplattered Chris Matthews) have accepted Obama’s defense of Wright and want us to understand Wright’s “legitimate” rage over his painful youth in segregated America.

But the anti-Semitic tone of Wright’s sermons is as clear as his rage against the United States. Rev. Wright calls Israel a “dirty word” and a “racist country.” He denounces Zionism and calls for divestment from Israel.

In addition to videos of Rev. Wright’s sermons, Obama’s church also offers for sale sermons by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Rev. Wright joined on a visit to Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 1984. Just last year, Obama’s church awarded Farrakhan the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, saying Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.”

What, pray tell, is the legitimate source of Wright’s anti-Semitism? I believe Brother Obama passed over that issue entirely in his “conversation,” even as he made the obligatory bow to Israel’s status as one of our “stalwart allies.” Why does crazy “uncle” Wright dislike Jews?

Will liberals contend that these remarks were “taken out of context”? Maybe Wright’s church was trying to say that Farrakhan isn’t great when it said he “epitomized greatness.” Who knows? We weren’t there.

Can liberals please educate us on the “legitimate” impulses behind Rev. Wright’s Jew-baiting?

And here is Morton Klein on Jeremiah Wright’s supposedly painful, segregated upbringing:


How do I know?

It happens that, as a Philadelphian, I attended Central High School – the same public school Jeremiah Wright attended from 1955 to 1959. He could have gone to an integrated neighborhood school, but he chose to go to Central, a virtually all-white school. Central is the second oldest public high school in the country, which attracts the most serious academic students in the city. The school then was about 80% Jewish and 95% white. The African-American students, like all the others, were there on merit. Generally speaking, we came from lower/middle class backgrounds. Many of our parents had not received a formal education and we tended to live in row houses. In short, economically, we were roughly on par.

I attended Central a few years after Rev. Wright, so I did not know him personally. But I knew of him and I know where he used to live – in a tree-lined neighborhood of large stone houses in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. This is a lovely neighborhood to this day. Moreover, Rev. Wright’s father was a prominent pastor and his mother was a teacher and later vice-principal and disciplinarian of the Philadelphia High School for Girls, also a distinguished academic high school. Two of my acquaintances remember her as an intimidating and strict disciplinarian and excellent math teacher. In short, Rev. Wright had a comfortable upper-middle class upbringing. It was hardly the scene of poverty and indignity suggested by Senator Obama to explain what he calls Wright’s anger and what I describe as his hatred.

In recent days, we have seen clips of several of Rev. Wright’s sermons, showing him declaring “G-d Damn America,” blaming America for intentionally creating the drug problem, for creating the AIDS virus, for supporting Israeli “state terrorism against Palestinians,” for being responsible for causing 9-11, for being white supremacist and racist and for intentionally keeping people in poverty.

We have also learned that, last year, Rev. Wright’s Church honored with a lifetime achievement award Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, who has said that “Judaism is a gutter religion,” that “Hitler was a very great man” and that “white people are potential humans, they haven’t evolved yet.” In fact, Rev. Wright accompanied Farrakhan in the 1980s on a visit to Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya, which was then illegal under U.S. law. Nevertheless, the Church and Wright’s successor as pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, have issued a statement defending and praising Wright, while completely ignoring Wright’s horrific statements.

The Race to Discuss Race

A funny piece by Jonah Goldberg on the “race to talk about race.”

An excerpt:

Thank God for Barack Obama. For until his “More Perfect Union” speech last Tuesday, it seems it never occurred to anyone that America needed to talk about race. “Maybe this’ll be the beginning of a conversation,” Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan proclaimed on “Meet the Press.” According to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, just the fact of Obama’s address proves that a “national dialogue on race” is “essential.” The Chicago Tribune reported that “many voters, black and white, say they were moved by Obama’s speech … which they see as a long-awaited invitation to begin an honest, calm national dialogue about race.” Newspaper editorial boards agree. In the words of the San Diego Union-Tribune: “Prodding Americans to confront their racial differences is, by itself, an accomplishment of historical proportions.”

Because so many people agree on this brilliant new strategy to heal our national wounds, I can only assume that I’m the one missing something. Because when one luminary after another smacks his forehead like someone who forgot to have a V8 in epiphanic awe over the genius of Obama’s call for a national conversation on race, all I can do is wonder: “What on Earth are you people talking about?”

“Universities were moving to incorporate the issues Mr. Obama raised into classroom discussions and course work,” the New York Times reported within 48 hours of the speech.

Oh, thank goodness Obama fired the starter’s pistol in the race to discuss race. Here I’d been under the impression that every major university (and minor one for that matter) in the country already had boatloads of courses — often entire majors — dedicated to race in America. I’d even read somewhere that professors had incorporated racial themes and issues into classes on everything from Shakespeare to the mating habits of snail darters. And scratching faintly in the back of my mind, I felt some vague memory that these same universities recruited black students and other racial minorities, on the grounds that interracial conversations on campus are as important as talking about math, science and literature. A ghost of an image in my mind’s eye seemed to reveal African American studies centers, banners for Black History Month and copies of books like “Race Matters” and “The Future of the Race” lined up on shelves at college bookstores.

Were all of the corporate diversity consultants and racial sensitivity seminars mere apparitions in a dream? Also disappearing in the memory hole, apparently, were the debates that followed Hurricane Katrina, Trent Lott’s remarks about Strom Thurmond, the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, the publication of “The Bell Curve” and O.J. Simpson’s murder trial. Not to mention the ongoing national chatter about affirmative action, racial disparities in prison sentences and racial profiling by law enforcement.

And the thousands of hours of newscasts, television dramas and movies — remember Oscar-winning films such as 2004’s “Crash?” — dedicated to racial issues? It’s as if they never existed, vanishing like the image on a TV screen after the plug’s been pulled. The New York Times’ six-week Pulitzer Prize-winning series, “How Race Is Lived in America”: just an inkblot?

It all seems so otherworldly. I feel like one of the last humans in an “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” movie in which all of the pod people are compelled by some alien DNA to pine continually for yet another “conversation” about a topic we’ve never, ever stopped talking about. And if I just fall asleep, I too can live in the pod-people’s dream palace, where every conversation about race is our first conversation about race. Snatching me from any such reverie was this masterful understatement from Thursday’s New York Times: “Religious groups and academic bodies, already receptive to Mr. Obama’s plea for such a dialogue, seemed especially enthusiastic.”

Anniversaries and Milestones

The fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War is upon us, and the liberal pieties are flying fast and furious. The anniversary coincides with the 4000th American combat death- an opportunity for the pacifists, that is, the post-1972 Democratic Party, to become even more platitudinous than usual.

The other day, Barack Obama noted that the Iraq War has lasted longer than the American Civil War. What he didn’t mention is that more than 4000 Americans died in just 2 hours of the 3 day Battle of Gettysburg and more than 600,000 Americans died in the war, which in terms of today’s population, according to Drew Gilpin Faust – the the current president of Harvard ( in her book The Republic of Suffering), would be 6 million!

Yet, few today would question the righteousness of “Lincoln’s War” and his place in American history as our greatest president (followed by FDR, another “war president”). In all the innumerable hours of Ken Burns’ Civil War, not one expert questioned the justness of Lincoln’s war.

But if one had the courage to do so, a good argument could be made that Lincoln’s war was not worth the cost and even unnecessary. It must have been clear to many in Lincoln’s time that the continuation of slavery into the 20th century was highly unlikely. All of the other Christian, Western nations had outlawed slavery; how much longer could the South withstand the moral pressure to allow its “peculiar institution” to die a natural death?

Why couldn’t Lincoln have used, in today’s parlance, the “soft power” of friendly persuasion, the criticism of other civilized nations, and the passage of time to allow the South to make a graceful retreat from its insistence on slavery. After all, many Southerners were less wedded to the immortality of their “way of life” than they were to the idea that their ancestors didn’t flee European monarchies only to have their descendents buckle under to a distant (in those days) authoritarian (in their view) government in Washington.

And besides death, destruction and bitterness , what did the nation reap from the war, except for the more or less unchallenged supremacy of the federal government? Many black writers have noted that life for black people in the Jim Crow South was, in many ways, more insecure and more terrifying than life under slavery. How much better was life as a sharecropper than life as a slave?

After all, the Union Army was not going to occupy the South forever. It must have been clear to most intelligent Northerners that once white Southerners gained control, they would direct their resentment over the humiliation of defeat toward the “freed” former slaves. So the result of the war was that blacks remained dependent on (and terrified of) white Southerners for another century until the passage of the civil rights bills gave them equal rights under the law and a measure of political power.

Is it beyond the pale to argue that equality and reconciliation could have been achieved sooner and with a lot less pain and death if Lincoln had not insisted on his war?

Of course, few of today’s pacifists are willing to hold Lincoln’s war to the standards they apply to Bush’s war. We are in Iraq to fight Arab and Islamic fascism, which we ignored for more than 30 years, and then paid an awful price when “the chickens came home to roost” on 9/11/2001. Will the war, in the end, turn out to be viewed as painful but necessary as we today view wars like the Civil War and World War II? Or will it be seen as a blunder as many, at this point in history, see the Vietnam War?

It’s hard to say, but one could argue that Arab and Islamic fascism is a greater threat to us than the Southern “way of life” was to the North before the Civil War. Still, some historical perspective and context would be helpful as we commemorate and discuss the meaning of the Iraq War’s anniversaries and milestones.

An editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal adds some moving context and perspective.

The Consequences

Robert Novak explains why the Democrats cannot “deny” Obama the nomination:

…In rejecting the racist views of his longtime spiritual mentor but not disowning him, Obama has unwittingly enhanced his image as the African-American candidate — not just a remarkable candidate who happens to be black. That poses a racial dilemma for unelected super-delegates, who as professional politicians will pick the winner since neither Obama nor Clinton can win enough elected delegates to be nominated.

Super-delegates, though they were inclined to Clinton no longer than three months ago, now flinch at rejecting Obama. They fear antagonizing African-Americans, who have become the hard-core Democratic base.

… The consensus among knowledgeable Democrats is that Obama will win over enough super-delegates to clinch the nomination before the national convention in August, partly because of fear for the consequences if they do not.

I don’t know whether Novak is merely suggesting that blacks won’t vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, or whether he’s suggesting that the “consequences” will also include the customary violence and destruction.

The superdelegates can rest assured that most of Clinton’s supporters will vote Democratic in November if Obama secures the nomination. Perhaps more importantly, they can also rest assured that thousands of left-wing feminists will not take to the streets, chanting “no justice-no peace,” while looting and fire-bombing Korean shops.

A Typical Black Person?

At this stage, it’s hard to know whether Barack Obama’s candidacy for president will go down in flames, as it should, or whether he will become the second coming of Abraham Lincoln (without, of course, Lincoln’s “flaws”). If the liberals and some conservatives like Peggy Noonan have their way, it’ll be the latter, which you already know if you read the “mainstream” press and listen to the savants on MSNBC.

Mark Steyn believes Obama’s days as a “post-racial” politcian are over. I hope so.

Here’s an excerpt:

…last week, Barack Obama told America: “I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community.”

What is the plain meaning of that sentence? That the paranoid racist ravings of Jeremiah Wright are now part of the established cultural discourse in African American life and thus must command our respect? Let us take the senator at his word when he says he chanced not to be present on AIDS Conspiracy Sunday, or God Damn America Sunday, or US of KKKA Sunday, or the Post-9/11 America-Had-It-Coming Memorial Service. A conventional pol would have said he was shocked, shocked to discover Afrocentric black liberation theology going on at his church. But Obama did something far more audacious: Instead of distancing himself from his pastor, he attempted to close the gap between Wright and the rest of the country, arguing, in effect, that the guy is not just his crazy uncle but America’s, too.

To do this, Obama promoted a false equivalence. “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother,” he continued. “A woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.” Well, according to the way he tells it in his book, it was one specific black man on her bus, and he wasn’t merely “passing by.”

When the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dumped some of his closest Cabinet colleagues to extricate himself from a political crisis, the Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe responded: “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his friends for his life.” In Philadelphia, Sen. Obama topped that: Greater love hath no man than to lay down his grandma for his life.

In the days that followed, Obama’s interviewers seemed grateful for the introduction of a less-complicated villain: Unlike the Rev. Wright, she doesn’t want God to damn America for being no better than al-Qaida, but on the other hand she did once express her apprehension about a black man on the bus. It’s surely only a matter of days before Keith Olbermann on MSNBC names her his “Worst Person In The World”. Asked about the sin of racism beating within Grandma’s breast, Obama said on TV that “she’s a typical white person.”

Which doesn’t sound like the sort of thing the supposed “post-racial” candidate ought to be saying, but let that pass. How “typically white” is Obama’s grandmother? She is the woman who raised him – that’s to say, she brought up a black grandchild and loved him unconditionally. Burning deep down inside, she may nurse a secret desire to be Simon Legree or Bull Connor, but it doesn’t seem very likely. She does then, in her own flawed way, represent a post-racial America.

But what of her equivalent (as Obama’s speech had it)? Is Jeremiah Wright a “typical black person”? One would hope not. A century and a half after the Civil War, two generations after the Civil Rights Act, the Rev. Wright promotes victimization theses more insane than anything promulgated at the height of slavery or the Jim Crow era. You can understand why Obama is so anxious to meet with President Ahmadinejad, a man who denies the last Holocaust even as he plans the next one. Such a summit would be easy listening after the more robust sermons of Jeremiah Wright.

But America is not Ahmadinejad’s Iran. Free societies live in truth, not in the fever swamps of Jeremiah Wright. The pastor is a fraud, a crock, a mountebank – for, if this truly were a country whose government invented a virus to kill black people, why would they leave him walking around to expose the truth? It is Barack Obama’s choice to entrust his daughters to the spiritual care of such a man for their entire lives, but in Philadelphia the senator attempted to universalize his peculiar judgment – to claim that, given America’s history, it would be unreasonable to expect black men of Jeremiah Wright’s generation not to peddle hateful and damaging lunacies. Isn’t that – what’s the word? – racist? So much for the post-racial candidate.

Larry Sabato, from the University of Virginia, said the other day that a black candidate, as opposed to a candidate who happens to be black, cannot win the presidency. Clearly, his 20 year relationship with Jeremiah Wright, despite the best efforts of liberals and others who support Hillary, has brought Obama down to earth and exposed him as merely another race candidate, similar to (if more subtle than) his predecessors – Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Moral Equivalence and White Guilt

Charles Krauthammer examines Obama’s “brilliant” speech:

…[Obama’s] defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt.

(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there’s Wright, but at the other “end of the spectrum” there’s Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, “who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

“I can no more disown (Wright) than I can my white grandmother.” What exactly was grandma’s offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus’ time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did grandma.

Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one’s time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?

(b) White guilt. Obama’s purpose in the speech was to put Wright’s outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, “We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country,” and then proceeds to do precisely that. And what lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright’s venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It’s the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That’s why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign.

Then answer this, senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright’s rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

The Common Black Perspective

Barack Obama has told us and now the amen chorus of white liberals is telling us that we need yet another “dialogue about race.”

Nicholas Kristof, writing in today’s New York Times says:

Many white Americans seem concerned that Mr. Obama, who seems so reasonable, should enjoy the company of Mr. Wright, who seems so militant, angry and threatening. To whites, for example, it has been shocking to hear Mr. Wright suggest that the AIDS virus was released as a deliberate government plot to kill black people.

That may be an absurd view in white circles, but a 1990 survey found that 30 percent of African-Americans believed this was at least plausible.

“That’s a real standard belief,” noted Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a political scientist at Princeton (and former member of Trinity church, when she lived in Chicago). “One of the things fascinating to me watching these responses to Jeremiah Wright is that white Americans find his beliefs so fringe or so extreme. When if you’ve spent time in black communities, they are not shared by everyone, but they are pretty common beliefs.”

Occasionally, we’ve had glimpses of this gulf between white and black America. Right after the O.J. Simpson murder trial, a CBS News poll found that 6 out of 10 whites thought that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, while 9 out of 10 blacks believed it had decided correctly. Many African-Americans even believe that the crack cocaine epidemic was a deliberate conspiracy by the United States government to destroy black neighborhoods.

Much of the time, blacks have a pretty good sense of what whites think, but whites are oblivious to common black perspectives.

What’s happening, I think, is that the Obama campaign has led many white Americans to listen in for the first time to some of the black conversation — and they are thunderstruck.

All of this demonstrates that a national dialogue on race is painful, awkward and essential.

How many times do we have to be patronizingly told how blacks truly understand whites while whites are utterly clueless about blacks? And how many times are we going to be urged to listen respectfully to the delusional paranoia of way too many black people as merely a “common black perspective,” no less valid than any other “perspective.”

What I find disgusting about Kristof’s words and those of the Princeton academic he quotes is their implication that the black view of how AIDS came to be, of the U.S. government’s supposed responsibility for the “crack cocaine epidemic”, and of the guilt or innocence of O. J. Simpson in the murder of two people is at least equal to and maybe even wiser than the views of the rest of us. After all, if blacks are all-knowing and whites so utterly naive, how could the “black perspective” be anything but valid?

The more liberals pander to such fatuous nonsense, the more we are going to get of it.

Throw Grandma From the Train

Interesting post by Steve Sailer on Obama’s grandmother.

Bernard Lewis

Went to hear Middle East expert Bernard Lewis last night at Penn. The 92 year old Lewis has a great facility for speaking and writing in clear, jargon-free language. When asked whether Islam is a “religion of peace” or violence, he allowed that Islam isn’t, as its apologists like to claim, like “Quakerism without the aggression.” Nor is it, he said, personified by the “wild-man galloping out of the desert with a scimitar in one hand and a Koran in the other.” He also gave Muslims their due for allowing, centuries ago, Jews a relative freedom that they didn’t experience in Europe at the time. He also noted that suicide bombing and terrorism are a perversion of Islamic teaching, which clearly specifies what is and isn’t permitted in war. He blamed the current “deformation” of Islam on wahhabism originating from what is now Saudi Arabia.

He offered no definitive answer on whether Islam is inherently peaceful or violent, other than to note that, unlike Christianity whose founder was crucified and whose followers were persecuted for centuries before gaining political power through conversion rather than war, Mohammed was a conqueror and a ruler, thus establishing an unequivocal link between religion and the state.

He did offer an answer to the rhetorical question liberals are so fond of asking – Why do they hate us? He noted that if you take out the oil, the entire gross national product of all of the Muslim countries combined equals that of Finland. He also said that despite “graduating” many engineers from their schools, they must import engineers from the West and countries like South Korea (which only recently emerged from the Middle Ages) to plan construction projects. Nowadays with modern communications, Lewis observed, Middle Eastern Muslims are painfully aware of their backwardness, which enrages them and leads them to fanatacism and violence.

He described himself as somewhat of an optimist on the Middle East. He noted that the Arab countries were pretty much silent about the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah and were privately hoping that the Israelis would finish off the Iranian proxy in Lebanon. He believes that the Arab nations recognize that the threat from Iran is much more virulent than anything they could, in their worst nightmares, imagine coming from Israel.

My favorite part was a story he told about his recent visit with an Egyptian friend in Cairo. They were talking about the last Egyptian election, and his friend expressed satisfaction that the elections were “free.” Well, not really free, the Egyptian said, but the freest election “since the British occupation.”

The other speaker at Penn was the radio talk-show host Dennis Prager, whom I found to be pompous and long-winded.

Flashback: Obama Calls For Imus to Be Fired

Drudge plays an oldie. Obama was the first presidential candidate to call for Don Imus to be fired.

From an ABC News report at the time:

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”

Obama said he appeared once on Imus’ show two years ago, and “I have no intention of returning.”

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

“Insults, humor that degrades women, humor that is based in racism and racial stereotypes isn’t fun,” the senator told ABC News.

“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,” he concluded.