Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
Well you're talking about substance over style and I'm assuming you haven't read the books? The first was written before he was elected for political office and about his life, his struggles to find his identity. It's not really political or "inspirational" other than it is his life up through his work as an organizer in Chicago. The second is actually presents his political perspective and what he'd like to see for the government and the country. It's not just high level talk about change and hope, it's also detail oriented. Don't brush off the books just because of their titles or your assumptions about them.
If all you do is watch the headline news, you don't see the substance because the media (whether CNN or FOX) doesn't really care. The political question/answer shows are better because at least there people are forced to answer, or to make and obvious dodge. But if you listen to actual speeches, read opinion articles from all perspectives, etc. you can see the substance.
|
I have watched him and read him and about him in action and his great gifts seems to be rhetorical rather than substantial to me. You can see and experience the charisma, wit, and underlying intelligence certainly when you see him in action, but I don't see an accumulation of deeply held beliefs I could expect him to act on. [ETA: or maybe I should say deeply held beliefs that I think can possibly hold up in the face of the reality he will have to deal with if elected. What he says about foreign policy is an example. It's not that I doubt he believes what he's saying today, but I think reality is going to be a slap in the face and I don't know what he will actually be able to do.]
But even if I came to an understanding of what motivated his beliefs after reading the books and I felt like he had a lot of substance, I'd still have to reconcile my impression with the candidate in the race, and I'm not sure it would come off favorably.
The whole church thing from beginning to end is just [another but different] kind of a case in point.
What are we to conclude about what Obama believes about Wright or Trinity? Why isn't a reasonable conclusion that he participated and aligned himself with the church as long as he benefited politically from that relationship but jettisoned that relationship when it was no longer beneficial? How do you reconcile that with having real substance or with the content of the speech he made shortly after the Wright thing first blew up?
Hybrid Mode
