The American Mind

Yeah, keep trying to play “gotcha,” Sean.

How any of that contradicts that he opposed the war from the start escapes me, but whatever. Keep getting confused by a politician that actually embraces nuance; i know that’s new terrain for you.

I think you’re missing the point, DJ. Yes Obama was against the war at the start, but later changed his mind and was for it for a while and now is against it again. His statement, that he is more qualified to end it based on his opinion at the beginning that has changed twice now vs. Clinton who was for and now against, is just silly.

There’s a big difference between questioning your views based on new information (which, hell, *i’ve* even found myself doing once in a while) and changing a public position because it’s politically convenient, like Hillary did.

At the end of the day, i’ll still trust someone who said “this war is stupid” from the outset over someone who said “oh god i don’t want to appear soft on terror invade whatever you want!”

Basically, i can sum up Sean’s entire approach to Obama’s campaign based on his blog entries:

1) Sean feels that Obama’s primary appeal is that he represents a change from “politics as usual,” that he comes across as more genuine than any other politician. This is a fair assessment. (Never mind that his policies are sound as well, but since criticizing them would simply amount to just another conservative criticizing liberal policies, there’s really no traction to be gained there, no way the Sean can make headway with liberals who are behind Obama.)

2) Thus, Sean feels compelled to search for any “gotcha” moment of apparent contradiction, no matter how much of a stretch, in order to try to instill doubt of Obama’s sincerity in the minds of his supporters.

But here’s the problem with that. Sean seems to believe that he can simply juxtapose bites of Obama quotes that apparently sound contradictory and paint him as “just another politician.” But unfortunately for him, most of Obama’s supporters are smart enough to know that taking quotes out of context is a common blog trick on both sides. Whenever someone reads the entirety of an Obama position, speech, article, what have you, everything he believes and has said is consistent with who he is as a person. His Philly speech is a perfect example of this–his critics continue to cherry-pick quotes from the speech that they think they can use against him, but anyone who sits and actually digests the entire 37-minute speech knows that Obama addresses any potential criticisms or apparent contradictions right there in the speech itself!

Obama’s critics can only chip away at his character by hoping that people don’t have the attention span to keep an open mind, actually listen to what he says, and take everything he says in the greater context of who he is as a person. Obama’s critics are counting on the laziness of the typical American voter to be able to paint him as “just another politician.”

Hey, i’m as jaded as the next well-read voter, but there has been nothing presented to me to convince me that Obama’s not the most frank, honest, and transparent candidate we’ve seen in years. Posts like this one just serve to present him the way he presents himself: as a human being who sometimes has doubts but overall is sure of himself and the direction he wants to take the country in. He’s not being contradictory–he’s being honest.

Yes Obama was against the war at the start, but later changed his mind and was for it for a while and now is against it again.

I don’t see where Obama ever said he was “for the war”, Matt. Can you point it out, please?

Chet read the post.

Obama told ‘The Chicago Tribune,’ ‘There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage,’

Was Bush position against the war at that time? :p

I don’t have a problem with Obama changing his mind based on new information and evidence. For him to claim that his change of mind is based on changing/new information and Clinton’s is only based on political gain is rather presumptive. And also saying He’s been against it from the start implies he has always been against it, which Sean points out is not necessarily true.

Chet read the post.

I’m reading it. Where did Obama say he was for the war? Be specific.

Obama told ‘The Chicago Tribune,’ ‘There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage,’

Oh, you mean, the position where it doesn’t matter why we went to war, only that we’re there, and we have to do what it takes to restore stability to the region so we can leave?

Since, you know, that was Bush’s stated position at the time. Is that “for the war”? I don’t see how it could be.

And also saying He’s been against it from the start implies he has always been against it, which Sean points out is not necessarily true.

It’s only “not true” if you twist his statements in a completely ridiculous way, like you did.