Here are two paragraphs from a New York Times article:
But Mr. Obama has largely succeeded in persuading the country that, as he asserted in 2012, he is “not the president of black America” but rather “the president of the United States of America.” Two-thirds of those surveyed said his administration’s policies treated whites and blacks the same. Yet in 2010, 83 percent of Americans said the administration did not favor one race over the other.
Still, almost half of those questioned said the Obama presidency had had no effect on bringing the races together, while about a third said it had driven them further apart. Only 15 percent said race relations had improved. Seventy-two percent of blacks said they approved of the way Mr. Obama is handling race relations, compared with 40 percent of whites.
The first paragraph contradicts itself. In the past five years, the percentage of people who believe that Barack Obama is unbiased with regard to race has fallen from 83 to 67. Yet, the reporters claim that he has "largely succeeded in persuading the country that . . . he is 'not the president of black America' but rather 'the president of the United States of America.'" If that's success, what would count as failure? Am I missing something?
This individual (Obama) has been a disaster in many ways, not least being his tendency to favor blacks over whites. In his view, blacks are always right and whites always wrong. Blacks are always victims and whites always perpetrators. Blacks are never responsible for their own behavior. This is demeaning to blacks, many of whom work hard, obey the law, take care of their families, go to church, and love their country.
I'm not the least bit surprised that (according to the article) "Only 15 percent [of respondents] said race relations had improved." The irony, of course, is that Obama promised to unite this country rather than divide it. This was a false promise, because Obama had no history of uniting anyone. As a community organizer, his objective was to pit one group of people against another with the aim of extracting resources. He is an agitator, a provocateur, and a rabble-rouser. He is the Divider in Chief.
