The Scottish professor who moulded the young Obama INTERVIEW: By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor HE HAS NAMED MARTIN LUTHER King and Edward Kennedy among his political heroes, but presidential candidate Barack Obama was also influenced by the Scottish mentor who helped him achieve his law degree.
Ian Macneil, a 79-year-old academic with dual British and US citizenship, was one of Obama's professors at Harvard Law School in the late 1980s.
In an interview with the Sunday Herald, the Edinburgh-based professor emeritus said he spotted Obama's potential in class and told his wife his student was going to be the US's first black president. He also said his young charge had a "commanding presence" and did not like to be interrupted when in full flow.
Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination for the US presidency last week after the concession of his rival, Hillary Clinton.
The Illinois senator will become the first black president if he defeats Republican candidate John McCain in November's presidential election.
Obama's roots - his father was from Kenya, while he himself was born in Hawaii - have been well publicised, but his links to a Scottish law professor have never been written about.
Macneil was teaching at Northwestern University, Illinois, when he secured a visiting professorship at Harvard in 1988. His one-year stint at the Ivy League institution coincided with Obama entering the Harvard Law School after working as a community organiser in Chicago.
As one of Obama's law professors, Macneil, who now lives in the Grange area of Edinburgh, taught the future presidential candidate a course on contract law. He says of his young student: "It was early on in the year when I first met Barack. It wasn't a class where you got to know people well, but you do pick people out over the period of a year.
"What I remember about him was that he was a calm person in a class that was not altogether characterised by people being calm."
On Obama's qualities, he recalls: "He came across as a person of strong character, that is what I noticed. I began to conclude that he was a person of not just strong character, but as a person of real honest-to-God integrity. It was certainly what attracted me to him, that he was very straightforward."
At one point during the year Macneil told his wife that he had come across a future president.
"You see people in classes like that and you get a sense of what they are like. I must have known that Barack had been involved in poverty work - he was a little older than some students - and that he had a political map," he says.
"I remember going back to my wife and saying I think I have just found America's first black president'. He had such a commanding presence."
The law professor recalls one specific occasion when Obama caught his eye:
"I was always a little too impatient in class, so if students went off the track I would interrupt before I should. When I did that with Barack, he said let me finish'. He wasn't rude, just firm. Students didn't do that, and I was quite impressed."
He added: "He was just someone who stood out. It was also obvious that his class respected him."
Macneil moved to Edinburgh in 1991, but supported Obama's development as a leader by contributing to his early political campaigns.
As the neighbour of Lothians independent MSP Margo MacDonald, it is perhaps unsurprising that Macneil should describe himself as a Scottish nationalist, but his national identity is complex. Born in 1929 in the US, he has dual UK and American citizenship. His British father registered him with the consulate at birth.
Currently the Macneil of Barra, the law professor was praised in 2004 after he agreed to donate his 9000-acre crofting estate to the islanders.
Although he no longer keeps abreast of the fine detail of US politics, he has some advice for his former student as he heads towards the presidential election.
On whether Hillary Clinton would make a good running-mate, he says: "No, I don't think it would help Obama. He is a great conciliator, he focuses on people interacting successfully. The difference between him and Senator Clinton is that he reaches out to people."
And on what the UK should expect from an Obama presidency, he says: "I don't hold much for the special relationship' between the US and Britain, which I think is a farce. It was important up until 1944, but we have since been playing second fiddle in the special relationship. I think Obama will treat us with a great deal more respect than we are getting at present."
Macneil believes Obama has "a very good chance" of winning the presidency, and will be rooting for his one-time student in November.
His only moment of reticence is on whether Obama excelled in his contracts class. "I can't remember what kind of grade he got, but if I did I wouldn't reveal it."
|
|
Posted by: kenyanobserver, Dallas, TX on 12:56am Sun 8 Jun 08
Hopefully we will get more credible people like this coming out to talk about Barack Obama.
Hopefully we will get more credible people like this coming out to talk about Barack Obama.
Posted by: kenyanobserver, Dallas, TX on 1:02am Sun 8 Jun 08
another thing, there are too many detractors trying to muddy Barack's background in the hope of "swift-boating" him come November, so more of these kinds of articles/interviews are needed.
another thing, there are too many detractors trying to muddy Barack's background in the hope of "swift-boating" him come November, so more of these kinds of articles/interviews are needed.
Posted by: Earthbound, California on 1:18am Sun 8 Jun 08
Excellent observations by MacNeil, and not the first I've read by people who knew Barack since his youth. That's what makes me trust him. Barack is brilliant and confident, not arrogant, and that makes a world of difference.
Excellent observations by MacNeil, and not the first I've read by people who knew Barack since his youth. That's what makes me trust him. Barack is brilliant and confident, not arrogant, and that makes a world of difference.
Posted by: michael on 2:48am Sun 8 Jun 08
Then there’s the matter of his actual policy and political record. If Obama is such (as many “progressives” seem to need to believe) an “antiwar” candidate, why has he offered so much substantive policy support to the criminal occupation and the broader imperial “war on [and of] terror” of which Bush says O.I.F. is a part?
Here are some highlights from a summary of Obama’s U.S. Senate voting record:
“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2”
“2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).”
“2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture...[and a] man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.”
“4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107”
“4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]”
“7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 [W].”
“9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.”
“10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W].”
“11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W].”
“12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]”
“5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W].”
“5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 [W].”
“6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W].”
“6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W].”
“6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 [W]”
“6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 [W]”
“6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183[W].”
“6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W].
9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 [W]”
“9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W].”
“11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W].”
“12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 [W]”
“Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 [W]...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…”
Then there’s the matter of his actual policy and political record. If Obama is such (as many “progressives” seem to need to believe) an “antiwar” candidate, why has he offered so much substantive policy support to the criminal occupation and the broader imperial “war on terror” of which Bush says O.I.F. is a part?
Here are some highlights from a summary of Obama’s U.S. Senate voting record:
“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2”
“2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).”
“2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture... man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.”
“4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107”
“4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 ”
“7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 .”
“9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.”
“10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 .”
“11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. .”
“12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. ”
“5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 .”
“5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 .”
“6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 .”
“6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 .”
“6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 ”
“6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 ”
“6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183.”
“6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 .
9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 ”
“9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 .”
“11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 .”
“12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 ”
“Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 ...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…”
Posted by: annonymoose, Glasgow on 5:23am Sun 8 Jun 08
Michael,
You cite Obama’s voting record. Selective statistics can be made to reflect anything and any view you want to portray. If the US pulled out, lock stock and barrel tomorrow, last year, or 2006 or even 2005, just like that, what would happen?
So, while you are running Obama into the ground, think of the consequences of such an action.
These were not and never were votes for war. These were votes to continue until stability is achieved, to prevent a regional religious factional war, which would almost certainly become a world conflict.
The real war was Bush and the Republicans, when they held a complete stranglehold on Capitol Hill. Things have changed and the Republicans do not have it all their own way, anymore. The only thing remaining is the Presidential Veto, which assures passage anyway. Why not debate, change and vote for something that is more acceptable, that pure and simple warmongering by the Republicans.
The evacuation of all military presence overnight that you seem to advocate, would create anarchy, and hand the insurgency an open ticket. This would allow Iran to extend its religious influence throughout the region. Iran - where religion and politics are the same thing. Iran - where they have a dictatorship - police state, so much so they even have a religious police.
Who would fill the vacuum? What would fill the vacuum? Islamic teaching. Sharia Law and an unhindered terror expansionist regime, with plenty of resources to sponsor and support terrorism.
I get the feeling that you believe Iran is not a nuclear threat, that their enrichment efforts are entirely peaceful. How come their is a clear link in nuclear proliferation between Russia and Pakistan to Iran that you don’t mention.
Pakistan has weapons. If the extremist religious factions from Iran, gain complete regional influence, over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi, Syria, Lebanon and the various Emirates, which they surely would in a heartbeat, if all military presence were to pull out from Iraq.
Who stands in the front line of the Islamic Bomb, and is already a nuclear power of some 25 years? India does. So while you are spouting about proliferation, understand that India already has the technology, which it developed itself, within all the non-proliferation legislation and bans. This is sharing technology. If you have the “bomb” and you are going to use it, then why not have the technology for a “cleaner bomb” that doesn’t indiscriminately poison the planet.
I doubt you are capable of taking a step back and thinking this through.
Michael,
You cite Obama’s voting record. Selective statistics can be made to reflect anything and any view you want to portray. If the US pulled out, lock stock and barrel tomorrow, last year, or 2006 or even 2005, just like that, what would happen?
So, while you are running Obama into the ground, think of the consequences of such an action.
These were not and never were votes for war. These were votes to continue until stability is achieved, to prevent a regional religious factional war, which would almost certainly become a world conflict.
The real war was Bush and the Republicans, when they held a complete stranglehold on Capitol Hill. Things have changed and the Republicans do not have it all their own way, anymore. The only thing remaining is the Presidential Veto, which assures passage anyway. Why not debate, change and vote for something that is more acceptable, that pure and simple warmongering by the Republicans.
The evacuation of all military presence overnight that you seem to advocate, would create anarchy, and hand the insurgency an open ticket. This would allow Iran to extend its religious influence throughout the region. Iran - where religion and politics are the same thing. Iran - where they have a dictatorship - police state, so much so they even have a religious police.
Who would fill the vacuum? What would fill the vacuum? Islamic teaching. Sharia Law and an unhindered terror expansionist regime, with plenty of resources to sponsor and support terrorism.
I get the feeling that you believe Iran is not a nuclear threat, that their enrichment efforts are entirely peaceful. How come their is a clear link in nuclear proliferation between Russia and Pakistan to Iran that you don’t mention.
Pakistan has weapons. If the extremist religious factions from Iran, gain complete regional influence, over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi, Syria, Lebanon and the various Emirates, which they surely would in a heartbeat, if all military presence were to pull out from Iraq.
Who stands in the front line of the Islamic Bomb, and is already a nuclear power of some 25 years? India does. So while you are spouting about proliferation, understand that India already has the technology, which it developed itself, within all the non-proliferation legislation and bans. This is sharing technology. If you have the “bomb” and you are going to use it, then why not have the technology for a “cleaner bomb” that doesn’t indiscriminately poison the planet.
I doubt you are capable of taking a step back and thinking this through.
Posted by: heady on 9:53am Sun 8 Jun 08
annonymoose - you complain about "selective statistics" when yer man michael did not give you statistics but incidents where Obama has been pro-war (or as you put it, "not pro-war but pro-war inorder to maintain the "stability" of war".
annonymoose - you complain about "selective statistics" when yer man michael did not give you statistics but incidents where Obama has been pro-war (or as you put it, "not pro-war but pro-war inorder to maintain the "stability" of war".
Posted by: John, Scotland on 11:46am Sun 8 Jun 08
[bold]Barack Obama will make a fine President of the USA and will make a real civilised difference. His voting record is an acknowledgement that even an exit strategy requires thought AND funding! Obama will help make this world a better place.[/bold]
Barack Obama will make a fine President of the USA and will make a real civilised difference. His voting record is an acknowledgement that even an exit strategy requires thought AND funding! Obama will help make this world a better place. Posted by: John, Glasgow on 11:56am Sun 8 Jun 08
The Scottish professor who moulded the young Obama....Pity we can't find another one to mould the old Bush!
The Scottish professor who moulded the young Obama....Pity we can't find another one to mould the old Bush!
Posted by: Gerry, Glasgow on 12:48pm Sun 8 Jun 08
When someone comes to prominence there are always folk who claim to have influenced them or spotted their potential and newspapers happy to fill their columns with it. Was MacNeil really a "mentor" to Obama? Come on.
Will Obama pop over to investigate MacNeil's heritage. "Barack on Barra" would have obvious headline potential....
When someone comes to prominence there are always folk who claim to have influenced them or spotted their potential and newspapers happy to fill their columns with it. Was MacNeil really a "mentor" to Obama? Come on.
Will Obama pop over to investigate MacNeil's heritage. "Barack on Barra" would have obvious headline potential....
Posted by: Carmichael, Scotland on 2:50pm Sun 8 Jun 08
America has by far one of the most intriguing politics to be found in the world. There is all that cliched glitz and glamour that Westminster hacks lament when they contrast British politics with American politics. There is also the vastness and complexity and intricate internal party organisation and, of course, the primaries. I was never a fan of the primaries because I believe, and still do, to a lesser extent, that it reduces politics to the politics of personality. Yet, I must admit to having my mind changed as I watched the Democratic primaries unfold. Without primaries the Democratic nominee would certainly have been Clinton. The party machine would have picked Clinton. The primaries, though, allowed someone like Obama to take America by storm.
In fact, he's taken not just a country by storm, but the entire world has been watching Obama with as mkuch interest. That is what is great about the primaries and I think, now upon this evidence, they do add more to American democracy. Plus, having been a fan of Obama after hearing a few of his early great speeches I am in smug mode now. But, just to return to the intriguing thing about American politics is that even someone as brilliant as Obama cannot be considered the front-runner. I wouldn't dismiss McCain and the Presidential contest is going to be one of the best for years. Mouth-watering as a prospect.
I'm rootin' for Obama wholeheartedly, only wishing there was some way I could get involved and lend a hand, and I would think that if the world were to be polled in November then Obama would win by a landslide. Obama, if elected, would become someone the entire world would look up to ... and just a personal wee political aside, here's hoping Obama invites the Prime Minister of a newly independent Scotland for tea and cheese-cake. Now that would be change we can believe in...
America has by far one of the most intriguing politics to be found in the world. There is all that cliched glitz and glamour that Westminster hacks lament when they contrast British politics with American politics. There is also the vastness and complexity and intricate internal party organisation and, of course, the primaries. I was never a fan of the primaries because I believe, and still do, to a lesser extent, that it reduces politics to the politics of personality. Yet, I must admit to having my mind changed as I watched the Democratic primaries unfold. Without primaries the Democratic nominee would certainly have been Clinton. The party machine would have picked Clinton. The primaries, though, allowed someone like Obama to take America by storm.
In fact, he's taken not just a country by storm, but the entire world has been watching Obama with as mkuch interest. That is what is great about the primaries and I think, now upon this evidence, they do add more to American democracy. Plus, having been a fan of Obama after hearing a few of his early great speeches I am in smug mode now. But, just to return to the intriguing thing about American politics is that even someone as brilliant as Obama cannot be considered the front-runner. I wouldn't dismiss McCain and the Presidential contest is going to be one of the best for years. Mouth-watering as a prospect.
I'm rootin' for Obama wholeheartedly, only wishing there was some way I could get involved and lend a hand, and I would think that if the world were to be polled in November then Obama would win by a landslide. Obama, if elected, would become someone the entire world would look up to ... and just a personal wee political aside, here's hoping Obama invites the Prime Minister of a newly independent Scotland for tea and cheese-cake. Now that would be change we can believe in...
Posted by: Mike, Florida on 3:21pm Sun 8 Jun 08
Sadly, I think Obama will lose too John McCain. Recently I joined with like minded supporters here in Florida too go door to door advertising an Obama visit. I've always looked on our community as being progressive, I found out that isn't true. Of the 230 doors I knocked on , only 20 accepted tickets too Obamas rally. The rest told me too leave, many claiming that Obama was either a communist, Arab, black nationalist, or some combination of the three. One man in particular actually threatened too , " Remove my commie loving ****" from his property at gunpoint.
Sadly, I think Obama will lose too John McCain. Recently I joined with like minded supporters here in Florida too go door to door advertising an Obama visit. I've always looked on our community as being progressive, I found out that isn't true. Of the 230 doors I knocked on , only 20 accepted tickets too Obamas rally. The rest told me too leave, many claiming that Obama was either a communist, Arab, black nationalist, or some combination of the three. One man in particular actually threatened too , " Remove my commie loving ****" from his property at gunpoint.
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 4:58pm Sun 8 Jun 08
Maybe these kind of connections can help smooth the way to independence. Our independence will strongly affect the world order so we need as many friends as we can muster. Something tells me Barak would be more inclined towards neutrality than Bush!
Maybe these kind of connections can help smooth the way to independence. Our independence will strongly affect the world order so we need as many friends as we can muster. Something tells me Barak would be more inclined towards neutrality than Bush!
Posted by: lani on 11:53pm Sun 8 Jun 08
Hang on a minute - a professor teaches a guy on one module, is impressed by 'let me finish', and goes home to his wife and says he's found a future American president? And you believe that?
Maybe he knew Obama was part of the lineage required to become a country's leader - otherwise this story is stretching credulity too far. Start thinking critically, people!
Hang on a minute - a professor teaches a guy on one module, is impressed by 'let me finish', and goes home to his wife and says he's found a future American president? And you believe that?
Maybe he knew Obama was part of the lineage required to become a country's leader - otherwise this story is stretching credulity too far. Start thinking critically, people!
Posted by: Donna Hess, Barrackville, WV on 5:41am Mon 9 Jun 08
Why is it that when someone, anyone wants you to believe something just because they have an agenda the can print 1/2 the truth to bend it to look like the truth and it is printed? Why or why cannot the ones who print it proof the claims? There are so many people who are so confused by this practice that they do not know what to think from one minute to the next. They are not stupid or uneducated, they just don't know how to proof what they read. There are so many contradictory stories that is unbelievable. Why cannot the very journalist, magazines and papers who print these opinions that are manipulated and jaded also give us the entire story and the facts so the truth is there and obvious. Right now I am very disturbed by what was printed here about Obama and his voting record. There are several who discount the claims and say it is not the entire story so why not give the entire story? If I say, because I know you hate the color green that a girl you may admire had a green dress on and in reality it was blue then the proof is there, the fact is there. Why is it so hard for you to print it? Blue is blue and green is green. Blue is not an opinion, and green is not an opinion. A vote to do something, or stop something, or change something is just that, it is not an opinion. Print what the vote was for and why. The public is confused, it is needless, you have the power to stop a lot of this "confusion."
Why is it that when someone, anyone wants you to believe something just because they have an agenda the can print 1/2 the truth to bend it to look like the truth and it is printed? Why or why cannot the ones who print it proof the claims? There are so many people who are so confused by this practice that they do not know what to think from one minute to the next. They are not stupid or uneducated, they just don't know how to proof what they read. There are so many contradictory stories that is unbelievable. Why cannot the very journalist, magazines and papers who print these opinions that are manipulated and jaded also give us the entire story and the facts so the truth is there and obvious. Right now I am very disturbed by what was printed here about Obama and his voting record. There are several who discount the claims and say it is not the entire story so why not give the entire story? If I say, because I know you hate the color green that a girl you may admire had a green dress on and in reality it was blue then the proof is there, the fact is there. Why is it so hard for you to print it? Blue is blue and green is green. Blue is not an opinion, and green is not an opinion. A vote to do something, or stop something, or change something is just that, it is not an opinion. Print what the vote was for and why. The public is confused, it is needless, you have the power to stop a lot of this "confusion."
Posted by: timtiger, saigon on 5:37am Tue 10 Jun 08
I've been intrigued by Mr. Obama for most of the primary race, particularly by his ability to respond, as professor Macneil recalls, with firmness minus the rudeness. Actually I really didn't know of Obama before the primaries. One of my American friends dismissed him, at the beginning, as temporary and non electable due to his lack of experience, and also due to what she claimed as, his inertia in the US Senate. But the first time I heard him I realized he had [italic]charisma[/italic] . Maybe I'm foolishly seduced by the possibility that a politician actually has integrity given the dismal record of that profession since its inception millenia ago, but Barack certainly knows how to answer questions with style. When people attack his reasoning or actions he always seems to come back with a powerful, yet polite and smart or is it brilliant, defense also [italic]sans[/italic] rudeness. As has been bantered around for the past months the word [italic]rhetoric[/italic] springs to mind. An analysis of some of Barracks heroes' speeches reveals metaphors, contrasts and comparisons which serve to cement the messages into the minds of the audience, for example MLK in his [italic]I Have a Dream[/italic] speech. MLK talks about the [italic]Bank of Justice[/italic] having [italic]defaulted on[/italic] their [italic]promissory note[/italic] to the [italic]people of color[/italic] . He also echoes the home states of the listeners to them everytime he repeats 'Let freedom ring....' and combines biblical metaphors thus lubricating the comprehensiblity of the message by underscoring the plight of the plight of the people by speaking the language of the listener. But not unlike MLK, for Obama, it's not the rhetoric which is the main point. The rhetoric emphasizes the main point. Unfortunately, usually [italic]rhetorical[/italic] means [italic]shady[/italic] . But rhetoric doesn't have to be rhetorical. You could say the language Shakespeare used was rhetorical, yet he is known globally for his brilliance. What shines through is that Obama doesn't believe in the Bush untruths and clearly wants to do something about it. And seems to promise he'll will do his utmost. And he seems to mean it. In my case, I don't expect from Obama: perfection. So far I've never met an infallible person, nor god, let alone a politician, and I think because we have expected and to continue to expect unfallibility, it is difficult to trust the new person on the block. Barrack has some slightly different credentials than the same old, and I expect that many security conscious voters would need some serious hugs to pursade them to give him a shot. This is not saying we ought to be sheep. We should demand transparency and say what we see. But in terms of a leader with nouse enough to disinter USA from it's current gravity, I would strongly recommend Obama over McCain based on two things: Obama's apparent passion for the cause that is America and his fresh and high level of intelligence to deal with the situation. It is stubbornness to the adherence to old republican 'virtues' that needs to be addressed. And such stubbornness is not easy in America, maybe not anywhere. But to move forward, [and get the USA united] I would recommend letting Obama do his part, because I'm sure he could help a lot more than McCain, not [italic]because[/italic] he's a Democrat but because he does care a lot about the States and does, I pretty sure, have talent to do something about its current demise.
I've been intrigued by Mr. Obama for most of the primary race, particularly by his ability to respond, as professor Macneil recalls, with firmness minus the rudeness. Actually I really didn't know of Obama before the primaries. One of my American friends dismissed him, at the beginning, as temporary and non electable due to his lack of experience, and also due to what she claimed as, his inertia in the US Senate. But the first time I heard him I realized he had
charisma . Maybe I'm foolishly seduced by the possibility that a politician actually has integrity given the dismal record of that profession since its inception millenia ago, but Barack certainly knows how to answer questions with style. When people attack his reasoning or actions he always seems to come back with a powerful, yet polite and smart or is it brilliant, defense also
sans rudeness. As has been bantered around for the past months the word
rhetoric springs to mind. An analysis of some of Barracks heroes' speeches reveals metaphors, contrasts and comparisons which serve to cement the messages into the minds of the audience, for example MLK in his
I Have a Dream speech. MLK talks about the
Bank of Justice having
defaulted on their
promissory note to the
people of color . He also echoes the home states of the listeners to them everytime he repeats 'Let freedom ring....' and combines biblical metaphors thus lubricating the comprehensiblity of the message by underscoring the plight of the plight of the people by speaking the language of the listener. But not unlike MLK, for Obama, it's not the rhetoric which is the main point. The rhetoric emphasizes the main point. Unfortunately, usually
rhetorical means
shady . But rhetoric doesn't have to be rhetorical. You could say the language Shakespeare used was rhetorical, yet he is known globally for his brilliance. What shines through is that Obama doesn't believe in the Bush untruths and clearly wants to do something about it. And seems to promise he'll will do his utmost. And he seems to mean it. In my case, I don't expect from Obama: perfection. So far I've never met an infallible person, nor god, let alone a politician, and I think because we have expected and to continue to expect unfallibility, it is difficult to trust the new person on the block. Barrack has some slightly different credentials than the same old, and I expect that many security conscious voters would need some serious hugs to pursade them to give him a shot. This is not saying we ought to be sheep. We should demand transparency and say what we see. But in terms of a leader with nouse enough to disinter USA from it's current gravity, I would strongly recommend Obama over McCain based on two things: Obama's apparent passion for the cause that is America and his fresh and high level of intelligence to deal with the situation. It is stubbornness to the adherence to old republican 'virtues' that needs to be addressed. And such stubbornness is not easy in America, maybe not anywhere. But to move forward, I would recommend letting Obama do his part, because I'm sure he could help a lot more than McCain, not
because he's a Democrat but because he does care a lot about the States and does, I pretty sure, have talent to do something about its current demise.
Comment | Read Comments (15)
Print this story
Email to a friend
