The Candidates: Barack Obama
March 28th, 2007 | by Scott |For previous analysis and discussion click on the individual names: Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, John Edwards, and John McCain.
Again, another week passes without any changes to the field. I thought I would be in the market for a new candidate to support but for now the campaign marches on. And we are still waiting for the GOP to welcome it’s best hope into the field.
As always, we flip back across the aisle and this time take a look at Barack Obama. As one of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination in ‘08 his profile is still on the ascendancy.
Pros: Polished, well-spoken, at the right place and time for America to elect someone other than a white male, a strong democrat not named Hillary, has appeal across the aisles and can play to minorities, staunch opposition to the boondoggle, for a universal health plan, has been a voice for the religious left paving the way for restoring ties between the Democratic party and people of faith, green
Cons: Does not have the fund-raising punch of Hillary, still a relative unknown compared to his major competitors, has to endure Fox news, not a clear proposal for universal health like Edwards, will deal with racial backlash, does not have much experience, young.
Analysis: Obama is a strong name that will continue to make waves during the primary campaign. Part of the question is whether or not he can endure the infighting between him and Hillary while withstanding Fox New’s smear campaigns against him.
I like Obama and would be firmly in his corner if Edwards had bowed out. I feel that he is a tremendous voice that can speak for those disenfranchised with both parties.
However, I fear that many voters, in the south primarily, are still both unable to admit their prejudices and unable to vote outside of their own demographic. That will play against Obama.
At the same time, I believe that Obama will resonate with the younger audience as his presence on social networking sites attests.
Ultimately, however, I would like to see him as a running mate, preferably for Edwards.
55 Responses to “The Candidates: Barack Obama”
By KS on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
While I think there may be some racial prejudice, I don’t think that will be why Obama loses. I and many republicans would be very willing to vote for Condi in a minute.
Obama will not go far because as you said he is against Hillary or the more moderate Edwards.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
His “appeal across the aisles” will go out the window when people being to realize that he is as liberal as Teddy Kennedy.
He could win the nomination, but Edwards is more electable in a national race.
Ah, more Fox News bashing. Funny, you never mention CNN-MSNBC-CBS-ABC-NBC-PBS-THEDAILYSHOW’s smear campaign against conservatives.
By greg on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
I was considering him until I heard he’s really just a closet Muslim extremist that is just waiting to get elected until he reveals himself and unleashes all hell on America. That kind of turned me off. I’m more used to a Christian guy who unleashes hell on other countries.
By Scott on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Greg, scary isn’t it? I’m glad we have fair and balanced reporting out there to warn us about him.
Condi ain’t electable.
By KS on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Condi would win the national election. She would have a great chance at the GOP, because of her service during the “unleashing of hell on other countries” and would be very electable to both sides.
Fair and balanced reporting is much better than the communist news network
By Doug Freeman on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
In mho, there is no one mentioned that can be a better candidate than Newt. I wish he would get in the race.
By Political Realm on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
There is no way that Condi could win in 08. Most obviously because of her connections to Bush, but she also has no campaign experience whatsoever.
By Scott on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, I agree. She has done nothing to give us any indication of policy leanings other than being Bush’s champion for the Iraqi war. If that is what she would have to campaign on she would be in for an impossibly uphill fight.
By jasonk on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
You forgot to mention a few things about Obama. Mainly, that he is my long lost cousin (thanks, Jonathan, for pointing that out). I have some nice photos of me and Cousin O on my site. In all seriousness, my daughters, all of legal voting age by 2008, were very excited to see that Obama is a descendant of the Kearney clan of Ireland.
Also, in Islamic terms, once a Muslim, always a Muslim. If your father was a Muslim, you are a Muslim. His victory would be seen as a victory for the Islamic world. I’m not quite ready for that.
Obama does not need Fox News to smear him. He is already smearing himself, by criticizing Senate bills which he actually voted for. He even bragged about a nice little piece of the pie for Illinois (to his local constituency, of course). I agree with PC that it is interesting that it bothers the libs so much that Fox news is around, and how successful they have been. Conservatives have been the victim of biased reporting for years, so much so that “fair and balanced” seems skewed to the right.
Again, I think that the polls tell a story that too many people want to ignore. That Americans are more likely to vote for an atheist than they are a Muslim, or a former Muslim. Trying to pretend that his heritage does not exist, or downplaying it as they have done, and trying to hide his name from the public, is not an indication that he is the slightest bit interested in being on the level with the American people.
Making him a running mate to John Edwards would be like putting a target on Edwards’ back.
By Scott on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
So his faith claims mean nothing?
By greg on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
amazing…
By jasonk on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
His faith claims mean little or no more than anyone else’s faith claims, including George W. Bush’s or Bill Clinton.
Wasn’t it Machiavelli who advocated an “end justifies the means” philosophy? Do and say what you have to in order to get and maintain power. If you have to hold to a certain moral view in public, do it, even though your job as the prince may require you to do evil things in order to consolidate your grip on power.
BHO reads the polls, he knows what it takes to get him elected. There is no way that he is going to be elected to office as a Muslim, or whatever, so he aligns himself with a Christian group, although it is one of the most liberal Christian groups you can find.
So, no, his faith claims mean nothing to me. Don’t tell me who you are, show me. I see a man with a deep Muslim heritage who keeps telling me that he is not a Muslim, but a Christian. That is spooky.
By greg on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
So, in the mid-80’s, about 10 years before he ran for public office, he began hiding the fact that he was really a Muslim and “aligned himself with a Christian group”, thinking that 20+ years later he would run for President? Okay.
By jasonk on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Greg, be reasonable.
Do you seriously think that Obama was not thinking about his political future, or his future in general, in his mid 20s?
He used to call himself Barry for goodness sake. The man is not an idiot. If I were a young Muslim, with a little machiavellian streak in me (as most politicians, young and old, are known to have), I would change my name, change my religion, change my hair color, whatever it takes, to get into power. Decisions he made as a young man will pay off handsomely someday. Now, for instance.
When Obama was done snorting cocaine and otherwise living the life of a rebellious young man, he set his sights on his future. Why is that so implausible to you?
By Belinda on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
All the negative things being said also seem to directly related to the current President.
jasonk: “Wasn’t it Machiavelli who advocated an “end justifies the means” philosophy? Do and say what you have to in order to get and maintain power. If you have to hold to a certain moral view in public, do it, even though your job as the prince may require you to do evil things in order to consolidate your grip on power.”
See those words seem to scream George W. Bush to me. And speaking of cocaine, have you forgotten that GWB was (and may still be) a fan?
Edwards is my candidate for the White House!! I had never heard of Obama until the 2004 Democratic Convention - he is very well spoken (like Edwards) and highly intelligent.
By len on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It says a lot to me that BO has been open about his Christian faith. Right now he is the only democrat I can consider voting for. To criticize him for his middle name or what his father is/was will not matter to me, although I know it will affect some. It shouldn’t though.
Our current president has been very open about his struggle with alcohol. I think we should leave it at that and not imply things about hi or any of the candidates just because we don’t like them.
By Scott on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Len, I agree. Obama has been open about his faith and said some wonderful things about the Christian call. We venture out into some incredibly judgmental waters when we start criticizing that. I don’t agree with Bush or his theology but I don’t question his sincerity.
It’s disingenuous to do it with Obama. And totally discounts the grace and love of God.
By jasonk on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Belinda,
Perhaps you did not read my entire post. I included W’s faith in my machiavellian example. I am not judging him or the genuineness of the work of grace in his life, or in anyone else’s. But if we look at the life of the politician, we see people who have to do and say what is expedient in order to get elected. Like Senator Clinton speaking with a southern drawl in an attempt to pander to voters, a politician will talk about his faith, because it makes people feel good about who they elect to office.
I think that a person’s heritage does impact their ability to govern, and that can be good or bad. It is my opinion that BHO is not a good candidate on many levels. I disagree with universal health care, for one thing. I also believe that he is woefully inexperienced. Electing him to office would be a huge setback for this country. So, I will not be voting for him.
For the record, I respect everyone’s right to vote for the candidate of their choice, and appreciate Scott for providing a forum to work through the issues.
By justin on Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Apparently Fred Thompson doesn’t talk about his faith enough for Dr. Dobson to be considered a real christian.
Little does Dobson know, but Thompson is a member of “the church” so actually Dobson is the fake Christian, and Thompson is the real one.
By KS on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Scott: Of the three (Billary, Edwards or Obama) do you think that is the order it will go down in the democratic party?
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Hey - Has anyone else seen this article?
It’s interesting that Dobson takes such a judgmental stand on Thompson, but is supportive of Gingrich who is an admitted adulterer. (I should take special offense, I suppose since Thompson is a C of Cer!)
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Kenny, right now I think it’s Hillary’s to lose. With some combination of Edwards and Obama behind her.
But of course I envision a lot happening between now and Iowa up to and including Edwards and Obama joining forces.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Somebody really needs to stop Dobson. He is in grave danger of becoming a greater evangelical caricature than Pat Robertson.
I found it interesting that Dobson’s spokesperson could use the phrase “read the tea leaves.” Just goes to show that Dobson dabbles in the occult
By greg on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I was thinking the same thing. What the hell is Dobson doing reading tea leaves?? Anyway, I think it’s too late. Dobson is already in the same league with Falwell and “Mr. 2000″.
By jasonk on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I agree with you Scott, on Dobson. For him to come right out and say that Fred Thompson is not a Christian, is ludicrous.
Maybe you saw the poll released this week which said that 50% of Americans surveyed said that they would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I still say that right or wrong, when people step into the voting booth, they are going to vote the way they always have–for a white male. And I believe that white male might just be Senator Edwards.
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I have to (get to? am thrilled to?) agree with Jason on this one. But I think it has more to do with fear of her politics & baggage than her gender.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Jason, brother, respectfully I ask this question: how is Dobson’s comments about Thompson not being a Christian ludicrous but yours about Obama not ludicrous? Help me understand.
By jasonk on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I’ll answer in a minute, Scott, but first I have to get over my excitement that Jeff agrees with me. :>) Yes, it is fear of her politics and baggage, but when you combine that with her gender, I think it is the trifecta that will prevent her from actually getting the nomination. Trifecta being 1. politics, 2. baggage, 3. girl.
Scott, your question really made me stop and think for a minute. Here is the best answer I can give you.
Fred Thompson is like every other politician, and will use what he has to in order to get elected, including his Christian heritage. So I’m not saying that I believe that Thompson is a Christian. He may be. He may not be. Don’t know. What I do know is that Thompson was raised with a Christian heritage, and if that heritage suits him in a run for the White House, fine.
Obama has a Muslim heritage. He attended a Muslim school as a youngster. When he enrolled in high school in London, and he was asked his religious preference, he indicated that he was a Muslim. Fine. There is nothing wrong with that, unless you live in the United States and want to have a future in national politics. Then you’d better make sure you are a card-carrying Christian. That’s the basis for my questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s faith.
Turn it around for a minute. If Fred Thompson were running for office in Saudi Arabia, and ditched his Christian heritage for the Muslim faith, would you have questions about the motivating factor behind his conversion?
When Constantine converted, so did everybody else, because it was the politically expedient thing to do. But it didn’t make it genuine.
Its like a Republican politician who is a member of the NRA. They don’t own a gun, nor have they ever fired one, nor do they agree that assault weapons that fire at a rate of a hundred rounds a second are really hunting rifles, but they can’t get elected if they aren’t a member, so they join up.
When I was a pastor, a lady and her family began attending our church, out of the blue. No one that I knew of had invited them, they just came. I was so excited, and naturally assumed that they had heard about my dynamic preaching, or my strong pastoral leadership. When we visited later in the week, I asked them if they were seeking answers to life’s questions, or if they had experienced a spiritual awakening, or what. She said, “no, I just started selling Mary Kay, and the book said that I should join a church so I can find more prospects.” You gotta love her honesty.
If you asked Senator Thompson why he calls himself a Christian, and he was like Jim Carrey and could not lie, he might say something like, “well, my mother and father raised me in church, and I have always been a Christian, and always will be.” If you asked Obama the same question with the same stipulations, I wonder if he wouldn’t say something like, “I knew that my political future would be a barren wasteland as a Muslim, so I joined a Christian church because the book said that’s the best way to get more votes.”
I have a cynical attitude toward him in the same way I am cynical toward that Mary Kay woman, toward a GOP/NRA member, and toward Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney suddenly jumping onto the pro-life bandwagon.
So to me, there is a difference between being suspicious of the faith of Obama, and flat out saying, “he is not a Christian” about a person who has a strong heritage of faith, especially because Dobson just doesn’t like Thompson’s brand of Christianity. I know many Christian liberals, unitarians, universalists, etc. I don’t agree with them on every point, but I am not in a position to question their faith. But when that lady plainly told me that she was joining our church to sell Mary Kay products, I questioned the validity of her motivations. And for that same reason, I question the validity of Obama’s motivations.
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Jason -
Excellent response, BTW!
I would take issue with what, it seems to me, to be a bit of arbitrary distinction you make.
I wouldn’t place Fred Thompson and Barack Obama in different camps because of their heritage. I would place them in the same camp because of their vocations. They are both politicians, who, as you argue, in large part use whatever available tools they can to prop up their “electability” - often including their faith-claims.
I don’t know Obama or Thompson and have no ability to judge the trustworthiness of any of their claims to anything other than by objective behavioral evidence.
When I compare the direct behavioral evidence as it stands today, both of their claims hold about equal weight.
The distinction you make is that Thompson’s claims build upon the lineage of his parents whereas Obama’s claims diverge from his parents’ lineage later in his life. While I’m not entirely dismissing your point, because it does carry some minor weight, it seems largely irrelevant.
Dobson’s real inconsistency on this is to pooh-pooh Thompson in favor of Gingrich where it is overwhelmingly clear that his real and recent behavior undermines his claims to conservative Christian values - in much the same way the Bill Clinton’s behavior undermined his similar claims.
By justin on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
JasonK 1
Obama 0
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
In the last paragraph of my last post (#30), the first two “his”’s refer to Gingrich (not Dobson). The last, obviously, to Clinton.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
But the issue isn’t just about politics. It is about Christians, Dobson and his ilk, making claims as to who is in and who is out. The analogy that Jason makes is incomplete because Obama did not just move here, and he did not just start claiming to be a Christian.
Now, I don’t know if Obama is sincere any more than I do any other candidate. But I can give every amount of weight and credence to a candidate who will say the following:
“My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.
“My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness.
Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.”
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Hold on, Scott. No one (Dobson, JasonK or others) is saying these folks aren’t “saved”. All are claiming ignorance on that point. What is being claimed is the trustworthiness of their claims (about faith or anything else as far as I’m concerned).
Dobson is basing his judgment (between Gingrich and Thompson) on their public statements about faith. JasonK is arguing (correct me JK if I’ve missed this) that the trustworthiness of their claims should be judged based, in part, on their heritage.
I’m arguing that the trustworthiness of anyone’s claims - especially political figures - should be based on their behavior.
For this reason, I don’t believe the Republican party, at the federal level, to be pro-life or compassionate with regard to the poor. Why? Because abortions and poverty go up when Republicans are in control and appoint the judges. From another thread, behavior is a precise and accurate indicator of our true beliefs.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I find it interesting that leftists will criticize and lampoon conservatives for talking about their faith…
…but will speak admirably of liberals who do the same thing.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Politics, what conservative have I lampooned for talking about their faith?
And Jeff, I hear you and I understand what you are saying. I agree that behavior is telling and indicative.
But I don’t get that Jason is talking solely about behavior. If so, he has conflated behavior and heritage. To me, the fact that he has a Muslim heritage is immaterial to where he is at now.
Is he grandstanding or jockeying for political favor? Maybe. I’m afraid they all are to some degree.
With all of these candidate we have to weigh their actions and see how it measures up to what they say. Obama’s “heritage” is no more different from the mistakes of any of our pasts.
By greg on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I find it interesting that those on the right preach the importance of faith and then question those on the left who share that faith.
By greg on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
that didn’t come out right… dangit. it was supposed to be ‘question the faith of those on the left.’
Forget it. I suck.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
I wasn’t referring to you. Sorry, I should have made that clear. I was speaking of liberals in general — especially those in the mainstream media.
And on a (slightly) related note: Isn’t Jim Wallis really just James Dobson in liberal clothing? I get the e-mail newsletter from Sojourners, and am amazed at some of the things Wallis says about conservatives.
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Scott -
You wrote,
“I don’t get that Jason is talking solely about behavior. If so, he has conflated behavior and heritage. To me, the fact that he has a Muslim heritage is immaterial to where he is at now.”
I agree - I think that’s what I said I disagreed with JK on?
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I agree that Wallis is edging continually closes to demogoguery as well - though Dobson has a clear and distinct lead on him.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
By jasonk on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I am saying that I am suspicious of anyone who says, “vote for me,” or “buy from me, because I am a Christian.” I have clients who have large portfolios, with whom I have attended church. They came to me not because I asked them to, but because they knew me from church, watched me and got to know me, then said to themselves, “I would want this guy to manage my money.” I have never once handed out a business card in church, because I don’t want people to have the perception that my faith is a means to success in my business.
If I had grown up a Muslim, and realized that to really make the big bucks, I needed to join the First Methodist Church, that is a wrong motivation for a conversion. As someone else has said, I am not saying Cousin Barack is not saved, I am saying that I question the validity of his claims, because he has an ulterior motive for claiming faith.
Sometimes you hear people say, “I like this singer, or this actor, or this business owner, or whatever, because they produce a good product. Oh, and he’s a Christian.” It is part of the factor that motivates people to support the work of an individual. If we look at Obama’s politics alone, we say we like him or dislike him based on his stance on abortion, or his economic policies, or universal health care. But many people in the Christian community are saying, “And look. He is a Christian too.” I disagree with his economic policies, and so his faith never even comes in to play for me. But his heritage as a Muslim does concern me, because we are currently engaged in a war with a certain faction of the Muslim world, a war which THEY started, and these tens of millions of militant radical Muslims will see a victory by Obama as a victory for Islam. That is a major factor than can not, and I believe will not be overlooked by voters next year.
As for Obama’s quotes, I have some Buddhist friends who would whole-heartedly agree with everything he said there. He said nothing regarding his own faith except to admit to being a sinner. And, he equates being sick with being a sinner. Saying “I am sick” is much easier than saying, “I am a sinner.”
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, I like and agree with a lot of what Sojourners does but they have moved into a lot of the name-calling that I find so distasteful.
But, then again, Dobson isn’t a Christian and Wallis is.
That was a joke, people. A joke. If any of my in-laws happen to read this, it was just a joke.
By greg on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
As someone else has said, I am not saying Cousin Barack is not saved, I am saying that I question the validity of his claims, because he has an ulterior motive for claiming faith.
But how do you know that? Where is the evidence? Simply because he converted and later ran for office, you believe that’s the only possible reason he would have done so?
That’s what I’m having a hard time understanding. You seem to be saying - absolutely - that he has an ulterior motive. He converted simply for political reasons. If that’s the case, then it would seem that it’s not an authentic, saving faith. But you also say you’re “not saying he’s not saved.” That seems to be a contradiction to me. Am I misunderstanding? Or am I just reading more into what you’re saying than I should?
I agree with the Jeff’s as well. I like some of what Wallis says, but I’m a tiring of him, too.
I don’t know why, but something about the words “James Dobson in liberal clothing” just made me laugh…
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Greg, I’m with you because that’s what I’m hearing too. I disagree so strongly with the GOP’s having relegated moral issues to just a couple of issues and ignoring some larger ones.
But I don’t dispute their faith and make the argument that the only reason they hold to that faith is because of political posturing.
If this line of reasoning is the one to take then we must throw out the faith claims of ALL candidates, not just Obama.
By justin on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I think that most politicians use their faith to try and get votes. Whether its BHO or [insert social conservative here].
I don’t trust politicians as far as I can throw them, unless I know them personally. Then I might trust them a little further than I can throw them.
You just gotta question people’s desire to be in power, ESPECIALLY if they are (or claim to be) Christian. Christ was specifically about denying power, or relinquishing it, and he had more in his little finger than every US president combined.
By jasonk on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Okay, let me try to straighten this out.
I am not strictly questioning Obama’s faith. I am suspicious of anyone’s faith who has an ulterior motive, whether they are running for office, selling investments and securities, or preaching from the pulpit. So its not just an Obama thing, its anything. Like when they put a fish on their yellow pages ad, but they provide poor service and take your money anyway.
Does that help?
By Jeff_R on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think JasonK’s position is that hard to grasp.
If I can try to describe how I’ve understood the point…
He doubts anyone who is seeking to gain favor by making religious claims. Fair enough. It seems we all agree that that could raise some suspicion (ever heard of Simon the Sorcerer?).
In addition, he especially doubts those who have something to gain who make outrageous claims - based on their personal history.
Thus, he isn’t doubting that Thompson may be pandering to religious folk with his claims of Christianity. But he is saying that the appearance of Obama’s fortuitous, late-in-life conversion to Christianity (about the time he was considering entering politics), makes that claim subject to a higher degree of scrutiny than Thompson’s.
And the further fact that his background including Islam (as opposed to Mormonism or Hindu or Taoism), makes the claim somewhat more dubious.
Right?
For what it’s worth, though I think I understand JasonK’s point, I don’t agree that the difference between Thompson’s claims and Obama’s claims are that big of a deal and that instead we aught to just judge their actions as the best indicator of their honesty.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I’ve never thought it was difficult to understand. I did find the logic tacking it primarily to Obama to be specious. Still do, frankly.
By jasonk on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Jeff, thank you. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. What makes Thompson’s claim to faith different than Obama’s is that if Thompson is just pandering to get votes, then the worst case scenario is that he is a carnal believer, or even an unbeliever, maybe like Thomas Jefferson was not a traditional believer, if he was a believer at all. If Obama is pandering, and truly believes the ideals of the Islamic faith, there is much more at stake, since we are at war with 240 million Muslims world wide.
Scott, my logic is not meant to be deceptive, and I’m sorry you feel that it is. And, frankly, I’m a little offended that you think that. I realize that you hold to a philosophy of non-violence, and even though I don’t agree with your views, I respect you just the same. I don’t see your views as deceptive. I happen to believe that if a candidate has a name and heritage that he seems to be trying to keep silent (how many Americans really know what his name is?), then he is being less than forthright with the people, and I wouldn’t vote for him because of that. There is nothing “specious” about that.
By Scott on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Jason, sorry if you misread my use of the word “specious.” I in no way meant to imply that you were being deceptive. I was using it more in the sense of having the appearance of being right but not.
Sorry about the miscommunication.
By Belinda on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
interesting and informative comments . . .
By jasonk on Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Not a problem Scott. Thanks for clarifying, my friend.
By Dan on Mar 31, 2007 | Reply
This thread is really screwing with my “separation of church and state” thought process. I need an aspirin.
By Phil Hoover-Chicago on Apr 2, 2007 | Reply
I like Senator Obama. I voted for him two years ago, and I’m glad I did.
However his affiliation with the Trinity United Church of Christ (www.tucc.org) here in Chicago bothers me tremendously, for reasons obvious when you read their website.