Krauthammer on Obama, 2006

In a column which is undated but which we can tell from the context is from 2006, the conservative sage Charles Krauthammer—who in reality is as much a conservative as Barack Obama is a genius—pushes Obama for the presidency. The main reason Obama should be president, said Krauthammer, is that

at a time of ideological weariness, he has the persona: an affecting personal history, fine intelligence, remarkable articulateness and refreshing charm.

Apart from the damning fact that Krauthammer bought into the ridiculous “beyond partisanship” myth, a myth that every conservative commentator today slices and dices for breakfast, do you believe that he was so gauche as to praise a national black politician for his articulateness, a compliment that plainly implies that most blacks are not articulate?

But that’s not my point. My point is that Krauthammer, currently Fox News’s leading critic of President Obama, argued in 2006 that Obama should be president, and was giving him advice on how to become president.

In addition to Obama’s “affecting personal history, fine intelligence, and remarkable articulateness,” the second major reason Krauthammer felt Obama should be president was:

the country hungers for a black president…. Like many Americans, I long to see an African-American ascend to the presidency. It would be an event of profound significance, a great milestone in the unfolding story of African-Americans achieving their rightful, long-delayed place in American life.

So, Mr. Charles Scourge-of-Obama Krauthammer, you WANTED Obama to be president, you WANTED a black to be president, and now you have him. Has your judgment turned out to be correct? Of course Krauthammer never mentions today that he was selling Obama in 2006. Find a single neocon who ever admits that what he is saying today is the opposite of what he was saying a few years ago. As I’ve said before, the neocons occasionally perform useful tasks in our political wars. But as a group and as individuals they are without honor. They are professional promoters, not honest men.

- end of initial entry -

Paul Nachman writes:

You said that the date of Krauthammer’s column was uncertain, though you thought it was in 2006. In fact, the date, October 27, 2006, is given in the url, which reads in part:


LA writes:

I said: “They are professional promoters, not honest men.”

That has not always been true. In the 1970s and ’80s, the neoconservatives did have honor and intellectual honesty, and played a positive and at times heroic role in American intellectual and political life. But after circa 1990 the neocon movement lost its way ideologically and became corrupted by love of power.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 09, 2010 07:19 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):