06-07-2008, 04:22 AM
Hi,
But the case is that Obama is not in a criminal trial, he is running for office. It is not a case of "in justice, I must accept his innocence" but one of "does he appear to be worthy of my trust and my vote." The situation is different, and so the standards are different. Although you have arguments dismissing many of the points made against Obama, particularly on his relationships, you do not deny the existence of the incidents. Each individually may be overlooked, but cumulatively they have more weight. Ultimately, one *must* answer the question of just who Obama is. And that answer can only come from weighing all the factors, including those factors that are damning on the surface.
We are down to the final few months in this campaign. We are down to the final two candidates. As the last eight years have shown, a poor decision is a disaster for the nation. Blindly defending Obama because you are against the Republicans is not intelligent thinking. It is simple prejudice.
As for me, I'm still willing to be convinced. I think I represent a large portion of the thinking American public (which may be a greater group than the Canadians and Europeans give us credit for, although after eight years of Shrub, I can see the rational). If, in the final analysis, Obama fails to make the grade, then I'll vote McClain, damning the NDP all the way.
--Pete
Quote:What should I say . . . ?I think what you should say should be based on what is going on. You have been defending Obama throughout this thread as if he were on trial for crimes. If that were the case, then, yes, all the evidence is circumstantial. There is nothing concrete on which to find him guilty. Your arguments for *legal* innocence would be valid.
But the case is that Obama is not in a criminal trial, he is running for office. It is not a case of "in justice, I must accept his innocence" but one of "does he appear to be worthy of my trust and my vote." The situation is different, and so the standards are different. Although you have arguments dismissing many of the points made against Obama, particularly on his relationships, you do not deny the existence of the incidents. Each individually may be overlooked, but cumulatively they have more weight. Ultimately, one *must* answer the question of just who Obama is. And that answer can only come from weighing all the factors, including those factors that are damning on the surface.
We are down to the final few months in this campaign. We are down to the final two candidates. As the last eight years have shown, a poor decision is a disaster for the nation. Blindly defending Obama because you are against the Republicans is not intelligent thinking. It is simple prejudice.
As for me, I'm still willing to be convinced. I think I represent a large portion of the thinking American public (which may be a greater group than the Canadians and Europeans give us credit for, although after eight years of Shrub, I can see the rational). If, in the final analysis, Obama fails to make the grade, then I'll vote McClain, damning the NDP all the way.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?