None of them are say, on the level of Crystal Magnum, of which whom is noted that many white conservative women would probably put Michelle Obama.

And I don’t care about what the left does, at least not on this blog, which is supposed to be one where sanctified so-called believers frequent.

If you’re not sanctified, then have at it on this venue, JB.

Let a “black” come up in here saying things about Cindy McCain or Laura Bush and we’ll see what happens very quickly.

now you got me smilin’.

I am ever amazed by those who presume to dictate appropriate speech venues for others.

While the left found it desirable/fun/acceptable to trash the Bush twins, Obama’s America disparaging wisest-person-in-his-life-advisor wife is said to be off-limits…

Only in an upside-down world….

Hoo hah! Rick Warren asked Obama (and McCain) at the Saddlebrook event:

Who are the three wisest people you know in your life, and who are you going to rely on heavily in your administration?

Obama named Michelle as one of the three. As one of three the wisest people he will rely upon heavily in this administration, it is hard to say that Michelle should get a pass.

“This is the day which the LORD has made; Let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Not a sentiment I have instantly connected with Michelle. You may have some disdain for my person for thinking that Michelle is a “sour” personality, but she hasn’t blown much sunshine around.

“Obama can not afford to be specific, because McCain would “attack” the details:”

I’m not sure McCain would, but if Senator Obama did specify details, it would be certainly open him up to more legit scrutiny than talking about his “sour” wife.

I had written a response to the “sour” sentiment, but I’m not even going there with you all any more.

Using your example applied to some of Obama’s answers to various questions, it would sound like that paragraph you wrote, but be coupled with the laughter of children continuing to play way past bedtime.

On nuance…Over the last week, I have heard the MSM swooning over Obama’s nuance. In academia, it is popular to equate nuance with intelligence AND to declare that liberals are nuanced; thus liberals are enamored of their intelligence while conservatives are morons.

Truly, this strikes me as ludicrous. As I noted above, anyone involved in any type of relationship “does nuance” all day long, but at the end of the day, the toddler has to go to bed.

To grossly simplify, a parent makes a decision to put a child to bed. However, it is foolish and facile to assume that the decision lacks nuance.
Having raised five kids, I considered many elements before I sent the kids packing to the Land of Nod:

kids need sleep
kids function better when rested
Variation in routine is stimulating and can be fun
I knew the kids would feel bad the next day if
they stayed up too late
the activity they were engaged in could be picked
up the next day or was not particularly
worthwhile [if this was not the case, I
would make an exception]
schedules provide an element of predictability
and security
I valued time with my husband
etc. etc. etc.

In other words, even a simple decision about bedtimes was not always so simple and involved lots of nuance.

However, I did not feel a need to go through the entire litany of nuance with the kids every night so that I could convince them that I felt their pain. My actions as a mother told them more than facile words ever could.

And, at the end of the day, toddlers have to go to bed.

The human brain goes through unfathomable data before a decision is made. To me, what we think of as nuance is often little more than verbalizing the same data that others have chugged through mentally.

I often wonder if “nuanced” folks who feel the need to tell every thing that went into their decision simply lack the courage to stand by decisions that are often tough.

Your list in #39 draws a huge “ditto” from me. It is a thoughtful compilation of what makes my head shake in shame for this man. I say “shame” because he has the nuanced guile of the demagogue. He knows how to tap into with the weakness and bias of a segment of society.

If he has solutions, he certainly keeps them tucked away. (Remember John Klutz Kerry who wouldn’t tell his great plans until after he was sworn in?)

Obama can not afford to be specific, because McCain would “attack” the details. However, Obama seems to have no compunctions about righteously “attacking” the details of McCain’s ideas.

When Deng Xio Peng unleashed the forces of capitalism on China, he said: “I don’t care if the cat is black or white as long as he catches mice.”

Well, I don’t care if the Obama cat calls himself black, white, mixed or perfect, I want to see real presidential timber.

There is no chance that if Obama were a while Irish O’bama that he would have gotten anywhere near this race or the Senate or the Illinois senate or the affirmative action scholarships to elite schools.

He is glib, but he is dull. Not dull witted, perhaps, but dulled by a meteoric rise that happened because of his race, not despite it.

Now he has to prove what he is made of and what he can do for all America. His sour wife, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and his Moveon.org and Soros ties are not assets. I could be persuaded to overlook them, perhaps, but not by pretending some strange equivalency between Obama and Jefferson and Lincoln.

My comments were light years from vilifying Obama and were more in the vein of pointing out disturbing elements. Second, no one has suggested anything as silly as discounting/vilifying a candidate over one character flaw. We are doing nuance here and looking at patterns.

Was Wright really the devil?[question by Chris]
No, Wright is simply a man consumed by hatred who passed malignant views onto his flock.

Obama lived in Chicago. It has a reputation for corruption, but many Americans find a way to live decent lives there. [comment by Chris]

We are only looking at one American…Obama.

I might agree that Obama played the race card … But he didn’t vigorously use it.[comment by Chris]

So, using the race card at multiple campaign stops and smearing another candidate with inferences of racism, one of the most malignant charges today, is ok as long as Obama doesn’t do it vigorously [whatever that means]???

Is it out of defense because there are some people in McCain’s campaign that criticized him not looking like he fits in with the rest of Americans? Both Clinton and McCain, I believe, have used this tactic against him)..[comment by Chris]

No, they didn’t. The only one who has inserted race into this campaign is Obama.

Of course given Obama’s obvious lack of concern for “the least of my brothers” why does it not surprise me that he has a half brother George Obama living in a hut in Nairobi, Kenya…

I don’t remember being promised that the Republicans would, “outlaw gays from the country or create a real sustainable Faith group within the Executive branch.” I DO remember being promised strict constructionist SCOTUS judges. Check. I remember being promised equal treatment of religious and secular charities when it comes to Federal funding. Check. I remember being promised a Federal effort to reign in activist state judges wanting to impose gay marriage. Uhh…half a check.

I’m curious what promises you’re talking about.

I agree that if he meant it in all of those ways as you said then he definitely does not hold up to the average amount of money given (and is much lower than the average). I guess (because I am not academically judging here) that his views coincide with the philosophy that the individual can not affect mass change that is needed but which the government can achieve. Of course, this is all based on the idea of whether he thinks the poor is the responsibility of the society or of no one but themselves. I think he thinks it is the responsibility of the government (and thus our money) to do something about it. But don’t worry about him doing about it…I have worked within politics for some time and I know that most of these political talking points are mostly just personal philosophies that have no bearing on what is going to actually happen in America; republicans promised evangelicals all sorts of promises for over 7 years in just about all the branches and they have delivered about none of them. As if Republicans were going to somehow outlaw gays from the country or create a real sustainable Faith group within the Executive branch. I call it “feeding the people.” Every political party does it.

Jb,

I thought Obama meant his bill when he said his committee.

Also, I have heard this argument that his associations have been poorly kept. However, I can’t help the idea that people keep awful associations around the world every day, but that alone doesn’t make them bad people. Maybe the idea that he can be close to them while not being too close is a good idea? For instance, we all know that Abe Lincoln was a great president, but he thought that blacks and whites couldn’t live together. Or that Jefferson was a brilliant man to live with but the man was a huge hypocrite as well? Do we discount and villify the man just for that? Were Isaac Newton’s scientific laws and experiments tainted by his writings on Christianity which he spent more time on than his scientific studies? Obama spent twenty years with Wright, but was Wright all bad? Was Wright really the devil? Is it odd that half the things he was saying was batshit crazy and the other half true?

Obama lived in Chicago. It has a reputation for corruption, but many Americans find a way to live decent lives there.

I might agree that Obama played the race card when he said that he doesn’t “look” like the presidents on the dollar bills (if look was the verb here). He can be pretty guilty of that one episode. But he didn’t vigorously use it. It has been my reaction that, unfortunately for Obama, he is a walking race card. Hate to say it but every pundit on TV agreed that it only hurts Obama when some type of race card is played. Therefore, why would Obama “play” it? Is it out of defense because there are some people in McCain’s campaign that criticized him not looking like he fits in with the rest of Americans? There is, at least, some truth to that (Both Clinton and McCain, I believe, have used this tactic against him).

Ditto!

To be honest, my concerns about BO go beyond his errant policy. At first blush, BO appears charming and earnest. His voice has a lovely cadence, his children are exquisite, and he has overcome a number of obstacles in his life. He has achieved some lofty pinnacles worth admiring; editor of Harvard Law Review, author of two books, etc..

I want to like this guy.

Unfortunately, there are disturbing elements to the pretty picture he paints that go beyond his errant policy positions.

Off the top of my head:

– He is so nuanced that he cannot even agree to protect the life of an already born infant.

– He calls pro-lifers liars while lying through his teeth about his votes on infanticide.

– His lies often show a degree of hubris that is dismaying. A great example is lying about “his” committee.

– He handles criticism very poorly; he can dish it [and dishes far more viciously than he admits] but he can’t take it.

– He shows a persistent pattern of poor judgment in his associations and then is dishonest about those associations.

– His oh so nuanced positions often seem to be little more than wanting-to-have-his-cake-and-eat-it-too. Anyone who is a parent, spouse, employee, or neighbor does “nuance” all day long, but at the end of the day, the toddler has to go to bed.

– He has used the race/patriotism card against an opponent who did not merit the pre-emptive strikes.

– Even for a politician, he exudes narcissism.

– Chicago…machine politics…getting opponents knocked off of ballots…yadayadayada

And then there is that BIG government thing….

To your comment in #26. I agree that charity comes in many forms. I don’t imagine Obama’s taxes show however many hours he has volunteered.

But the issue is that Obama’s rhetoric has more than suggested that “The Rich” (i.e. people making more than $250,000/yr.) are not paying their “fare share” in taxes, and their wealth must essentially be redistributed in order for America to be redeemed from its moral failures. He has said all this while not holding himself (someone others would consider rich) even to the standard of matching the average household charitable contribution.

Personally speaking, I started my life as a “grown-up” saddled with about $90K in college debt, a young daughter, and an immigrant wife who had to wait for work authorization for a long time(so no help on income). But I made it a priority to give no less than 10% of my gross income to my church, and whatever I could to various local charities. Now that I own a small business, I try to give about 20%.

So perhaps I take Obama’s criticism of America too personally. But I find it two parts laughable and one part maddening that he would deign to criticise us all for our lack of charitable compassion when he wasn’t even matching the gifts from people making 1/3 as much as him and his wife until he started eyeing national office.