mistermikev wrote:
whether you vote or not, whether you like obama or not...
go read his wifes college thesis. I cannot believe that Princeton would accept this as college material...
Not exactly Ivy League stuff...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html
But then, she is not the one running for president either.
I find myself excited at the prospect of a black president, and simultaneously disgusted that it will be Obama.
While the attempt to paint them as Black Panther types is disingenuous, still, it seems clear to me, that these are people struggling with their identities and place in the world.
I want a president with confidence in who he/she is.
Obama associated himself with a radical church in Chicago because it benefited his political career at the time, for local politics. Now that he finds himself in a position to be leader of "all" of us, he is busily repairing that image into something else. Yet for all his wonderful words, on transcending race, the lofty ideals he voices, were clearly not actualized in his own life.
While Jimmy Carter was not a very good president, where character was concerned, he was courageous and true to himself and his beliefs, to the degree this is possible as President of The United States.
In Reverend Billy Graham's biography, he shares the story of how he (Billy) insisted that his crusades be integrated among blacks and whites, whereas in Georgia, and other southern states, they wanted the blacks separated by ropes from the whites. Because Billy Graham would not budge on this point, local ministers would not help the event, and a venue could not be found to host it as a result. Jimmy Carter came forward, and not only found a venue for the event, but participated in the events, to the degree that he would share the gospel with the attendees at the end of the events and even give the altar call himself.
As a white farmer and burgeoning politician in the 1960's in segregated Georgia, this took courage.
Obama on the other hand, raised and loved by the white side of his family and assisted in getting into an Ivy League school, has seemingly done everything in his power to associate himself instead with the father he never knew and rarely ever saw, but a few times in his life. He dedicated a book to him. He speaks of this in his book, of how, looking at pictures of his father, a black man, he decided he would pattern his life after him. His father had abandoned him, but this didn't matter. He was black, and therefore worthy of patterning his life after. How superficial is that?
That's the kind of stuff that makes me question his personal values.
When he later found out what a wretch his father was, from his father's own family in Kenya, that he was alcoholic, was married to multiple wives, and sometimes beat them, he adopted Rev. Wright as a father figure instead, and named his second book after one of Wright's speeches.
It seems that Michelle has struggled herself, with her own identity, and somehow believes that pursuing Ivy League education and a well paying career, are "conservative" values that the school instilled in her (read: infected her with), and with which she struggled, hence the subject matter of the thesis.
The lack of personal judgment is alarming.
It concerns me greatly.
However, as someone correctly noted, a president is not an island. He is the figurehead of a power structure much more entrenched, and I suppose in this modern era, the damage which can be done by one man, even President of The United States, is somewhat limited where America herself is concerned.
If would seem Obama has a very good chance of being the next president. On the other hand, the underground "powers that be" could simply allow one single act of terrorism to play out on our soil, before the election, and that would end his run. It's not outside the realm of possibility for this to occur. We have staged similar incidents in other countries.