BS: Popular Views on Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 02:15 PM

I don't think he has nailed anything. I think a lot of people will be delighted to hear that someone out there is trying to understand their situations. If Obama is elite about anything, it is in understanding. The oddly synchronized Greek chorus from Hillary and McCain about elitism is a complete straw man and it won't wash--it is just hollow phrase-slinging and has no bearing on anything real about the man or his promise as President.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 02:23 PM

I'll keep reading Amos and I shouldn't be shooting from the hip, but this strikes me as somewhat analogous to Jimmy Carter's famously imprudent "malaise" comments. Obama should have this thought through by now, since he wrote the Audacity of Hope. Rural, working class, or dispossessed sorts don't need to be told what's wrong with them, and that we'll help them up (and help them to straighten out their thought processes!) They need to be told they've survived tough times and we will work together to make things better for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 03:37 PM

I think even Obama recognizes that while he was saying something fundamentally true, he could have phrased it more artfully. However, it is, in my opinion, a ridiculous place to try and drive a wedge.

Two samples of response:

"Ed Mitchell, a Democratic consultant in Wilkes-Barre who supports Mr. Obama, said that while he did not agree with the comments, he still supported Mr. Obama because of his vision.

ÒIÕm a Pennsylvanian and an Obama supporter, but I donÕt share those sentiments,Ó Mr. Mitchell said. ÒI think heÕs right that voters are frustrated, but I donÕt think they seek refuge in anything so much as they want leadership and change. ThatÕs why I support him. I think he offers that best.Ó

Justin Taylor, 30, the mayor of Carbondale, Pa., has not declared a preference for president. But he said he was leaning toward Mr. Obama and his remarks about small-town voters would not dissuade him. ÒPeople are bitter and at the end of their rope,Ó he said. Referring to Mr. ObamaÕs comments, he said, ÒI donÕt believe it is a problem.Ó"

---

Well, if the Hillary Harpy squad decides to make it a problem, they can; it is doubtful, I think, that their Greek chorus will really sway tings very much, except in a small number of cases. The same frustrated Pennsylvanians she is exhorting to react against Barack's "elitism" are too smart, generally, to get het up on false grounds.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:03 PM

"Elite" is cognate with "elect" - it's about being the best, and chosen as such.

There are a lot of false elite people around who try to fool others that they actually are elite - but if anyone doesn't believe that they are the best person for the job they have no right running for office.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:09 PM

It doesn't change my support for him, either, I just think it was moronic. People will drive a wedge wherever they can, but more to the point, the rural voters will vote for him or not, and at best this race will be close enough for them to make him sink or swim.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: mg
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:19 PM

I agree it was moronic as in what was he thinking? I like the man immensely but he has some serious blind spots and needs apparently a team to keep him from saying things like this. It is very insulting to people with strong religious beliefs...and it is not flattering to gun owners...people in these subcultures already had strong traditions and didn't necessarily make them up when good jobs were lost or try new stuff...which is not what he said but registered with me as what was implied, even though I am sure he didn't mean it like it sounded. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:23 PM

Obama about voters' frustration - seems pretty sensible stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 04:49 PM

Thanks for the link, McGrath. I think it was a very good rebuttal; I don't exactly who the crowd was, but he sure turned them around on the question. Very well done. The man has "it".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 05:10 PM

Well. . . The first question was:

(1) Why are you having trouble getting working class people (in PA) to vote for YOU.

In the clip he doesnt go near that question.

The second question, the one for today, is why did you say:
"And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This time around he dropped the word "cling" (good for him.) He said they've given up on government fixing the economy so they only vote guns or religion. (That is not a sensible statement IMHO.) He doesn't go anywear near xenophobia and bigotry allegations - he just dropped that part of it.


You see, he is the next in line to be a uniter not a divider, following in the tradition of GWB. His goal is to make people vote for him so he can be our leader, incusive of rural white America. If a young Republican came and asked you for your vote so he would address your bitterness that causes you to reject trickle-down theory and focus on wrong-headed things such as illegal aliens, you would not be likely to VOTE FOR HIM. Would you, honestly? This nonpartisanship thing is a bit elusive. Tricky altogether, but he a wrong note in that speech. And he didn't unring it, I'll bet , if you ask the voters in question - i.e. the voters in question (1), above, which is whatthis is supposed to be about.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:28 PM

following in the tradition of GWB

I should hope the differences between the two are so palpable as to make this proposition appear as ridiculous as it is.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:43 PM

sorry, a joke. it will happen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:57 PM

But isn't what he said true? Or doesn't that matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 08:00 PM

Yes it is true, and it does matter -- but only to those who consider truth an important end.

To those who merely want to know which button is being pushed so they can know how to jump, truth is not an index of merit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 08:40 PM

I don't know if it's truth. I'd call it an educated opinion.

Heric is right. If he wanted their vote, he should have stated his opinion differently but I admire him for having the guts to call a spade, a spade. I am more interested in a politician who tells it like it is rather than saying what people want to hear. His timing may be a bit off but other than that, he spoke his own truth.

Rig - I doubt if Obama clings to his religion as much as he does the congregation. I believe that church creates community and that if he clings to anything, its the friends he has made within his church. Attending church is a far cry from clinging to religion. People who cling to their religion are the people who use religion for an excuse to be unreasonable. I do not believe that religion and reason are mutually exclusive.

He should be hitting really hard on the fear factor. "I am here not to invoke fear but to help you become fearless. America has had enough of responding to fear. Lets fight fear together and become strong once again." ...or something like that.

Maybe I should be a speech writer. ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 10:33 PM

"I do not believe that religion and reason are mutually exclusive."

            dianavan - I guess that's where we differ. I might be why we interperate the comments differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 12:01 PM

Must be a troubling thought to believe you live in a world where only an extremely small proportion of your fellow human beings are reasoning creatures...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 07:09 PM

Rig--

You still didn't answer the question. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, will you support him--yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 07:32 PM

"Must be a troubling thought to believe you live in a world where only an extremely small proportion of your fellow human beings are reasoning creatures..."


                   It is, but I'm encouraged that some day they'll get smart and catch up.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 08:09 PM

What's the answer, Rig? Your question-dodging skills could earn you a place in the smoking wreckage of the Bush "administration"--even in its waning days.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 08:12 PM

"I'm encouraged that some day they'll get smart and catch up."

What was that you were saying about "elitism", Rig?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:18 AM

There's nothing elitist about being honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 10:35 AM

There is if you are honestly elitist.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 12:12 PM

Nothing elitist about "some day they'll get smart and catch up"?

You might be able to argue that it's justifiable and honest elitism - but hardly that it isn't elitist. "I can't pretend that I'm not a lot smarter than other people..."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 12:16 PM

Well, I used to be conceited, but since I gave that up, I'm perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 12:49 PM

I guess I'll just have to wait!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 01:11 PM

YEah -- good luck with that Rig.

You might want to reflect, while you wait, on those who are in turn waiting for you, and what you might do to ease their wait.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 02:30 PM

It sounds like a big freeze!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 11:20 PM

But Obama wants to leave the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open, if he gets elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

>>Obama wants to leave the Office of Faith Based Initiatives open, if he gets elected.<<

I hadn't heard that. But, on principle the "Faith Based Initiatives" were not such a bad idea. It was the politicization that was.

If the office continues under Obama, you can rest assured there with be provisions for minority rights and fair hiring.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:46 PM

Rig:

A. WHere did you hear this?
B. What do you think the implications are?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM

..Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:


"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 02:14 PM

"A. WHere did you hear this?"
"B. What do you think the implications are?"


             I watched the CNN Forum on Superstition and Ethics. Both Obama and Clinton participated, McCain declined. Obama made the statement during that program.

             The implications to me are unsettling. I don't like the intermingling of church and state. It also gets tangled up with Catholics only wanting to hire Catholic members to work on their programs, and Methodists only wanting to hire Methodists and so on. Frankly, I don't think there really is any fair way to distribute the funds between the denominations.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 05:38 PM

Aha!! We now agree on TWO things!!!

I forget what the first one was, but, never mind that...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:25 PM

Well, that's a start!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 10:35 PM

Clinton losing traction over Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana

By Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
2:00 PM PDT, April 15, 2008
WASHINGTON -- With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid -- even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

The race remains volatile, however, because many likely voters in the Democratic primaries are still undecided -- 12% in Pennsylvania, 19% in Indiana and 17% in North Carolina....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 10:58 AM

Don't be surprised if Bruce Springsteen songs start opening and closing Barack Obama's campaign rallies.

The Boss is endorsing Obama for president, telling fans on his website, "I have now seen and heard enough to know where I stand. Senator Obama, in my view, is head and shoulders above the rest."

The legendary rocker, who has generally supported liberal Democrats and who objected to then-President Ronald Reagan using his "Born in the USA," says that Obama "speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years."

The Illinois senator, Springsteen says, is the best candidate to "lead us into the 21st century with a renewed sense of moral purpose and of ourselves as Americans."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:00 AM

U.S. Rep. Andre Carson, D-Indianapolis, is expected to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president this morning, according to a former aide to Carson's late grandmother.

Chad Chitwood, who previously worked for the late Rep. Julia Carson and now is spokesman for State Rep. David Orentlicher, confirmed the endorsement.

The Obama campaign declined to comment, but has scheduled a morning conference call with reporters today to announce what it said would be a major endorsement.

"I have heard that, on the record, from sources both in D. C and Indiana," Chitwood said.

The endorsement, the first that a current Hoosier member of the U.S. House has made in the presidential race, will be a coup for Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:05 AM

AN interesting essay reflecting on Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 11:08 AM

A voice from Bethlehem:


"The campaign visit by former President Bill Clinton to Hotel Bethlehem stirred up memories for this baby boomer and recent retiree. It was October 1960 and a dynamic young Democratic candidate, John F. Kennedy was staying at the hotel. Upon his departure, I had my handshake and hello with him. That campaign and presidency helped shape and energize many of my generation to participate in the political process.Today, Barack Obama is inspiring a new generation of Americans and recharging the batteries of their parents and grandparents.

Obama suggests that the cynics will try to divide and marginalize us in this campaign. But, he also states, ''When we stop listening to the cynics and try to make a difference, extraordinary things can happen.'' Kennedy offered a similar message to the Irish Parliament in June 1963: ''Our world needs leaders imbued with hope, confidence and imagination.'' He further said that the problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics whose horizons are limited by the realities of the day.

Indeed, the realities of our world today are troublesome; a continuing war in Iraq, an economy that is working for a few and not all, health care that is becoming unaffordable, and a planet that is heating up. But, our history has been enriched with leaders who viewed difficult times as opportunities to do great things.

Barack Obama is poised and ready to lead our nation if we give him the honor to serve us all.




Greg Zebrowski

Bethlehem (PA)"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 12:51 PM

"As the underdog, Clinton's positive message will not work unless she is able to undermine Obama's candidacy. The Illinois senator's success has been largely built upon his claims that he is a unifier who can work above partisan politics, that he will bring change to our government and that he will bring a new style of leadership to Washington. Without bringing a strong amount of skepticism to these claims, Clinton will not be able to make significant inroads in Obama's lead and cannot persuade the superdelegates to go against the will of the American people.

Clinton needs to argue that despite what Obama has said, he has done very little to actually promote and create bipartisan solutions in Washington and that he is, in fact, probably the Senate's most liberal member. She needs to argue that his values are out of step with voters, as evidenced by his recent comments about why people are religious or seek to own guns. She also must argue that because of Obama's lack of legislative accomplishments, he is ill-equipped to achieve what he sets out to do.

By making these arguments compellingly in public appearances, through television and radio advertisements, and direct mail, Clinton can take advantage of the clear majority of American voters who have already said that they wholeheartedly disagree with the views Obama expressed last week in San Francisco.

Although voters and the media look favorably upon a positive campaign message, and Clinton is acutely conscious that too much negativity and too many personal attacks will hurt her party in November, a positive message is simply not enough to alter the race at this point. It is too late for Clinton to wait for Obama to make another mistake. She must seize the opportunity that Obama's self-acknowledged mistakes last week presented to her campaign; it is almost certainly her last chance. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502664.html

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 12:55 PM

Washington Post

Better Than the Bitter
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; Page A15

Barack Obama, it turns out, has a knack for undermining his own political strengths.

He was supposed to be the post-racial candidate. But he has associated himself for decades with a tradition of black liberation that views all of American life through the prism of pigment. His response to criticism on this count has been, in essence: The bitterness of my church is historically understandable but misdirected. You know me. I'm better than that.

Obama was also supposed to be the Democrat who finally "gets" religion, after a series of Democratic presidential candidates who seemed to suffer from a theological disability. But now, in the suddenly indispensable Huffington Post, we learn of Obama's unguarded reflection on Middle American economic anxiety: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

During Sunday night's CNN "Compassion Forum," Obama tried to smooth this statement over with the observation that "Scripture talks about clinging to what's good." So, evidently, in hard economic times, people find shelter, comfort and refuge in religion -- and anti-immigrant sentiments and antipathy to people who aren't like them. All those tried and true sources of American strength and steadiness during a crisis.

This is the downside of eloquence and intellect -- a belief that anything can be explained and thus explained away -- a temptation to substitute cleverness for remorse.

It is generally a bad political idea for a candidate to psychoanalyze swing voters, who tend to view their beliefs and motivations as more "real" than the deceptions and illusions the political class believes them to be. Few would enjoy being a pinned and wriggling specimen in Professor Obama's seminar for San Francisco Democratic donors.

But the setback is more than political. One of Obama's genuine contributions had been a renewed, liberal appreciation of the role of religious motivations in politics. His 2006 speech at a Call to Renewal conference in Washington recognized that the religious impulse has uncontainable political consequences. "Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King -- indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history -- were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

In 2006, Obama argued that religious belief was authentic, well-intentioned and essential to the common good. In San Francisco, however, he seemed to slip into a crude academic Marxism, claiming that religion is an epiphenomenon, the outgrowth of deeper social trends; that the deepest realities of politics are economic instead of moral; that God and guns, bitterness and bigotry all somehow distract Middle America from real issues of justice.

During Sunday night's forum, Obama dismissed this interpretation as inconsistent with his life story. "It is very important to understand . . . that I am a devout Christian, that I started my work working with churches in the shadow of steel plants that had closed on the south side of Chicago." In other words: You know me. I'm better than that.

Looking back over recent months, there is a common thread in Obama's response to both the Wright revelations and his "bitter" gaffe. In his Philadelphia speech on race, Obama talked of "the anger and the bitterness" of Wright's oppressed generation. He referred to "a similar anger" existing within "the white community" that politicians have routinely exploited on issues such as crime and welfare. America, in this view, is beset by anxiety and fear and resentment and racial stalemate, which can be overcome by Obama's broad understanding and audacious hope.

A part of me wants to believe. Racial discrimination is the poorly healed scar of American history, and Obama's election would be a happy arrival on a national journey that began with African Americans considered only three-fifths of a person.

But Obama's political approach is wearing poorly. Obamaism seems to consist of the belief that the candidate transcends the understandable but confused anger of black and white Americans. And so Obamaism requires an unfavorable comparison of the American people to Obama himself.

This message is inherently prideful: I understand your bitterness and confusion, but I don't reflect it. You know me. I'm better than that.

The problem is: We really don't know Obama very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 01:38 PM

Bruce would you please post your own opinions and link to log articles.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 01:51 PM

Jack,

Would you please apply the same standard to others, and ask Amos to do the same?

I think the points brought up are worth thinking about.

Should you care to think, please let me know what.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 01:54 PM

as I have stated numerous times, the Post article are NOT available a few days after being online- unless you register. It seems that not having the information available would justify the insertion of the article.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:13 PM

Valid point about the Post
Are there comments from you on the posts? When there are, could you put them at the start and make them stand out more.

In fairness to Amos, he generally posts news articles with a single focus or summaries of opinions. You generally post opinion pieces where the writer tends to ramble. You could at least tell us which specific parts are your opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:25 PM

No doubt Michael Gerson is clever, but he obviously is looking for excuses to tear Obama down. He knows as well as you and I do that Obama is not Elitist. I am sure that he has seen the Charlie Rose interview and knows what Obama meant. He is just stirring the pot of controversy so that he will have more to report.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:26 PM

In fairness to ME, I present the articles as being worth thinking about.

I do not always agree, but think that the information as presented in the article is worth thinking about. The facts that are presented can be looked at, and each of us can decide what we think. When I state what my opinion is , there seem to be a vast group that decides to think the opposite without even looking at the facts- so I try to let the original text stand without MY comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:28 PM

"No doubt Michael Gerson is clever, but he obviously is looking for excuses..."

You attack the person presenting the viewpoint, NOT what he has said- See? you don't even need to read what he says to decide it must be wrong, as it (might) disagree with what you want to be true.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:36 PM

Bearded Bruce

That's the problem that I have. There is no information in either article. There are no facts. There are just opinions and arguments.

Michael Gerson's opinion that

"Barack Obama, it turns out, has a knack for undermining his own political strengths."

May be worth thinking about, in your opinion, but it certainly is not a fact. Your opinion of Obama is just as valid as his. The thing is I am not interested in his opinion. I am interested in yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views on Obama
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Apr 08 - 02:43 PM

"But the setback is more than political. One of Obama's genuine contributions had been a renewed, liberal appreciation of the role of religious motivations in politics. His 2006 speech at a Call to Renewal conference in Washington recognized that the religious impulse has uncontainable political consequences. "Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King -- indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history -- were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

In 2006, Obama argued that religious belief was authentic, well-intentioned and essential to the common good. In San Francisco, however, he seemed to slip into a crude academic Marxism, claiming that religion is an epiphenomenon, the outgrowth of deeper social trends; that the deepest realities of politics are economic instead of moral; that God and guns, bitterness and bigotry all somehow distract Middle America from real issues of justice. "

MY OPINION is that Obama is going to lose the substantial lead that he ( presently) has if he keeps trying to satisfy the extreme liberal side of the Dems- His strength was that he seemed honest enough to be worth the vote by the center ( Independents and conservative Dems) : He seems to be risking that to appeal to those that will vote for him regardless.... Unless this is his true viewpoint, and he was not expecting it to get out to the unwashed masses.

OK?