I see now that Dinesh D'Souza's thinly-veiled (very thinly) racist analysis is much better!
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009150059
(...)
Beck was so impressed with D'Souza's "handle" on Obama that he said he could now see that his statement that Obama is a "racist" was "almost infantile" "in its understanding of the president." Beck stated:
BECK: I couldn't figure out what the president was doing and I missed the fact because I hadn't really looked into him. It becomes almost an illusion of racism -- and it's not racism. It's anti-colonialism. It is -- it's liberation theology, which is also in a way anti-colonialism. It's Marxism in its roots. And when you understand these things, all of a sudden everything makes sense. ... His grandfather and his father -- when you understand what they were doing, you all of a sudden can see Barack Obama and where he's going.
He would later add:
BECK: This doesn't have anything to do with race. And that's why I said my comment about a year and a half ago was infantile on its understanding of Obama, because that's your gut that says, 'Wait a minute, it's about race.' No, it's not. It's not about race; it is about colonialism, which is still the message of the left -- that America is stealing the resources of the rest of the world.
This is at least the second time Beck has "amended" his claim that Obama has "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." He had previously explained that he had "miscast" Obama's viewpoints as racism, not understanding that "really, what it is, is liberation theology." As we noted at the time, believing in liberation theology may well be worse than hating white people -- according to Beck, liberation theology is "evil" and is part of a belief system that "can lead to genocide."
(...)