Redstate

This line of attack is to get people to realize that Barack Obama is not the type of new politician that he claims to be. He is the same old politician that we have always had.

We're doing exactly what we accuse Obama of doing, for the same reasons he is. Got it. I feel much better now.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

Compare this to what "we" accuse Obama of doing

What reasons is he doing it for?

Mr. Smith has achieved a certain level of credibility, far past the need to justify casual statements.

Just an FYI, lest you waste any more energy.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

when Wright was first outed as a radical? If Sen. Obama had any sense of outrage, it should have shown up at the first hint. I call "liar!" loudly. Political expediency too.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln

Outrage is not an appealing characteristic. And I always try to kill a sense of outrage when it is directed at friends or family. If Barack Obama can control his outrage, he rises higher in my eyes.

I realize we live in the age of outrage, when we are supposed to be outraged by everything, denounce every difference of opinion as a "lie," demand resignations for every misspoken word, and so on.

But personally, I don't feel it, and I think we'd all be better off to give folks the benefit of a doubt.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

definition of outrage is! It also depends on past performance. With few exceptions past performance is the greatest indicator of future actions. Sen. Obama has shown (BTW he's not the exception he's part of the norm)by his past performance that his actions are specifically tailored to promote his ascension in politics.

The Chicago political climate (vote early, vote often!) mandates that you ally yourself with 'the right' people or you'll never get elected. Sen. Obama has sidled up to an array of activists with power in Chicago. Denying Rev. Wright was the lesser of two evils. Denying Rev. Wright means alienating a relatively small group in Chicago (e.g. The Trinity UCC) and maybe a group of black Americans, while not denying Rev. Wright means he alienates a large block of white voters nationally.

The choice came down to this: lose 30000 votes or lose 2 million or more! The choice becomes very clear. Publicly, to maintain his campaign, he must 'throw him under the bus'. Privately is another matter altogether. Sen. Obama may believe strongly in everything that Rev. Wright espoused in public and maybe more not aired in public but he cannot admit that publicly without killing his campaign.

Sen. Obama's statements were parsed, to no end, to minimize the loss of voter support. Such manufactured statements have never represented anyone's true position. The 'black' community expects the 'white' community to quickly, loudly and publicly denounce even the smallest nuance of racism from a white politician yet when blatant racism is espoused by a respected member of the black community a 'measured response' is the appropriate response???. The delay smacks of tacit approval with only marginally plausible repudiation. By not immediately denouncing the statements, not the man, Sen. Obama painted himself into a corner. He then had to manufacture some hot air to get out of there!

Characterizing differences of opinions as lies is not only wrong it denies the opportunity for growth! The other guy might have more information than you and knowing that may save your life! Not being outraged when confronted with egregious examples of hatred lends a cache of acceptability which cannot be allowed to exist in a civilized society.

If Sen. Obama can't express outrage against blatant racism in this case, how can we expect him to take action in anything? At the very least, I would have expected him to immediately distance himself from Rev. Wright's statements. A simple announcement of "Rev. Wright's statements do not reflect my beliefs..." with perhaps a listing of his beliefs. He didn't have to 'throw him under the bus' right away! He could have then more thoroughly repudiated Rev. Wrights statements with his parsed 'measured response' and cultivated at least a modicum of believability.

Measured, parsed responses may be of value in a court of law but it smells of falsehood in the court of public opinion. I'm sorry Professor Smith, in this instance any credibility that Sen. Obama may have had in my eyes got blown away by his hot air.

Brad apparently doesn't debate. He dictates.

We have Wright's repeated contention that the only reason Obama distanced himself from Wright was that Obama is "a politician....doing what politicians do." I heard Wright say that on C-SPAN.

So logically, one of those two men is being less than truthful. Either Obama is, by claiming that he's sincerely outraged, or Wright is, by claiming that he isn't.

Given that Wright is, after all is said and done, a pastor--a man of the cloth--I'm more inclined to believe him.

Have you listened to the full audio of some of his sermons? I'm not sure either one can claim a credibility advantage.

subject to WWE rules? Or Marquis de Queensbury rules?

of "I didn't inhale." That's a good one! I think I'll use that on one of my friends. Regarding Sen. Obama's waiting to see which way the wind blew, maybe he's looking at a career in meteorology. I can imagine the toss: "..and now for the latest weather let' go to our weatherman Barak..". Come to think of it , he does know a couple of weathermen doesn't he?? Thanks 'Just Me'.