Obama's Disappointing Character?

**BusinessAdviser** · 03-19-2008 05:36 PM

Earlier today, a poster started a thread about how great one of Barack Obama's recent speeches was, which was a very interesting and thought-provoking post, though clearly from an Obama supporter.

Eventually the conversation shifted to the effect Reverend Wright's anti-America sermons on Obama. Some argued that it was impossible for Wright's sentiments to have not rubbed off on Obama.

In response, I made the following point:

I don't think that Wright's beliefs and sentiments "rubbed off" on Obama. However, I am very disappointed that Obama lacked the character to stand up for what is right, to challenge the authority when the authority was wrong.

This is especially true considering that he has positioned himself as the candidate of change, as the candidate who will fight the established authority to do what is right for our nation.

What does everyone else think?

The unfortunate thing about all this, though, is that as soon as I made the post, the entire thread was deleted. For this to have happened, it means that the moderators thought that the conversation had violated forum rules (which clearly was not the case, as anyone who saw the short thread knows) or the original poster decided that he didn't like anyone questioning his candidate and would just delete the entire thread.

As a result, I think it's only fair to open the issue back up for discussion.

Is anyone else concerned that if Obama lacks the character to even stand up to one man to do what is right, how in the world is he going to stand up to the established authority and effectuate change? I can't help but opine, based on this situation, that he is all talk and lacks the character to walk the walk, to do what is right for this nation. Does anyone else see the validity in this argument? Does anyone else disagree, believing that even though he lacked the character to stand up to Wright, that he'll have no problem standing up to all the opposition to what he says he wants to do as President?

**HarveyJ** · 03-19-2008 07:40 PM

Is it that he didn't stand up to the authority?
Or that he just met it mid way, and it seems like a back down because you're so used to leaders with a "My way or the Highway" attitude?

From a non-US citizen perspective, but from a country where US policy heavily affects our own, I can honestly say that the view here is that American's (or at least, the political leaders) don't understand the difference between a compromise and total domination/submission.

Honestly, sometimes, as in this particular case, it's better to let the vocal types have their say and avoid the issue. Defending it is bad for your character, as you get attacked for defending it. Denouncing it is potentially even worse because then you're cast as a hypocrite, or worse yet, someone trying to deny free speech.
The way I see it, Obama's in a position where to either stand up to or retreat from the Rev's previous speeches would be a lose-lose situation. He's much better off side stepping the issue, and quietly saying he doesn't agree, but the Rev's entitled to his opinion.

**tazman9r** · 03-19-2008 07:43 PM

It's been about two hours, but hopefully the initial dust has cleared enough to attempt again to address this issue.

First, let me issue a disclaimer by saying that I have no problems with a person who wishes to write positive and supportive comments in a forum about their choice for president. I really wish more people were as excited about their candidate, and that support would translate into votes. Having said that, I have been the first to post in a few of these Pro-Obama threads, and always with the same issue. I don't know who Obama is, and no one is asking him. The best I can say is that he is probably a little left of Hillary Clinton, as many of their stances on issues are very similar.

I stated earlier today that I can certainly understand how a person would see comments from a grandparent as being similar and opposite to his reverend. But, since I don't who Sen. Obama is, I have to make assumptions.

One of favorite actors, Samuel L. Jackson, had a great line in the movie The Long Kiss Goodnight, "When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you, and umption".

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but in the absence of knowledge about a candidate, I must then look at his known associations. Since Sen. Obama chose to attend this church for 20 years then he must have found the message to his liking. Can I say definitively that Sen. Obama shares some of Rev. Wright's more extreme positions? No, I can't. But, using the same logic, can I say definitively that Sen. Obama grew to despise his grandmother for her overt, yet private, racist position? Actually, if I refer to his speech of yesterday, I can. He described her as loving toward him. Does that mean he still didn't grow to despise her, and others like her, for her extreme views? I don't know, and that is the problem.

Sen. Obama lost his free ride a couple of weeks ago, when Saturday Night Live began picking on the media for not vetting him properly. He compounded that issue by walking off the stage when he got questions he didn't like. Now he has to explain what's going on with some of these associations.

The point was brought up by Bob Beckert, democratic strategist and pundit, earlier today that there are those one the right who have more extreme views that are considered mandatory stops on the road to the presidency. Here's the problem, those candidates are political figures the public new, and new pretty well, before visiting them. If we, the public, knew Sen. Obama prior to his going to Trinity Church of Christ, and he only went to the church as a stop on his road to the presidency, this wouldn't be an issue.

All of this really means very little, as a single president must sway the minds of over 500 people in congress and 9 on the supreme court to really effect "change". But I want to at least believe I know and trust the person to whom I am entrusting the powers of the presidency. I thought I knew Bill Clinton, but I was wrong.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. So long as I can help it, I won't be fooled again.

**ron komorowski** · 03-19-2008 08:13 PM

I think Obama is a great man to be respected. Extraordinary intelligence and I HOPE he continues in politics serving for the right reasons but I do not believe he has what it takes yet or would be good as President.

I would however like to see him get his chance in 8 years or so, it can be a very good thing to have a black President. There are issues in the black population that need more attention and it would seem fair to let a black man have a chance at being President.

We are all in the same boat together in the U.S. A black President can bring us all closer and settle issues once and for all but we don't have time now for that.

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, race has to become an issue in his face. This whole thought of race is unfair to all, still it has come about. As far as this Reverend, the man got a little too hot under the spotlight and had a case of heated brain or something. Obama cannot be blamed for another's actions. He should have stated so and not bring up race. The reverend selfishly took a stand on Obama's soapbox and got too excited and flipped like Howard Dean did 4 years ago.

Maybe Obama will come up short for the President job this time, but he deserves respect. Ofcoarse the black population has complains. I am WHITE and have studied the issues in the inner city by the black folk. It is sad. They do not have the same chance, even in this day, for the most part.

Me, a white guy, I am proud of Obama in politics and trying. Disagreements for the man for President is the right of an American voter...but the man still deserves respect as a great leader, extremely intelligent and stands all the ways that us entrepreneurs wish to stand. He is a fine example. We all can only hope to become as successful as Mr. Obama one day.

Ron
Inventor of Handi-Straps

**BusinessAdviser** · 03-19-2008 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by HarveyJ

Is it that he didn't stand up to the authority?
Or that he just met it mid way, and it seems like a back down because you're so used to leaders with a "My way or the Highway" attitude?

From a non-US citizen perspective, but from a country where US policy heavily affects our own, I can honestly say that the view here is that American's (or at least, the political leaders) don't understand the difference between a compromise and total domination/submission.

Honestly, sometimes, as in this particular case, it's better to let the vocal types have their say and avoid the issue. Defending it is bad for your character, as you get attacked for defending it. Denouncing it is potentially even worse because then you're cast as a hypocrite, or worse yet, someone trying to deny free speech.
The way I see it, Obama's in a position where to either stand up to or retreat from the Rev's previous speeches would be a lose-lose situation. He's much better off side stepping the issue, and quietly saying he doesn't agree, but the Rev's entitled to his opinion.

Then is it that the Australians don't understand standing up for what is right?!

Look, I equate it to the following:

If I'm at a party along with the life of the party, who's working the room and loved by all, but he's using the N word over and over and over, I don't care who he is or how much he is loved by others, I'm not going to stand for that. I'm either going to stand up to him or leave the party.

However, when Obama was confronted with the situation, he lacked the character to stand up for what was right or to "leave the party."

If Obama is elected, when he's faced with standing up against others and doing what is right, despite its possible unpopularity, is there really any question as to what he'll do?

**HarveyJ** · 03-24-2008 08:00 PM

What is right is contextual issue, and is rarely black & white, excusing the pun.
In Australia, we're rarely polarized on issues, as we usually have 3rd, 4th and even 5th points of view entering nearly every debate. Eventually a compromise is reached on most issues (excepting infrastructural ones

)

Now, having read the Rev's speech in full (which I think is a lot more than a LOT of American's commenting on the issue), contextually, it's not a racist speech. It's not a hate speech. It's pointing out what was wrong with America at the time (and potentially still is).
From my understanding, this is a truly patriotic act, but it has been distorted by a few bits of selective editing.

Example of contextuality of Right v Wrong: Let's use the N word!
You're at this party, with this guy using the N word the whole time. Is he black? Are most of the people in the room black, and accepting of his use of the term? For instance, I don't see it being a real problem for, say, Dave Chappelle to go on using it.

Finally, Obama is an unknown quantity. He doesn't really have enough of a record for people to already question what he'd do. The real question is "what the hell will he do if....?", and frankly, I think people are a lot more scared of that.
Better the devil you know...

**BusinessAdviser** · 03-24-2008 08:25 PM

I just don't think Obama is ready. I prefer him to Hilldog, but I would like to wait another few years and let him gain the experience he'll need. To that effect, I will be voting for McCain this time around.

**tazman9r** · 03-25-2008 09:17 AM

Yeah, compared to the now totally exposed liar, Hillary Clinton, I think that Obama is the stronger candidate. That doesn't mean I will be voting for him, as I don't agree with the politics of his voting record and I STILL DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM.

Hillary is trying to play her remarks about this trip to Bosnia as some sort of "misspeak".

When I was in the 11th grade, a couple of guys taking part of the junior/senior wars at my high school aimed a pistol at me that I mistook for a model 1911 45. Turns out it was an air replica or something. I will never forget that entire incident.

It seems to me that ducking to avoid sniper fire, with your daughter by your side, is something that you would never forget.

On that note, about her trip, it was too dangerous for the President to travel to Bosnia, so he sent his wife and daughter?

This is not the day and age to be lying about your past, especially if your a public figure and the truth is most likely on film.

**SendBlast** · 03-25-2008 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by HarveyJ

Now, having read the Rev's speech in full (which I think is a lot more than a LOT of American's commenting on the issue), contextually, it's not a racist speech. It's not a hate speech. It's pointing out what was wrong with America at the time (and potentially still is).
From my understanding, this is a truly patriotic act, but it has been distorted by a few bits of selective editing.

How is it not racist? Seems like a double-standard..