okie wrote:Foxfyre wrote:okie wrote:FreeDuck wrote:
okie, as much as I often disagree with you and have sometimes not respected your opinions, I think it says something about you that you are taking the time to read that book, even if you might be doing it with a less than completely open mind.
Well, I got called on it here, by somebody, Butrfly, as calling his book's title dumb without even reading the book, and I had to admit she had a point, so I went down that day and bought the book. So far, I still don't see the point of the title yet - relative to his writings in the book, but be that as it may I think I am gaining more insight into his mindset and basic philosophy.
I haven't made it all the way through the book yet either - I think I'm about half way before being distracted by other things. Need to finish it as it is a loaner from my niece.
I was just curious whether you had come to any different conclusion re his mindset and basic philosophy?
I have not come to any hugely different conclusion, just more refined I think. I get the distinct belief that Obama practices the art of understanding all beliefs, all experiences, all principles, as sort of trying to be the ultimate arbitor of everything. This mixed bag approach springs out of his own conflicted past of having a mixed family background, mixed religions, mixed beliefs, etc. I think he believes that he can be a superior politician because of this, and therefore understands all people, thus he can be the arbitor of all of this mess, even on the world stage perhaps? This explains why he associates with angry people like Wright and sympathizes with that sort, as well as more balanced people. It also explains why he advocates talking to and negotiating with renegade leaders and nations around the world, such as Iran, and I think we hardly know what tact he would take as president in this regard. I think he may harbor some level of sympathy for fringe elements and even the dangerous, because he may believe that talking always works, and that black and white principles are for the past, and that he is qualified to be the arbitor. All of this analysis is in process, but it fits pretty well with all I have seen him do and say, for example his debate style in the debates.
Quote:Based on a couple of television interviews with black Christian pastors recently re "black liberation theology'--both were opposed to it--I started doing some research on that and looking at Obama's religious revelations in his book from a different perspective. I tend to agree with your perception that Obama may not share all of Pastor Wright's views on that, but I think he is probably sympathetic to it. Anyway, it is interesting stuff to consider.
It is very interesting stuff, and I will continue to read the book in context with what is going on with all of this.
Okie, thanks for making the effort to obtain and read the book. Even though you don't support him, what you wrote above is a pretty good answer to your earlier question of why I do support Barack Obama. I'll add a lot more to it when I have more time after the primary votes coming up in Indiana and North Carolina. I would like to add now that I don't think Obama is necessarily susceptible to influence from the "fringes." I think he's made a life-long study of all the variations of "fringe" to understand how to negotiate the commonality needed to draw each of them back toward middle ground where a negotiated progress (peace), rather than partisan stagnation (conflict), can be achieved. It is how he has managed to seamlessly surf between the chaotic boundary lines of his life and it translates well to today's global social and economic world.
okie wrote:All of this analysis is in process, but it fits pretty well with all I have seen him do and say, for example his debate style in the debates.
Does this also help give you insight into why some of us find it so difficult to talk about the complexities of Barack Obama in simple soundbite responses that don't make it sound like we drank the kool-aid? You've condensed it down to a not-so-short paragraph. Now imagine yourself reading your descriptive paragraph written by someone else before you had read the book. It is quite a challenge to convey the complexity, and even more difficult to defend it, without it sounding cultish. The easiest way is to just encourage people to read his books and decide for themselves.
Again, Okie, thank you for doing so. No matter what your final analysis of Obama is, my respect for you has gone up a notch as a result of the effort you made to dig beyond the stupid title of his book.
Regarding this portion of an earlier post you wrote:
Quote:So, it appears to me that Obama has used the church as a way to gain a political base in Chicago, and also because he sympathizes with its philosophy to some extent, and as I said I don't know the extent exactly. I think one of the things he likes is the political vector of the religion. Bottom line, I see Obama much more as a man that has designed his political identity for a very very long time, and most of what he has been doing is in large part due to his political image and aims, all the while reasoning within himself that he does not wish to be a typical politician.
Obama freely writes in his first book, Dreams from my Father, about this evolution in his life from being a non-religious cynic to being advised to seek out membership in a local church to increase his organizing success in the neighborhoods. He also talks about the side benefit he found in the church, an extended serrogate family.
