Quote:Hi,
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
This is fair. By all means, subject Obama, and McCain, to a careful scrutiny, and listen to what they have to say about it all. Neither is a saint, although there are plenty on both sides willing to claim their candidate will smell like roses after death. If Obama doesn't survive the process, so be it. I like to think I am not blindly defensive of Obama, nor blindly critical of McCain, although my preference for the one over the other is clear. We shall see where that goes as the campaign evolves.
However, politics continues as usual, and every type of excrement that might possibly stick to a candidate will be thrown with full force by people who neither know nor care whether it is correct, only that it appears to be damning on the surface, because that is all they need. So, while I obviously don't have to tell you this, great care has to be taken in evaluating what is dredged up, because you can no more trust the good faith of the politicos, journalists and surrogates than you can of the candidates themselves.
My impression is that Obama is someone who is trying to be honest and make a difference, but who is also ambitious, and who swam in the murky waters of Chicago poltics. You meet people there, you even befriend people, who are not what they seem, who collect politicians like postage stamps, and who are ultimately toxic. How much did he know about Rezko? We can't tell. How much could he have known, or should he have known? Also difficult. Those are the questions that need answering if one is going to come up with a personal judgement about Obama, and all I have is an impression, not anything I'd care to base a sound judgement on.
McCain has been through this particular ringer before, and will probably have to endure it again in this election. His response is history by now, although it is interesting that his tactics then were very similar to Obama's now. But he survived being tangled up with Keating, and I suspect Obama will survive Rezko.
-Jester