Um, you haven't read his book, have you? The first one, titled "Dreams from my Father", describes in detail how he was referred to Rev. Wright's church and what it meant to him, and described his transition from being Christian only in name to acquiring a belief system. The second one, "The Audacity of Hope", was named after the name of the first sermon he heard at Rev Wright's church and discusses the progression of his thinking and approach to government and belief.
Are these books written just because he felt the urge to write multiple autobiographies by the age of 47 or because he might have had some political objectives (such as improving his electability) in mind when he wrote them?
It's hardly a far fetched idea that politicians tend to write autobiographical works only for the sake of building the kind of public persona that they can sell to the public at election day.
He may be accused of a lot of things, but lack of full disclosure CAN NOT be one of them.
Only if publication of some hollow and lousy excuses qualifies as full disclosure. At some point he was comparing the public comments of his pastor to the comments that his white grandmother allegedly made in private. Quite a lousy excuse, I would say.
His entire life is, quite literally, an open book available for all to read.
You are making the rather bold assumption that he is being honest. To me it's like believing that a commercial you have seen on TV-shop is full disclosure. Politicians are in general are not very honest, especially when they are campaigning. I don't think that what they say on the campaign trail or write in their autobiographies should be taken very seriously.
IMO, the best way to judge a politician is by their their associations and their past decisions and votes, which I think places Obama firmly in the radical camp.
My perception of him is that he is the kind of "pragmatic" politician who says (and even writes an autobiography or two) what's necessary to get elected. He knows very well that if he starts to honestly tell the public how much he agrees with Wright, then his electability goes down to zero. IIRC, even his former pastor noted that he is just saying what's necessary to get elected.
If Obama gets elected, then it will be very interesting to see to which degree he will act out on his radical beliefs. Especially interesting is what kind of judges he will appoint, since that is one of the few things that might reveal a president's true beliefs, especially if his party get a filibuster proof majority in the senate. My conjecture is that if he gets a chance to nominate someone to SCOTUS, then that person will have a belief system that is rather similar to his former pastor and church.
Obama is the type of person who can freely discuss ideas with a great variety of people without adopting them.
Why is this? Is it only because liberals are never found guilty by the media elite because of an association?
Are Obama also engaging in discussions with the extreme right or is it with the left side only?
Can a white republican freely discuss with white racialists without being tarnished by these associations? Just as a friendly exchange of ideas between people of very different beliefs?
He especially values differing opinions, which I like as something that will help prevent any "failures of imagination" in his administration.
He seemed to have a quite sensitive skin when Don Imus said something "incendiary".
Rev. Wright to him was a focal point for many disparate beliefs and influences, and despite some incendiary language helped him see many issues more clearly.
What incendiary language? To me Wright's language seemed to be completely in line with the church's BLT teachings. The church has also had at least ano
Slashdot Mirror
Um, you haven't read his book, have you? The first one, titled "Dreams from my Father", describes in detail how he was referred to Rev. Wright's church and what it meant to him, and described his transition from being Christian only in name to acquiring a belief system. The second one, "The Audacity of Hope", was named after the name of the first sermon he heard at Rev Wright's church and discusses the progression of his thinking and approach to government and belief.
Are these books written just because he felt the urge to write multiple autobiographies by the age of 47 or because he might have had some political objectives (such as improving his electability) in mind when he wrote them?
It's hardly a far fetched idea that politicians tend to write autobiographical works only for the sake of building the kind of public persona that they can sell to the public at election day.
He may be accused of a lot of things, but lack of full disclosure CAN NOT be one of them.
Only if publication of some hollow and lousy excuses qualifies as full disclosure. At some point he was comparing the public comments of his pastor to the comments that his white grandmother allegedly made in private. Quite a lousy excuse, I would say.
His entire life is, quite literally, an open book available for all to read.
You are making the rather bold assumption that he is being honest. To me it's like believing that a commercial you have seen on TV-shop is full disclosure. Politicians are in general are not very honest, especially when they are campaigning. I don't think that what they say on the campaign trail or write in their autobiographies should be taken very seriously.
IMO, the best way to judge a politician is by their their associations and their past decisions and votes, which I think places Obama firmly in the radical camp.
My perception of him is that he is the kind of "pragmatic" politician who says (and even writes an autobiography or two) what's necessary to get elected. He knows very well that if he starts to honestly tell the public how much he agrees with Wright, then his electability goes down to zero. IIRC, even his former pastor noted that he is just saying what's necessary to get elected.
If Obama gets elected, then it will be very interesting to see to which degree he will act out on his radical beliefs. Especially interesting is what kind of judges he will appoint, since that is one of the few things that might reveal a president's true beliefs, especially if his party get a filibuster proof majority in the senate. My conjecture is that if he gets a chance to nominate someone to SCOTUS, then that person will have a belief system that is rather similar to his former pastor and church.
Obama is the type of person who can freely discuss ideas with a great variety of people without adopting them.
Why is this? Is it only because liberals are never found guilty by the media elite because of an association?
Are Obama also engaging in discussions with the extreme right or is it with the left side only?
Can a white republican freely discuss with white racialists without being tarnished by these associations? Just as a friendly exchange of ideas between people of very different beliefs?
He especially values differing opinions, which I like as something that will help prevent any "failures of imagination" in his administration.
He seemed to have a quite sensitive skin when Don Imus said something "incendiary".
Rev. Wright to him was a focal point for many disparate beliefs and influences, and despite some incendiary language helped him see many issues more clearly.
What incendiary language? To me Wright's language seemed to be completely in line with the church's BLT teachings. The church has also had at least ano