"If he indulges his inner Chicago pol," Powell writes, "formed in a city where politics is conducted with crowbars, he risks taking the shine off."

"Inner...city...conducted with crowbars..."

Nah. No racial undertones there. I'm just being overly sensitive. Besides, the New York Times always uses the word crowbar to describe the schooling of prominent politicians...just like they used cocain and alcohol to describe the life-student schooling of President Bush, who graduated from AA State at the young age of 40.

A racial component? Come on. No way. Not from Michael Powell...(or is that what they want us to think?)

Hold on, you're thinking, this is a serious charge. What's Powell's motive to jab at Obama with subliminal racial remarks, ever comparing Obama to a hooligan and his supporters to wack jobs?

Maybe Powell likes Clinton. Maybe Powell likes McCain. All that is clear is that he does not like Obama, and this is confirmed in his word choices throughout the article. Language is a tricky thing. How many of us pause to reflect that two words could get one general point across with two vastly different results.

For example:"President Bush rebuffed concerns Tuesday that the White House may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iran..." NPR December 4, 2007

Or: "Obama bridled at questions on Wednesday about his difficulties attracting working-class and middle-class support..." --Powell, New York Times March 5, 2008

It would be different if "President Bush bridled at concerns..." and "Obama rebuffed questions Wednesday..."?

The media picks its favorites and decides who gets the macho word rebuffed and who gets the weanie word bridled, and Powell has Obama in his cross-hairs.

This article is riddled with WEANIE words. The following lines all apeared in Powell's crowbar hit job on Obama.

"[Obama] also sounded like a chastened candidate in search of his lost moment."

"Mr. Obama once again failed..."

"[Obama] faces questions about his toughness and vulnerabilities..."

"In Ohio, Mr. Obama failed..."

 1  |  2