OVER HERE - BLACK OR TAN
Monday, August 18, 2008 at 11:51AM As the first African American to achieve the nomination of one of the two major party nominations, Senator Obama has to walk a tightrope on what can be a very toxic subject, namely race. He'll draw the ire of some elements of black and white society (deserved or not), and the praise (deserved or not) of other sections from each society. Some have said he isn't black enough, while others argue he panders to the black community's more militant element. Perhaps he has tried to placate everyone, and in doing so, will satisfy no one in the end. But race isn't the only black and white issue in this campaign. The questions of the day require serious thought and difficult and sometimes unpopular choices. The question that concerns me is whether or not Senator Obama is hard-wired to offer pleasing platitudes instead of positions.
He has displayed a tendancy to avoid direct questions at times. For example, when asked point blank where life begins at a recent forum he answered that ti was above his pay grade. Whatever side one might come down on, surely that was not a real answer (McCain said conception - agree or not, but that is called taking a stand on a difficult issue).
There is a certain amount of pandering that candidates must necessarily engage in as part of the process (I mean is somone really happy to be in Peoria?). And both candidates have exhibited pandering. What I think people may look for as the election continues is the politician whose convictions may come through despite the political posturing. Not all of the issues have a black or white answers, but the eventual answers do require embracing a degree of unpopularity at times. One should not always try to be pleasing to everyone.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (51)
>>For example, when asked point blank where life begins at a recent forum he answered that ti was above his pay grade. <<
A fair enough answer IMO. If the experts can't agree when life begins, or indeed what life is (Does McCain not think a sperm is alive?), it's hardly a question a political leader can or should try to answer.
Trite questions deserve trite responses.
Noel - Trite questions may require trite answers, but in this context it was Obama ducking the abortion question, plain and simple. My point wasn't aimed at a candidate's belief on the issue, but rather at whether they would be straightfoward.
He was courting evangelicals in that forum and didn't want a direct confrontation. He wouldn't give the same respone at a Planned Parenthood meeting.
"He was courting evangelicals in that forum and didn't want a direct confrontation. He wouldn't give the same respone at a Planned Parenthood meeting."
A true politician tells the audience what it wants to hear and if elected does damn well what it pleases. Like the Labour party in the UK or Fianna Fail in the Republic of Ireland.
The conundrum is that you can't be a politician without being a charlatan. The public is too stupid to realise politician is lying till after the election.
Eddie: To a certain extent you are right in the nature of the business, but there has to be more than just telling people what they think they want to hear and the good ones and the great ones through history hvae figured that out.
Mahons,
In fairness, anyone asking a question on abortion in the US is setting a trap. If he takes a stand either way, the pro-choice/pro-life (delete as appropriate) extremists will demonise him.
In my view, he is right to duck this question and concentrate on the real issues.
Reg - Well it is a real issue. McCain gave a straightfoward answer on this occassion. Obama did not.
I only got to see the McCain discussion -- found him to be very impressive, far better than expected.
--
Agree with mahons --it's a real issue in this country.You simply cannot duck it, as the elected officials and the judges they appoint are going to have a say going forward on this most divisive of issues.
You might as well say that discussing Iraq is "above your pay grade"
He isn't ducking very well with an answer like that, and he didn't do it well either when the child asked him why he wanted to be president. He made a real pigs ear out of that. If he continues in that vein the US will end up with people like Broon and Darling. That would be a catrastrophe for the US in economically tough times. . If he can't make tough choices then ditch him while you still can.
>>You might as well say that discussing Iraq is "above your pay grade"<<
So you think a US president should be just as conversant with medical, philsophical and indeed metaphysical issues as with his countries foreign policy and its wars?
And do McCain and his followers really think the sperm is lifeless matter? Are they really even less well informed than we imagined?
Given that the US Abortion policy is decided on the Supreme Court, and thus heavily influenced by the President, then I feel Noel, that the US President should be quized very heavily on his abortion policy.
Given that the US Abortion policy is decided on the Supreme Court...
Um yeah. So much for being "the land of the free". Although you have highlighted the lunacy of such a policy. And if it is that important to be decided at such a level he should ask questions on sperm viability. Quite right. Then every masturbating teen boy should be severely reprimanded for his dismissive attitude towards human life.
Noel - No one is asking him to be a philosopher-king, just to answer a practical question on a real issue. He ducked.
Yes, he ducked. In that forum, on that issue, he was in a no-win situation. Indeed, talking to Planned Parenthood, he would have had a different answer.
He ducked rather gracefully, in my opinion. But he's got a lot of experience in smoothly not taking a side unless forced to do so. His favorite vote in the Illinois state senate was, "Present."
Sorry to butt in here, but I saw some video shown in Ireland of Obama being interviewed recently in US, asked the quetion he said he was pro-choice.
Todd - He is pro-choice, but shouldn't he explain why when asked (other than it is a necessity in his party).
I've just checked the interview and the actual question was apparently "At what point does a baby get human rights?"
(something quite different from "When does life begin"?, although the same Q to Obama is also quoted in right-wing sites as “When does an unborn child get LEGAL rights" and even "When does a human embryo achieve personhood"? !!)
Obama's response was measured, sober and showed both humility and honesty. He said:
"Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade."
So far, so intelligent. He also did not duck the (silly) question, but went on:
"But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. .
Point number two: I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I’m pro abortion, but because ultimately I don’t think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members."
He then went on to suggest the focus should be on stopping the increase in the abortion rate witnessed through the Bush presidency.
If anyone was ducking the question, or at least its consequences, it was McCain, who gave the downright silly answer: "A baby’s human rights begin at the moment of conception."
So will in McCain's America a woman, post-coitu, be entitled to dash out and demand legal recognition of freedom of expression for her fertilised egg, and the right to education and equality before the law for her embryo?.
What a dunce!
Just so glad we have a monarchy :o)
That's fascinating seen in context and in full. Obama's full answer to this crazy question at a political level in America was clever, considered and thoughtful. McCain's was pathetic, ill thought out posturing to the usual cabal.
Noel - you are right I should have checked the full transcript. My bad. The question was "40 million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights?" And Obama's response was fuller than I saw in the excerpt on the evening news.
However, he ducked the specific question, however artfully he may have done so. He essentially lays out two points that boil down to 1. abortion is a moral issue with grave concerns (most would agree I think) and 2. He is pro-choice.
We knew both answers. Now, why does he believe that and what will he do about it (will he have a litmus tests for jurists for example).
I will give him credit for taking the views of his opponents more seriously.
Aileen: if you were Queen I would agree!
Sorry Noel, my response wound up the same as yours. Essentially he answered the question honestly and directly. He certainly didn't dodge it Mahons. Rather than rushing out an ill thought out soundbite to appeal to that crazy religious bunch you have over there, he was very honest on a complex issue. It actually makes a nice change to politics.
You don't go to a US evangelical forum without knowing abortion is probably the number one topic. McCain said what his audience wanted to hear, no doubt, but I think it was his real personal stance. Obama's voting record on abortion will not be to the liking of evangelicals so he ahd to come up with some wording they would like.
The point is, if Obama is pro-abortion then he should say so and dare people to vote against him if that's what they want. Likewise vice versa McCain if he's anti.
LOL Mahons. I hate to think how many people would have to die to make that happen.
Hope you and the mini Mahons are all well.
He dodged providing support for his position or attempting to convince why he feels he is correct. And oppostion to abortion is not limited to crazy people any more than the prochoice position is inhabited only by the sane.
I suspect the topic throws off the debate so I'll use a less contentious one to point out where he dodges in the future - for example, he's essentially caved into the Clintons regarding the coming nomination, instead of telling them to pound sand. I'd like to see him ruffle some feathers if he's going for the office he seeks.
Aileen: God forbid! Let them all abdicate in favor of your more noble spirit!
Me and the little Mahons are doing well thanks! And I expect a peerage with one of them dandy estates when your reign commences.
Your religious cabal is righteously crazy Mahons (as shown by Noel in the positions on blogs) and this is whom he had to consider. (And that abortion sits at a political level is also insane)
Seeing this question now correctly cited he answered it fully and honestly. You know Obama is pro choice so what is it you are attempting to show here with this post?
There are people who are crazy who are opposed to abortion, but most are not. There are people who are prochoice who are crazy, but most are not.
The post points out where Obama refuses to attempt to persuade, favoring instead eloquent sidestepping.
Alison, I'm not quite sure what you meant by your last post, so this is not an attack on you; it's an attack on a particular belief.
If you believe that opposition to abortion is limited to religious nuts, then you need to get out more (or learn more about politics on this side of the pond).
Active opposition to abortion has been spearheaded by religious folks; they're the most passionate about it, and that passion is often displayed in a physical manner. I was a volunteer guard for an abortion clinic during the early '90s. I spent a lot of hours standing in the freezing cold, and under a blazing sun, to prevent protesters from shutting down the clinic. Sometimes it got pretty hairy (when the protestors would try to rush the door) but I never felt I was in serious danger.
Most of the protesters were religously motivated. But there are many, many more who simply feel that abortion stops a human life. There are groups within the Democratic party who feel this way; there are liberal arts professors; there are health care workers.
The activists get the headlines. But there are millions of ordinary Americans who share that belief.
And yes, abortion is a political issue. Most politicians would prefer it weren't, though.
Mahons - we're talking about the crazy obsessive crowd who make abortion the political issue it is rather than the personal choice it should be. You know his position and he gave an honest full answer to a question rather than a soundbite to keep the crazy crowd from foaming at the mouth. I think you just want him to walk that abortion plank. What for? You say 'we knew both answers'. Right so? It wasn't a question on being "pro life" or not, yes or no. It is a vastly more complex question on which hardly one person from another agrees. Possibly silly as Noel states, given its complexity. But what I really want to know is why is his answer less honest than McCains which you maintain is him speaking from the heart and a personal view. And you also say he ducked. How? His answer is not dismissive and quick nor is it sidestepping. It is refreshingly considered and very honest.
"And that abortion sits at a political level is also insane"
In the US it doesn't sit at a Political Level. It is at a Constitutional Level and is thus legislated on by 9 people. 9 people dictating a nation of over 300 Million people's abortion policy. And the President appoints these Judges so it is quite right that each President should have his Abortion policy known to the Electorate.
Also, the Pro Life movement is filled with as many Religious nuts as the Pro Choice movement is with men hating feminists. This isn't the thread Alison to be making sweeping generalisations.
"we're talking about the crazy obsessive crowd who make abortion the political issue it is rather than the personal choice it should be"
They are crazy because they disagree with you. They believe that the Baby's Right to Life is more important than the Mother's Right to End Life.
Alsion - saying it is a personal choice (and I don't necessarily disagree) is also a political position.
I'd like him to be more forthcoming on all of his postions, more detail and more argument, that's all. Look past the one issue and you'll see what I mean. Anyhow, off for home, maybe I'll check in later.
Gordon: I am not interested in getting into another boring debate on abortion I have to say. To answer your question though and honestly, directly without ducking....
America is wacko on this issue. Stark raving bonkers. You make it a political and voter issue at this level and you exacerbate the religious views therein. Then you wonder why you have such a strong bunch of feminists that you all hate to boot. And a few Democrats and softly spoken measured pro lifers aside you let the religious craziness that you have in oodles over there on this issue hold way too much sway. Then you want to trip up your Presidential candidates when there are bigger issues at stake then wagging your finger and tutting at women. I don't need to get out more when i can read all I need to in the New York Times about how Obama 'risks the catholic vote'! Totally silly.
"Then you want to trip up your Presidential candidates when there are bigger issues at stake then wagging your finger and tutting at women."
Let us remember Alison, that the Pro Life movement views Abortion as wrong, as the taking of a life, dare I say, see it as murder. They view as Genocide. There is no bigger issue than Abortion.
And right on cue Seamus arrives to indirectly explain why Obama is a very smart man.
Thanks Seamus.
They are crazy because it is a *personal* moral choice. Not a fucking group decision. If you could actually let that thought enter your head for one second you might be able to relax and credit people with the ability to make that moral choice all on their ownsome. I am not *insisting* my moral view be foisted onto *other people* thru law or religious stigma, nor am I treating "them" as one homogenous group all aborting for the same reasons. Nor is 'crazy' though fitting for you religious nutjobs the kind of label 'murderer' is. So you religious crazies can keep the crazy label. Noone's making it a legal issue for you personally and hoping to control your personal choices by it.
re Your 9.55 - Which is why Presidents are quizzed on it and it is a political issue.
Your 9.57 - In the end and legally right now I'm fortunate (living here) that I don't have to care what you think about rights and where they start or end, really. Talk it through and foist your beliefs onto the love of your life. In advance.
Mahons. Can't agree. I'm amazed at the big O's answer, very honest and thoughtful. And un-crazy. Great and refreshing for a politician! I'm off to watch the latest GB haul in the brilliant Olympics. Very exciting. Good luck with your debate.
"Noone's making it a legal issue for you personally and hoping to control your personal choices by it."
So if I was to make a personal choice to go out into the street and sink a knife into someone, that would be okay in your book Alison, as it is my personal choice. It should be perfectly legal?
>>. You know his position and he gave an honest full answer to a question rather than a soundbite to keep the crazy crowd from foaming at the mouth.<<
Right. I also think this is another example of how the credibility bar is constantly being raised so high for Obama and left lying on the floor for McCain. After all, you wouldn't have to try hard to show that McCain's answer was total nonsense, and hypocritcal (there is no way that even a dolt like him thinks a foetus has the same "human rights" as a living person).
Obama could of course take this as a compliment, that his standard of intelligence is obviously rated highly by friend and foe alike. The problem is though that many of the electorate are too dumb to even recognise that, and can't see that different standards apply, with Obama's words being subject to almost neurotic scrutiny while McCain enjoys fools' license.
The Man said it was "above his pay-grade,"
maybe a reference to God being the only
entity who could answer the question,
remember when Democrats said stuff like
"The Buck Stops Here."
>>They believe that the Baby's Right to Life is more important than the Mother's Right to End Life<<
You don't follow the debate, Seamus. Nobody is denying the "Baby's Right to Life" (why the capitals, BTW?)
"there is no way that even a dolt like him thinks a foetus has the same "human rights" as a living person"
You say that and then you say this,
"You don't follow the debate, Seamus. Nobody is denying the "Baby's Right to Life"
Make up your mind Noel. Which one is it?
it was McCain, who gave the downright silly answer: "A baby’s human rights begin at the moment of conception."
Does that mean if your baby is conceived in the US it has the right to citizen ship?
Makes those over night trips to the states take on whole new meanings
Maybe the mexicans will quit worrying about finding work and just slip over the border for a quickie and a better life for junior
>>Make up your mind Noel. Which one is it?<<
Seamus, when I say: "My sister has a new baby", does that mean the child is born or not?
Similarly, if I ask you, say, how many people are at the bus stop, would you really go around and ask each of the women if she could possibly be pregnant, just to be sure to have the right number?
3rd example. If you read a title of a painting "Madonna and baby", but could only find the woman, would you scrutinise the picture for a sign of a zygote, or would you think something is amiss?
In short, do we speak the same language?
---
Excellent observation, Sean, wish I'd thought of it :)
Wonder how this implication will go down with the Republican anti-immigration crowd in the US!
Terms like Fetus, Zygote, etc etc, are just attempts to Dehumanise the child. It was a trick that the Nazis did, they attempted to Dehumanise the Jews, the whole Untermenschen thing, in an attempt to make their killing more palatable. They Dehumanised them so in the eyes of the Nazis they were no longer human. The Pro Choice movement have done the same thing with the unborn Child.
Is that really you, Noel? You seem to have lost your calm intelligence. and your truly superior writing capabilities. I could test you by asking you to cite something from "Paradise Lost" but I won't.
You say: "Republican anti-immigration crowd"
There is no such thing. There is the Republican McCain/Bush crowd - open borders and amnesty , and then the Republican Build-the-wall-First Crowd before amnesty -- but except for some blowhards like Pat Buchanan or , I believe, Lou Dobbs the immigration issue is about ILLEGALS and the OPEN BORDERS.
>>Terms like Fetus, Zygote, etc etc, are just attempts to Dehumanise the child. <<
You, Seamus, prefer the simple term of "baby", even though you can't tell us what even that means.
Try answering my questions...
>>I could test you by asking you to cite something from "Paradise Lost" but I won't.<<
Patty, did you know that Milton wrote Paradise Lost just after he got married.
And later his wife died and he immediately wrote Paradise Regained!.?
BTW, I'll admit that too much sun on the head and then a string of late nights could be responsible for by turgid prose.
Have you been on vacation yet? Mexico again?
Tell us something about yourself over at your McCain post.
Noel: Ahhh....much better...now you sound like you. No, I didn"t know that about Milton. (Can't be true...can it?) I know very little (that you don't tell me) about Milton. Sadly. I wouldn't mind having a guest post from you on literature occasionally?
I have been on several "mini vacations" this summer, and I don't mean to the local bar.(pub) No trips south to Mexico, though - there is currently a drug war at the border - although down in Baja (where we go sometimes) it is far away from any of that misery.
Your 10:46 is brilliant Noel, the points you raise are very well put. And so true.
>>there is currently a drug war at the border - although down in Baja (where we go sometimes)<<
Have you seen the film "Babel"? Hard to get that part of the world (and others) out of one's head after the last scene.
Actually, strange that you mention it, just yesterday I started thinking of a post on, not literature but - art! for some other venue. I'll let you know if anything comes of it, but knowing me, it probably won't.
Goodnight.
Ok, let my try to explain Should we get out of Iraq and the candidate said "It is above my pay grade." I think you would get my meaning.