….in response, the left is dumping him. NYT released its favorite attack dog, Mo Dowd, on him.
She wrote (no link), “Behold Barack Antoinette.”
She went THERE?
Just a few years ago, the left decried as racist any comparison of the Obama’s to the court of Louis the 16th. I am not quite sure how Louis and his wife became symbols of racism. Aunt Jemima, I can see. Kids eating watermelon, I can see. And if I squint hard enough, the Cream of Wheat guy starts looking racist.
But Marie Antoinette?
Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times duly reported on January 5, 2012, “A baldly racist depiction of First Lady Michelle Obama that appeared Tuesday on a right-wing website is based on a 1775 portrait of Marie Antoinette by Jean-Baptiste André Gautier-Dagoty (1740-1786). The full-length painting hangs outside Paris in the Palace of Versailles.
“The Internet image grafts Obama’s face onto Gautier-Dagoty’s lavish depiction of the French queen, dressed in full regalia. It also replaces the draped left arm of the young monarch, then barely 20, with a muscular black arm and shifts the position of the right hand to place it in front of a world globe.
“The caricature of Obama as a profligate queen relies on the racist stereotype of an uppity Negro, which emerged among slave masters in an earlier American era. Obama, born into a working-class Chicago family whose roots are traced to the pre-Civil War South, graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, prior to holding several high-level positions in the academic and private sectors.”
Ah, Uppity Negro.
That was a phrase Democrats in the South and Ivy Leaguers used back in the bad old days.
I am glad the Los Angeles Times explained why Marie Antoinette is a symbol of racism right next to Mammy.
So, by calling Obama “Antoinette,” the New York Times is actually calling him an Uppity Negro.
Thus, when the NYT published “Behold Barack Antoinette,” it meant Behold Obama Uppity Negro.
I am using their definition, not mine.
(I won’t go into the homophobic/transphobic thing of calling a man by a female’s name.)
The column shows great Obama revisionism is at work.
It was predictable.
Liberals praise a Democrat president until his term ends. After that, forget him. Truman died in obscurity. LBJ was unceremoniously dumped when his term ended, despite advancing socialism further than any president, even FDR. Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8 housing, PBS, and on and on. As JFK’s veep, LBJ got food stamps passed. He died despised 4 years after his presidency ended.
Sure, Carter is trotted out now and then, but only because he is harmless. His Habitat for Humanity rehabilitated houses and his reputation. The line on his doomed presidency now is that he was a victim of circumstance.
Hillary kept the vultures from picking Bill clean but now they are both forgotten. His chief accomplishments — DOMA and the Biden Crime Bill of 1994 — embarrass Democrats.
Which leads us to that person the New York Times now dismisses as an Antoinette or Uppity Negro.
Dowd wrote, “It’s hard to stop thinking about the over-the-top fete the former president held at his Martha’s Vineyard manse for his 60th birthday. It is such a perfect taxonomy of the Obama arc.
“As president, he didn’t try hard enough on things we needed. He was a diffident debutante with a distaste for politics. Post-presidency, he is trying too hard on things we don’t need. The culture is already swimming in Netflix deals, celebrity worship, ostentatious displays of wealth, not to mention podcasts. Did the world really need ‘Renegades,’ his duet with Bruce Springsteen?”
One sentence sticks out, “As president, he didn’t try hard enough on things we needed.”
Translation: The Uppity Negro was lazy.
André Leon Talley, a black fashion writer, provided Dowd with a quote to shield her from charges of racism.
He said, “I think the nouveaux riches Obamas are seriously tone-deaf.
“We all love Beyoncé. But people have so many things to worry about with Covid, voting rights, climate warming. People are afraid of being evicted from their homes. And the Obamas are in Marie-Antoinette, tacky, let-them-eat-cake mode. They need to remember their humble roots.”
That gave Dowd and NYT license to denounce Obama. Dowd wrote, “The party crystallized the caricature of the Democratic Party that Joe Biden had to fight against in order to get elected. It was as far from Flint and Scranton as you can imagine: an orgy of the 1% — private jets, Martha’s Vineyard, limousine liberals and Hollywood whoring — complete with a meat-free menu.”
Now I can understand if you don’t see much difference between a conservative take on the Covid Spreading Party and the Times take.
But the rest of her column deteriorates into a whine at not being invited to this party that she denounced.
She wrote, “Whether the party was 500 or 300 or 30, Obama should have made sure to have the people there who made the moment possible, the ones who worked so hard to get him elected and cement his legacy.”
Why, how dare that lazy Uppity Negro not invite her. I mean David Geffen and Caroline Kennedy.
Obama is not stupid.
He knew all along this revisionism would happen. He took the Netflix money and ran. He’s living large and no longer needs David Geffen or Caroline Kennedy or the New York Times. From what little I know of them, I can see why he would not invite them.
Heck, I want Beyoncé at my birthday party too.
For 8 long years, Dowd and NYT carried Obama’s water. They praised Obamacare no end even though it did nothing but raise health insurance premiums for some while funneling billions in subsidies to the insurance industry. The latter is why Republicans refused to end it. They are dopes who believe the Chamber of Commerce still supports them.
Now that they can stop harassing President Trump, liberals suddenly realize that they got nothing while the Obamas departed the White House in a Brinks truck. The plan was to use the black man to advance socialism. Instead, the black man used them.
Good for him.
So they are reduced to calling him an Uppity Negro. And a lazy one at that.
WRITTEN BY: DON SURBER