It sounds like this conversation is winding down.

I agree that we should look at policy proposals, but I also think it’s important to look at character and judgment because there are so many decisions which a president will have to make which have nothing to do with the policy issues being discussed on the campaign trail. I wasn’t discussing specific policies, rather I was questioning his character. And that is not an ad hominem attack; it is legitimate to desire our leaders to be men (or women) of good character because they have such important decisions to make. I don’t know what you think character is, but I think it’s a persons moral qualities which are founded on and developed by the free choices he has made in the past, and as such is an indispensable aspect of decision making.

Yes we cannot know exactly what Obama thinks about anything, but we ought to learn from his deeds and words and make the best judgment possible. Why Obama drove his family a long way to sit in that church every week for years and years is inexplicable to me, especially when Obama has been so explicit in his disagreement with Wright. There are too many signs that reveal what he really thinks about it. Take for instance his ‘bitter’ comment. It’s the classic Marxist sentiment that religion is the opiate of the masses. Again, this is not about religion per se, but rather about Obama’s character. The contrast between Obama’s and McCain’s religious actions could not be starker; compare McCain’s religious activities while he was a POW to Obama’s choosing of his church.

Of course McCain also knows how to use the political levers, as the New York Times article shows, but he doesn’t pretend to be something he’s not, and furthermore he sticks to his principles and judgment. That article shows that he would be much better at uniting the two parties than Obama, although Obama would like you believe that he’s done nothing but work with republicans. My last post was about Obama’s character, not his policy. That being said, I also disagree with most of Obama’s policies, but not all (cf. David Brook’s most recent piece).

To answer your question, yes, “Pork Invaders” is the better I’m looking for!

If we selected our presidents based on their sense of humor, McCain would probably win this one in a rout. By all outside appearances, Obama is a pretty serious guy, one who not is given to joking and spontaneous banter. And yes, many of his supporters could stand to lighten up a bit. Still, the video about the Obama media bias was simply not funny, regardless of the merit of the claim. I’m not a McCain fan, but I do know that he can do better.

I think you missed the point of both my post and the McCain website. It is not bitterness at all. It is a sense of humor (something Obama and Co. are sorely lacking). For more evidence of a sense of humor, check out this foray into fun of days of yore:

http://wheatandweeds.blogspot.com/2008/07/heh.html

Jared

This video convinced me of one thing: John McCain needs me. To run his campaign. For some reason, the political veterans he’s got on his squad are failing miserably, and I’m officially offering my services. I’m no Dick Morris or Karl Rove, but I think I can do a better job than whoever gave the green light to this video—which simply reveals the McCain team’s bitterness about the popularity of their opponent.

Ok, on to the actual accusation—that the media hearts Obama as much as Germany does. Partially true, at least it was for much of the Democratic primary. But I sense that the media is falling back into its usual routine: cynicism and a desire to cover a flap, flip-flop or scandal, be it mini or mega, Obama- or McCain-related. Loving a new story, it seems the media is picking up on the meme that Obama is an arrogant guy who thinks he has the presidency in the bag.

Anyway, the accusation of media bias is a little funny coming from McCain, who has enjoyed **decades** of fawning coverage. Now, seeing a rival in Obama, McCain has decided to denigrate the very people who have boosted him all these years, the same press that has anointed him (falsely) as a ‘maverick.’ That’s a really bad idea, and that’s why I’m offering my services.

And what about passing out luggage tags that read “JV Squad” to the people covering your campaign? What is that all about?

This video shows that the McCain campaign is desperately reaching into the old and dusty bag of Rovian tricks. Accusations of bias intended to work the referees? These guys need to get some new moves.

What’s more, this kind of whining goes directly against the brand that McCain has slaved to cultivate over the years.

http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm

I think it’s hard—if not impossible—to judge the sincerity of any public figure’s religious beliefs. It may be easy to be cynical of Obama’s religious convictions, but let’s not judge him on that issue—how can we know?—let’s evaluate his ideas and proposals, and analyze how they fit the current problems we face as a country. I truly think that’s the best we can do from our distance as voters.

The New Yorker profile shows that Obama is an incredibly political person. John McCain is similarly political and calculating. (Check out this story in the Times.) Nick’s contention—that Obama is worse because he pretends to be above politics—seems valid but ignores McCain’s contradictions and ill judgment (hey, we’re going to be forced to choose this November, so it’s important to compare the two), and also ignores the nature of the quest for the presidency itself. For better or worse, we’ve created a situation where it is impossible to become a candidate for president without being a bit of a Eddie Haskell or Tracy Flick. I’m not embracing that fact, but if we’re going to judge candidates for being political and opportunistic, then we’re going to be disappointed with all of our choices.

To the extent that I can judge Obama’s character through his resume, writings, legislative record, speeches and debate appearances, I believe Obama is a good person with good judgment. I may ultimately be wrong, but I haven’t observed anything that has told me otherwise. I don’t think he’s perfect—nor the messiah—but I’m prepared to vote for him based primarily on his proposals, which I believe stand a better chance of success than McCain’s. I like Obama’s ideas. However, I also understand our political system enough to know that positive change will come in small increments over a long period of time, not in his waving of a wand.

I wrote some comments yesterday in direct response to Jeb’s post, but after your irenic exchange, they do not seem to fit as well. So, I have modified the comments a bit. They still address Jeb’s comments directly, while, I think, disagreeing somewhat with Nick’s most recent post.

Every campaign engages in rhetoric and, many, if not all, campaigns engage in rhetoric beyond what they can deliver. Still, a few distinctions are in order. First, there is a big difference between Bush claiming to be a “compassionate conservative” and Obama claiming that his primary victory reversed the tides, healed the planet, and ended war. Bush can, in fact, live up to his compassionate conservative title. Some think he has fallen radically short (starting wars, Guantanamo, etc.) and some think he has lived up to it all too well (his domestic spending is very high; his support of life issues, etc.). Obama, no matter what happens, cannot claim any primary night responsibility for the sea, the planet, or war. Obama’s claims here are not even partially tethered to reality.

Second, lofty rhetoric usually has to do with principles, what a person stands for. There are, generally speaking, a limited number of principles that politicians employ, though they have their emphases and these emphases are telling. What each man emphasizes tells us much about how he organizes his thoughts and priorities, what he holds dear. So, for example, Bush speaks a lot about freedom and democracy; McCain understands many things in terms of honor; Obama speaks of hope and change. These terms are not terribly groundbreaking political rhetoric in themselves, but each of these men breathes new life into these concepts based on who he is, what he believes, and how he organizes other principles beneath these primary ones.

But here is the rub: Obama’s rhetoric is often not about principles, but about himself and about how things will be radically different when he is in office. Often enough, he is the principle, he is the emphasis. He is the change we can believe in. I don’t think this argument is erudite-sounding but disingenous. I think it is a sound conclusion based on Obama’s speeches and deeds. I don’t think that the Obama craze is limited, as you suggested, to starry-eyed college kids. It includes fellow politicians, religious leaders of many faiths, celebrities, and the news media. I once again refer you to the rather humorous website http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/. It has real quotes from real people, including many kooks, but also people that are generally considered sane citizens of our republic.

But even if we leave this argument aside for a moment, we could argue that hope and change are rather nebulous, if not dubious, principles. Change smacks of a Heracleitan flux (what is the principle of change? change from what to what?) while hope is a liberation theological virtue stipped of its transcendant content. This is worth considering further; maybe in another thread.

But, in truth, it is Obama’s deeds that most concern me. First, that there are so few of them. Second, that they have not done much to “reduce partisan acrimony.” As has been pointed out many times in the news, Obama has the most liberal (progressive) voting record in the senate. A very clear example of this is his unyielding, uncompromising stance on abortion issues, especially such non-controversial issues like the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (even NARAL supported the Act). Or, his opposition to John Roberts who had wide bi-partisan support. Despite his rhetoric, Obama has done little or nothing to reduce partisan acrimony (John McCain, on the other hand…).

Now, you say good leaders should inspire and be diligent. True enough, but most dictators have these qualities as well. What good leaders need in addition to inspiration and diligence is prudence, first and foremost. And they can only have this if they have some sense of virtue. I honestly believe that Obama has a decent heart and wants to do the right thing, but I also think that he sorely lacks prudence and does not know what the right thing is. We could point to any number of things, including his voting record, his response to the recent judicial activism in California, his post-primary shifts of opinion, his original claims about the surge, his membership in Trinity for twenty years, his friendship will Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Michael Pfleger, Tony Reszko, etc, his comments on the Constitution, etc. It seems to me that Obama is not a man of prudent judgment who could lead a nation, but talented man of political expediency who discerns well which way the wind is blowing.

Jared