Kristol Says Obama Would Have Supported Slavery

Technorati Tags: William Kristol, Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama, slavery, Civil War, "House Divided" speech, 2008 presidential election

William Kristol compares support for ending U.S. military involvement in Iraq to Southern support for slavery, and says that Barack Obama would have been on Stephen Douglas's side rather than Lincoln's before the Civil War:

KRISTOL: We’re electing a war president in 2008. If I can go back to Obama and Lincoln for just one second, Lincoln’s “house divided” speech in 1858 was a speech saying we cannot live as a house divided on slavery. And he implicitly says we’ll have to fight a civil war if necessary on this.

Obama’s speech is a “can’t we get along” speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858. Let’s paper over these differences, rise above politics and all get along. That’s not Giuliani’s mode. And I think in a war context, social conservatives want to win the war against Islamic jihadism.

Note the reference to "Islamic jihadism." That expression is an insult to the religion of almost two billion people. Given the right's insistence that the term "Christo-fascism" is an expression of hatred toward all Christians, I don't think that liberal bloggers should let terms like "Islamic jihadism" or "Islamofascist" slide anymore.