[Psudo]

Rhoffman, I don't think the Sundial article is being used nor would be very effective in trying to discredit Obama. It's interesting biographical information, but not critical information.

[Rhoffman]

Not the article you brought up, Psudo. However, there's been various flurries of focus on the internet and in real life both during the campaign and now regarding Obama's past views and writings in an attempt to try to claim that he's either radically un-American (whatever that means) or has has a distorted view of American history or is some kind of socialist wacko. A perfect example is something that happened a few months ago, when Obama's supposed college thesis popped up on the internet that seemed radically anti-American. Pundits like Limbaugh were quick to go on air claiming that it was just another example of how he didn't have the best interests of our country in mind. Even when it became apparent that the essay in question was a hoax, Rush still talked about how he believed it because it fit in to his views of Obama, and then proceeded to strongly ask why was it that his college-day writings weren't out in the public.

There's nothing wrong with an interest in a president's past writings. In fact, academic study of pre-presidential writings is an entire subset of American presidential history, especially for some of the bigger presidencies like Lincoln or either of the Roosevelts. I'm not trying to claim that doing that is a bad thing. However, trying to discredit someone by digging into writings/statements/actions/etc. that people did decades ago means absolutely nothing to the present day, and are things that should be frowned against.

Sorry if I mistook Bart's post for political hackery instead of genuine interest, but after being online so far (and being online for campaigns for a big portion of the 2008 campaign), I tend to read between the lines of what people are asking for.

[Psudo]

When I try to read between the lines, I typically end up listening to denials that people meant what I thought they did. I also see the same thing happen when people try to divine implicit meaning from my words. Guesswork is a dangerous game.

Seeing how a person's views change over time, how they developed into their current views, does offer some insight that is valid in the present. One's past views are not inherently descriptive of one's current views, but neither are they inherently irrelevant to the understanding of one's current views. An understanding of Obama's past views still has value.

As for the term radically un-American, I think there are some perfectly valid examples of passionate opposition to the institution and nation of the United States in Obama's social connections. The name Jeremiah Wright comes to mind, and even comments by Michelle Obama can be reasonably seen as rhetorical attacks against the US. To people who would be offended and repulsed by the expression of such opinions to their faces, it is unfathomable how Obama could tolerate such statements and remain an able statesman heading the same government they decry. If Obama were personally opposed to American values or principles it would not be a criminal or inherently immoral thing, but neither is the idea completely baseless nor an obviously irrelevant issue.

[BartSimpson]

Rhoffman wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Now if we can only get the rest of his 'scholarly' works released.

Because Obama writing something potentially embarrassing in his twenties is worthwhile political discourse today, but Dubya snorting coke in his twenties is old news?

Long story short, unless someone committed murder or rape, who really cares what someone did two or three decades ago?

Pot, meet kettle.

[BartSimpson]

The issue about the absence of access to Obama's works as an editor, his various school papers, his thesis, and (sorry to bring it up) his original birth certificate is that he is unique among people at this level of politics to keep such things secret and out of the public eye.

Hillary Clinton has no such secrets, nor does Howard Dean, nor does Joseph Biden, nor does Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid...all Democrats.

Obama's secrecy about his past is what is unique here and the attention he gets for it will not go away.