Obama says "I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision". Beyond supporting this amendment, is there anything he could plausibly do that would, in actual fact, prevent the bill from becoming law in its noxious form? If not, then objections to his intended vote on the final package are objections to symbolism, not substance.

I think his strong pro-Constitutional statements have sent a message far stronger than any negative message implied by a later vote -- unless, of course, we all insist that such a vote is a repudiation of constitutionality, and thereby maximize every possible negative message it might convey.

My judgment is that we should consider the complexity of the situation, recognize the limits on his present power to affect the outcome, give him the benefit of the doubt... and consider actually taking him at his word on this.

By the way, his books offer perspective on his actions. The first predates his political involvement, and together they provide what I think are genuine insights into his character.

Posted at June 27, 2008 12:38 AM in response to Obama's Been Trying to Tell You

To avoid the religion-in-government mess, one could instead ask about the principles Obama would apply to various problems, and the policies he would advocate. The origins of those principles and policies is a separate question that can be set aside.

However, having read Obama's introspective and very candid history of the evolution of his thoughts and values (from childhood, no less), I can't imagine that he buys into anyone's radical or racist agenda. The origins of his principles and policies are clear, and clearly not from someone's radical theology. Read his first (post-Harvard, pre-political) biographical book, and see what you think. It provides an illuminating context for judging his second book, which he wrote as Senator.

Posted at June 9, 2008 3:05 PM in response to Obama Privately Rebuked Lieberman For Half-Heartedly Denying False Muslim Rumors

I don't think she means "the only one in the world". (Rule of thumb: Look for a sensible interpretation when a first read looks crazy.)

Posted at June 7, 2008 1:09 AM in response to Tales From Inside the Editorial Board Room

Slaves were counted as 3/5 in the census, and of course could cast no votes at all. It is sad that non-blacks are so often confused about the basic history of blacks in America.

Posted at June 2, 2008 7:36 PM in response to Hillary-Backer Vilsack: She Should Concede Defeat After Tuesday

This smear needs a brief counter-statement. How

"Appeasement isn't talking, it's giving things away for nothing -- like giving half a free country to a dictator. They're twisting words again to try to fool you."

Posted at May 19, 2008 8:35 PM in response to Hillary Camp: Obama's "Plan" To Declare Victory Is Insult To Her "17 Million Supporters"

To paraphrase your reply:

If that were true, McCain would say it, but he can't afford to say it because it's nothing but a big lie.

I like that. It's a good, simple response to a wide range of smears, and best of all, it leaves nothing to argue about. Cool!

Posted at May 10, 2008 4:43 PM in response to Hillary Holds Private Conference Call With Her Super-Dels: "I Know This Is Not Easy"

ChrisO,
What you say about this incident being a replay of a recording made during the guest host's show -- not an actual appearance on the Limbaugh show -- seems to check out.

Posted at March 30, 2008 1:59 AM in response to WTF? Bill Clinton on Rush Limbaugh Show Day of TX Primary

Peaceful protest against divisive and degrading political tactics poses no threat to the Republic. Quite the opposite. Protests like these can silence other voices only by shaming them -- and shame on you for smearing protesters as stormtroopers.

Posted at March 27, 2008 4:20 PM in response to Billary's One-Two Punch Has Changed the Game

There is much wisdom in what you say. On a less elevated plane, however, I also recommend that we not confuse "the Republicans", meaning the tens of millions of citizens aligned with the party, with "the Republicans", meaning the tiny fraction of one percent of these citizens who have risen to the top levels of party leadership. The numerous Republican citizens, almost by definition, cannot stand far from the norms of our society. The power elite, by contrast, is distinguished from among those ordinary millions by their personal drive, resources, and compatibility with the rest of the power elite. They start different, and on the way up, they join and are changed by the Republican power-elite culture.

There is no reason to be confident that this elite closely resembles your Republican friends and neighbors. They could be as different as are other fractions of one percent -- not the same as murderers, not necessarily psychopaths, not all the same as one another. But, on the whole... different. Many, perhaps, with a whiff of brimstone about them.

Posted at November 15, 2007 2:33 AM in response to Conservatism's Unintelligent Design

If I may raise a general question here, is saying that an evil action is “understandable” necessarily the same as supporting it? Understanding may be an aspect of support, yet it is also essential to effective opposition. A psychiatrist may understand even criminal insanity, yet in no way support it. Denouncing efforts to understand is self-defeating.

As for Gandhi’s views here, I have no special knowledge.

Posted at November 3, 2007 2:03 PM in response to Harvard Prof Says All Criticism of Lobby Is Anti-Semitism