Bush Hater Blames Obama Flap on Hate

Everyone heard about the two Muslim women who were disinvited from sitting behind Obama at his rally last Monday because they wearing the hijab. Then we all heard how Obama apologized to the two women personally. (“Obama apologizes to Muslim women; apology accepted”).

I didn’t think this was that big of a story, compared with other things the world is facing: global jihadism, a nuclear Iran, polar bears invading Iceland.

The story was slightly funny, slightly ironic. Michigan CAIR--in the person of its leader Dawud Walid, did, (in defiance of our prediction), make a half-hearted stab at characterizing Obama’s campaign as unacceptably Islamophobic, but now on his blog he's running four headlines trumpeting that Obama had apologized, (versus one headline mentioning the insult).

It’s a funny thing about the Left: apologies work for them like flipping circuit breakers. A few seconds of darkness, power's restored, it's all forgotten. But anyone who runs afoul of the Left, to missaply a quotation from the New Testament, he “never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”

(Compare Don Imus, whose apology met this response from National Association of Black Journalists and the editor of Ebony and Jet magazines: “But his apology was too little, too late. No matter how contrite, his words hurt so many so deeply that after 40 years in the radio business, it is time for him to go.” And Trent Lott, whose apology was never enough: (“Fat Joe, Talib Kweli: Trent Lott's Apology Not Enough").)

So Obama messed up in Islam's biggest city outside the Middle East, and then he apologized. That will be the end of that. In the long run, CAIR, and Walid, and Islamic supporters generally want Obama in the White House, not McCain, so principles aren't going to be as strictly hewed to for now.

I don't care that much. As I said, it was never that big of a story.

But then the Detroit Free Press’s Rochelle Riley had to glean out the “bigger story” of her Man Obama's foo-poo, which is that the whole thing is the fault of, I guess, people like me. (Conservatives, Republicans, critics of jihad, any of the rest of that class of low-lifes who do not believe in Obama, Change, and Hope). (“Rochelle Riley: Hate is the real issue”).

The bigger story of the disinvited hijabis, writes Ms. Riley, “is that hateful extremists who used to exist on the fringe of society are now taking over and too much is being done to appease them instead of ignore them.”

Say what?

The Obama volunteers, (who made a mistake, Ms. Riley admits, but they apologized), didn’t really do anything wrong, not really. The only reason they “chose to let hate-mongers dictate their actions and hurt the women's feelings,” is because the campaign volunteers didn’t want “to provide fuel for rumors that Obama is a secret Muslim.”

Now I get it. Huh?

“The bigger story is how the 2008 presidential campaign is giving more power to bigots, spigots and the hateful fringe than ever.”

Okay. How’s that again? WHAT?

Where in this story have any of the persons, the ones customarily slandered by Democrats as bigots and hatemongers, had a thing to do with Obama’s campaign slighting Muslim women?

Not satisfied, I guess, that the Obama supporters will shame the media sufficiently to let the story die quick, Ms. Riley feels she has to report the fact (she’s a journalist, after all, claiming to be telling the bigger story), report the fact that the whole thing was not the fault of Obama or his campaign.

Whaaaaat?

Ms. Riley speaks truth when she says that hate is the issue. And Ms. Riley hates George W. Bush–as a reading of her article makes painfully clear. She hates President Bush so much she has no idea that he–in spite his faults, (and blaming everything on his subordinates and his longtime associates--a vice second nature to Barack Obama–is not one of them), anyway, for all Bush’s faults–he had nothing to do with this!