My Problem With Obama.

It's the same as Jonathan Rauch's (thanks to Elyas for figuring that out).  He puts himself on the couch for "Obama Resistance Complex . . . Barack blockage,"  a condition shared by those of us who (unlike those who are overjoyed to be handed good reasons to hate him) would like to be enthusiastic about Obama but can't bulls**t ourselves, or willingly be b*llshat.

Comments

[Elyas]

One thing I don't understand about Obama Resistance Complex: Why are the only options enthusiasm and complete rejection? I can understand not buying completely into his promise for a new kind of politics, but a lot of people like Rauch rarely say why McCain or Clinton would be any better.

The burden is placed on Obama to convince us he's ready--which isn't a bad thing--but Clinton and McCain don't seem to have that same burden. They have become default second choices: If after exhaustive research one finds fault in Obama, we just shrug our shoulders and vote for the other option without the same vetting.

So Obama shoots for the stars and only makes it to the roof. Isn't that better than being stuck with a couple of candidates on the first floor?

[amba]

Elyas: who said those were the only two options?? I still haven't decided who to vote for. McCain is under scrutiny for the effects of his age (the opposite problem from Obama's), and Clinton is widely perceived to have too much baggage. If you perceive reservations as complete rejection, then it's you who's setting up the two-stark-alternatives bit by saying "if you're not for him, you're agin' him." I don't know yet. Watch me go back and forth, weighing the evidence.

[Pastor_Jeff]

Good piece. There's really a good part of me that's impressed with Obama and would like him to be true, but the long association with Wright, the use of race when it's convenient, the far left voting pattern, and the way his campaign creates the false dichotomy between Obama and despair all seem to belie the image as a uniter and a transformational candidate.

But for all that, I suspect that is he's elected he won't be a bad President.

[Donna B.]

It's a little easier to vet McCain and Clinton, they've been around and in the spotlight much longer.

I'm still reading Audacity of Hope and I'm still reading position statements on Obama's website.

So far, I've only read a few of the foreign policy statements and the only obvious thing is they are going to be very expensive. I can't find where they are going to do much different than what we're doing now except get out of Iraq.

[realpc]

The problem with McCain is Iraq, and the problem with Obama is his church, and that leaves Clinton who I don't think will be nominated.

Most of us won't really feel like voting. We need a terrific third party candidate, but there won't be one.

Can we talk about Intelligent Design instead, amba? Or drugs in the drinking water -- whatever happened to that story?

[Rod]

I was having the same thought as realpc - political weariness, or perhaps Obama psychoanalysis weariness. At this point the man has been considered from every angle. Even though I am a bit of a political junkie who loves looking at our preferences as reflections of our inner selves, I have had enough - at least for awhile.

[realpc]

I was very interested in politics for a while, especially in the years following the 9/11 attack. I learned a lot and more or less figured out what my political beliefs are. I still might have something to say about it, but I just can't get very interested in popularity contests. I just can't manage to care if Obama is the most charismatic candidate.

I would like it if amba would post something on ID. I have been reading some of the science blogs, such as neurologica, and they're still talking about it (of course they despise ID). They are also, of course, saying a lot about health, most of which I completely disagree with.

I wondered if amba has changed her mind about ID since she has been working as a science editor. I learned one interesting thing at neurologica recently -- organisms can pass along some learned traits to offspring. That's an old, pre-neo-Darwinist theory that was discredited and ridiculed (Lamarckianism), and it agrees very well with Sheldrake's theory.

Sorry, amba, for being so utterly off-topic.

[amba]

As for being a political junkie -- all junkies overdose from time to time and experience nausea. I certainly do. It's the other side of the coin.

I guess the question "to Obama or not to Obama" keeps nagging me like a sore tooth. I'm aware of beating it to death. And you should see the other guy (me).

I've heard McCain gave a good foreign policy speech in which he differentiated himself from Bush. I'll try to find that, but don't know if I'll have the strength to post anything about it.

real, I haven't changed my mind since working for a science magazine, though of course it is a hotbed of Darwinian orthodoxy. The more you learn about the insane intricacy of nature, on the molecular level, the less possible it seems that it could be a purely mindless, mechanical process, either in its genesis or in its functioning. Which is not to make the leap directly to an anthropomorphic God, but to get lost in a morass of awe and bewilderment. I haven't written about it, probably, because I'm overwhelmed -- and also, frankly, a little nervous for my job. Not that I think I'd be fired for my views, such as they are, just that I'd stick out like a sore thumb.

I just posted on the 18th century over at the NH blog, and of course everyone then, as objective science was just really taking off, justified it as a better way to worship God. Study the creation to get closer to the creator.

[realpc]

Amba, I am relieved to hear you are still an IDist. I imagined you being converted by paternalistic scientists, saying things like "Trust us, dear, if you understood biology in as much detail as we do, you would see how perfectly Darwin's beautiful theory fits the known scientific facts."

But I should have know you're too smart to fall for that. Not that scientists aren't smart; they have just been indoctrinated or something.

And I do sympathize with your not wanting to discuss it with scientific co-workers. I have exactly the same problem -- can't talk about anything remotely "new-agey" at work.

Thanks for the link to your Natural History post, will read it soon.

[wj]

I wonder what would happen if we looked at Obama, ignoring the detail that he is a charismatic speaker? Personally, I can't see voting for someone because they are charismatic, or against them because they are not. But by the same token, I can't see voting against someone, just for being charismatic.

And as for Obama's associates (including the pastor of his church)? Well, I have yet to see a politician who isn't associated with some pretty shady characters. Certainly McCain has a few scattered about. (And Clinton has lots and lots.) So that's basically a wash.

That brings me around to looking at Obama or any other candidate on the issues that a) I care about, and b) that I think the President can and should try to do something about. Make up your own list (Iraq, the economy, privacy and spying, trade, etc., etc.), and look at what the candidates on offer say they would like to do.

Nobody will fit all my preferences. (If you find someone who does fit yours, definitely count your blessings!) And even where they do fit, nobody is going to get everything done that they propose. So I weight what they want to do by what they might actually be able to do, and decide who gives me the best mix.

Charisma is a factor only to the extend that it might allow a President to persuade the Congress to do something.

[realpc]

As far as I know (and I have not been paying very careful attention), Obama tends to be a moderate on economic questions. He seems to understand, unlike some liberals, that patching up one thing tends to break another. So he does not want to completely bail out every suffering real estate investor.

If you bought an over-priced house at the peak of a real estate bubble, have only paid off a bit of the interest so far, and are unable to continue paying the mortgage -- well, leave the house and cut your losses. It is not the government's job to make sure everyone owns an expensive house. Especially not using income tax money from people who were thoughtful enough not to buy at obviously inflated prices.

I think I heard that Clinton wants to rush in and rescue everyone.

During the housing bubble I heard lots of people insist that real estate never goes down. But there is something called the law of gravity and it cannot be defied. And this has been learned the hard way over and over throughout the history of capitalism.

I think I heard that Obama wants to help, but in moderation.

And the giant financial companies do not deserve to be bailed out. Didn't any of them ever read a history book?

[Rod]

We are so far off topic that you should probably start a new thread. In truth, ID was exhaustively discussed in my house over the last couple of years. My son, an advocate of evolution with a BS in Computer Science, confronted me with alleged errors of Dembski and Behe and purported explanations for how complicated body parts of various organisms could have arisen from natural selection on a weekly basis. I examined alternative evidence in my (limited) spare time and parried until I finally said, "Stop. Our relationship should not be defined almost entirely by our beliefs about the underlying nature of the cosmos. I'm your dad."

I lean towards an intelligence behind life's complexity, and indeed, a Christian answer, but, like Amba, when I try to infer the nature of the Creator from the world around me, I am "lost in a morass of awe and bewilderment."

[realpc]

Rod,

The point is that we don't know. We each may experience something we call "god" in our own way, but that is unrelated to scientific arguments. I argue against the anti-ID activists because I think they are unscientific and ideological.

And so many young people are getting a college education and becoming like your son. When something is as confusing and incomprehensible as evolution, it's inevitable that people will fill in the gaps in the puzzle and feel they see the truth clearly. This is especially true with "smart," educated people. They seem to have a hard time accepting ignorance, so they make up stories. The neo-Darwinist, chance-and-selection myth is comforting to people who dislike religion and "superstition," and who like to feel they are smarter than average.

But I think it's too bad because when you "know" there is nothing in the world except "matter" (whatever that is!), then you don't look for communication with whatever it is we usually can "god." Religious and spiritual experiences defy reason and you just don't get to have them if you think you know it all.

I hate to think of a large percentage of the newer generations losing interest in, and therefore the ability to experience, anything spiritual, but that is probably what is happening now. "New Age" has become synonymous with "flake," and organized religion is associated with violence, bigotry and intolerance.

I believe scientific materialism is wrong, and will be proven wrong, and I also think it's damaging to the soul. But if I suspected it were correct, then I would not worry about how it might effect the soul. Truth is truth. But scientific materialism is deceptive, it masquerades as science but it's mythological. It's an incredible story of how human intelligence rose up out of mindless chaos. It says that humans are smarter than nature and we (the "smart" ones among us, that is) can therefore understand it completely (some day) and force it to serve us.

[karen]

"New Age" has become synonymous with "flake," and organized religion is associated with violence, bigotry and intolerance."

Geez, real- that's a pretty broad stmt. Bin Laden accuses the Pope of being a terrorist or something and the Pope baptizes a Muslim into the Church and he renames himself "Christian"(off Anchoress). One of these monolithic religions is using peace to build a bridge!! Also, as a Catholic, i use homeopothy on my cows, kids and self- plus i am now going to a chiropractor that uses "bio- something" that is amazing and really works to heal the body. All gifts from above, IMhumbleO.

As for BOBama-- i have been racking my brain over him and who he could be because i really wish i could trust him- a part of me really warms to the guy(& not because he's attractive, 'cause i don't really think he's all that hot).

Anyway, i thought he was uncomfortable w/who he was- in his own skin, confused as to which shade he'd have to be for who. UNTIL i realized(& admit i could be wrong) that he's extremely comfortable as is and uses his chameleon abilities to be whatever to whomever he wishes. It's amazing to watch him turn- adapting so well to all climates smoothly. It's the advantageous capability of a true politician, plus more. It's kinda sneaky to me. I'm offended by that opportunistic streak.

Plus- he's too Lib for me. I'm glad my decision is already made for me. Maybe the Pubs will win.

[Rod]

Karen:
When she spoke of "new age" as flakey and organized religion as associated with violence and bigotry, I understood realpc to be describing the secular point of view of our philosophically materialist age, not her own views.

On the fundamental issues as to the nature and meaning of life itself, our society could do with a little more humility. If the answers were so obvious, we would all believe the same thing.

[karen]

Thanks, Rod. I re-read the comment and now i see what she said.

It's still a harsh and blanketed view, though.

I'm always in awe of the creations of God. And- a little scared @the power it all emits. Life is powerful stuff.

[realpc]

I was saying that as more people become indoctrinated into materialism, negative views about religion and spirituality become more prevalent. Dawkins has become very popular.

I don't agree with Dawkins at all, and yes his view of religion or anything spiritual is very harsh. He thinks this world would be heaven if he could just get people to stop believing in god. And he is trying.

[Rod]

"He thinks this world would be heaven if he could just get people to stop believing in god. And he is trying."

The Heaven Mr. Dawkins offers is the Heaven of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. If all morality is a construction, the Postmodern world will only be Heaven for deconstructionists.

[zed]

We need about 100,000 Americans to go before a judge and publicly declare
that their middle names are their legal names for all public purposes.
And they should also declare themselves as supporters of the Hussein
for Imam--whoops I mean president coalition. Hussein will be the
first Muslim president. Free Burkhas for everybody! Hussein's first
act will be to replace the flag with the red crescent. Hussein has
always hated that other flag with every fiber of his being. Which is
why he won't pledge to it and won't wear a flag lapel pin. But Hussein
will proudly salute a flag representative of a non European religion!
When Hussein takes office every child will be required to attend a
Madras just as Hussein did when he was a child. It is so good to be
able to use a candidate's middle name and talk about his formative
years and his education. Because if you couldn't that would mean
that the candidate is ashamed of what he was and what he has become.
Welcome to a pork free world with no ham or pizza. You must not offer a pork chop
to Hussein. You must not put pork grease on your hands or your money
and certainly not hallowed ground. No pork anywhere!

Alice Jones, tinfoil hat wearing saucer nut recently came out of the closet and
revealed that she is a radical Muslim and a supporter of Hussein for
for president. Alice, who had previously grown famous for taking Klan money
for bringing up black people exclusively in conjunction with disease, violence,
and/or poverty, surprised everyone by endorsing a black candidate for president.

---coming to you from under the straight talk express.

****Hussein '08 !!!*****

[amba]

You copy and paste that everywhere Obama is mentioned? (The way the lines are arranged is a dead giveaway.) I should delete it as spam, but I'll leave it there so my readers can see what you and your fellow tinfoil-hat wearers are up to.

[nacazo]

He's not honest. His outbringing is not Black at all...

In his book he uses stereotypes about blacks to justify his drug usage. He doesn't say: "I used drugs to get high" (would be the honest thisng to say). He says: "I used drugs to explore what being black is."

His "granma is a typical white person = racist" was too much for me. Particularly, about a woman that raised him since he was 10 yesars old.

His not knowing what was going on in his church with Rev. Wright.

His not acknowledging that in most Muslim countries father muslim means son is muslim. He's an apostate with Secret Service protection but a lot of apostates are just killed in the muslim world. Something fishy is going on.