It find it extremely funny, though, that O’H’s own style is so deplorable. While he calls Obama glib, his own critique is the essence of glibness and a classic case of sleaze winning out pver semse. English teachers would have to work overtime to make his run-on sentences presentable. Some of his coinages, like “wretchedly wrongheaded’” come close to giving readers lockjaw, were they to be reading outloud.

Whatever political points he was trying to score could only resonate among the already converted. His choce to make political statements via a critique of literatey style only gives grounds for a good laugh.

More seriously, it lowers, once again, the bar for the tone of political debate.

As to my remarks about the young, naive crowd, they are correct.

Well, it’s a step up from calling them evil I guess. But it would be nice to just disagree without tossing out personal attacks.

You’re incorrect, Lynx. He has a nice smile and cutesy looks, and talks real nice, so the idealistic crowd adores him. As a black he gets an extra dose of shielding from media criticism (the media are remarkably hands-off toward him, not critical of him).

As to my remarks about the young, naive crowd, they are correct.

I think what Obama brings that is new (or at least not at all common these days) is the ability to believe something without believing someone else is evil or stupid for believing something else.

I absolutely agree with you here, 110%. The main reason that we can’t talk to each other is because instead of just believing that the “other side” is wrong, we’ve come to believe that they have evil intent.

As far as Obama getting heat from conservatives for being “empty”, I think what a lot of people are saying is that the rhetoric that he uses appeals to people on an emotional level and there is always some inherent danger in that if it’s not also backed with solid intellectual ideas that one agrees with. That charge may or may not stick with Obama, but there is some reason to view him that way due to his inexperience and the fact that what we know so far about his actual policy views do tend to be further left then one might think from listening to his rhetoric. I think that people on each side are always fearful of the extremist wolf from the other side dressed up in moderate sheep clothing. Some conservatives see Obama this way; I honestly don’t know if there’s any validity there.

This country is in some ways a family, and no family can function when one half refuses to talk to the other half. We need a real uniter this time. That’s a reason I don’t like Hillary even though I might agree with many of her stated (though I can’t help but sense not felt) policy views are similar to mine. I understand disagreeing with his views on policy (as SD does) if you’re a conservative, what I don’t see so clearly is why he gets heat for being “emtpy” since he’s not, or for using rhetoric, which he does as much as any other candidate. I’d love the campaign to be nitty gritty policy discussions all the time, but then only we political junkies would ever vote LOL.

But that is not because “government” is less effective than “private enterprise.” In wealthy suburbs the public schools are usually very good. The difference is not who runs the schools, but who attends them. Poor children with poorly educated parents do badly in school no matter who is teaching them. Wealthy children with highly educated parents always do well. Differences in schools are only reflections of broader social and economic differences. The “failure” of many schools only reflects the simple fact that millions of Americans feel utterly alienated from the society as a whole and are convinced that the rewards they can expect from buckling down in school are not worth the cost of giving up identities (streetwise urban black, gang member, Sioux) that they value. Experiments with allowing private groups to run public schools have not generated any improvement in school outcomes.

So if the goal is to “improve our failing schools,” the question becomes, what kind of school system will do the most to break down social and class barriers in America and more fully integrate poor outsiders into the mainstream? Many Republicans think the answer is either religious schools that back their instruction with firm moral guidance or a “free enterprise” system in which schools have to compete and only that succeed survive. Possibly. But if you look at the history of the world over the past 200 years, you see that the building of modern, democratic, reasonably egalitarian societies has always gone together with the expansion of public education. The best educated societies in the world are those that put the most emphasis on public schools.

Virtually all politicians ever demonstrate personal leadership. One of the differences is that many on the right do not believe that the government can ever provide adequate services and at least offer some policy proposals to make up the difference such as vouchers.

Yet, Senator Obama takes contributions from teachers unions and school administrators who have agendas that, in many cases, are opposite those of the students in the schools. How can he suport the idea that all children get a decent minimum when he supports the teachers unions and their maximum employment policies that make schools less functional and more dangerous.

I believe that if Senator Obama’s own children were in public schools he would support different policies and proposals than he does when his own children are unaffected.

These are political realities. There is no senator in the United States that lives like the citizens they represent. Not a one. The absolute best we can hope for is a politician that, while making sure his or her kids get the best (and face it, we all would) tries to see to it that the children of those that don’t have their means get a decent minimum.

I actually have three themes about Obama.

First, that he is really nothing more than Dick Durbin in black face. When looking at his website his positions do not differ in any meainingful way from what Dick Durbin would support.

Second, I believe that Obama will be the next President because most of the media in the U.S. does not feel comfortable criticizing black politicians and espeically if they are leftist blacks. Howard Kurtz was saying the same thing on Washington Post Radio yesterday. Look at the difference between how Don Imus was treated after insulting black women versus Al Sharpton after insulting mormons.

Third, if you look at Senator Obama’s personal actions they differ from his stated political beliefs. Senator Obama talks about a massive expansion of the federal government why not trusting the government to educated his children. I do not believe any politician should be allowed to be so hypocritical. If the government is really capable of providing quality services then why aren’t Senator Obama children in public schools instead of an elite private prep school?

Every single politician.

Ask any presidential candidate today and they’ll tell you that their policies are to “make America safer” to “give our children education” and to “give back to working families”. Most politicians avoid making specific policy statements. At least Obama has CLEARLY stated that he will begin withdrawl from Iraq almost inmediatly if he is elected. That’s more than almost any other candidate has said. You can agree or disagree as to whether it’s the RIGHT decision, but at least he’s not waffling on it.

True, his strength is rhetoric, “hope”, the wish for unity, and he knows it. I’ve yet to see any real animosity towards him even from hardcore conservatives. DLS and superdestroyer complain that he doesn’t have anything but being black, which I find personally offensive, since it accuses me of racism because I support him, but I didn’t get the impression that they had anything against Obama personally (save the usual very moderate complaints about how being lefty makes you stupid etc.). As I see it, he’s no less specific about his policies as any other candidate, he just gets attacked more for it.