[Peace-discuss] Obama brochure

[C. G. Estabrook]

It was an attack on the views of a senator who tries to
position himself as a progressive but is not, notably in
regard to the war (and on the view that he should be allowed
to get away with it); it was not of course "an attack on
liberals in general."

The damage you refer to seems to have been the rancor of one
black Democrat.  The proper damage that was done --  we should
have done more of it -- was the exposure of Obama's position,
which purports to be critical of the administration on the war
but in fact agrees with it.  Obama accurately says (in his
words), "There's not that much difference between my position
and George Bush's position ... the difference, in my mind, is
who's in a position to execute." 

What is Obama's "full position" that is not adequately
represented by the quotations form him in the article? Has he
renounced any of the quotations?  How is the meaning of any of
them changed by "context"?

Obama seems to show a certain lawyerly deficiency in openness
(as we saw in John Roberts last week). E.g., in the Senate
this week he voted *against* requiring public disclosure of
pork-barrel items in the final version of this year's
agricultural appropriations bill. Even Durbin voted for it.  

--CGE


---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:39:47 -0500
>From: Bob Illyes <illyes at UIUC.EDU>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama brochure  
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>Unlike many AWARE members, I was pleased to see Carl's Guest
>Commentary in the News Gazette on September 4th. This article,
>"Liberals must call Obama on his support for the war",
>consisted largely of Carl's brochure that was handed out
>during the Obama town meeting, with an attack on liberals in
>general and Al in particular (not named but known to all)
>tacked onto the end.
>
>I was pleased because there was no possibility of this
>article being thought of as AWARE endorsed. The author is
>named and the attack on an AWARE member also makes it clear
>that AWARE does not endorse the content. This somewhat undoes
>the damage I believe was done at the Obama event.
>
>For those of you who don't see the problem with the brochure,
>let me describe briefly my objections. On first reading, I found
>the statements true while the style was excessively negative.
>On closer reading, I found it to be not true.
>
>There is a way of lying with the "truth". It is called the
>half-truth. The quotes of Obama no more represent his full
>position that the tiny quote of Al represents his true
>position. It is easy to trash someone's position by taking
>things they said out of context, i.e., by telling half-truths.
>I do not believe that this sort of thing has any place in
>AWARE literature, which is why I recommend that we be more
>careful to ask for consensus on AWARE brochures in the future.
>
>Bob
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss