i dunno, i am just not convinced "beyond sufficient level of doubt" that Obama is a US-hating person. He might not be happy with some aspects, but hey - I expect better from the USA.
And this Ayers and pastors issues - first, I have to explain what I mean by the "beyond sufficient level of doubt." If associations like this appear, they should be checked. But it is forming an idea, a hypothesis, it is not yet a verified fact. It is just something to check. It is not "proven," like for example the second law of thermodynamics is.
You will probably say - "but the PRESIDENT is so important that we cannot rely on someone that we have not seen do his work in practice. It is not that we can allow someone before we have checked every single thing!" I agree - but what can we do? Obama was not even supposed to be running for president this year! The original plan was to prepare him for 2012, or so I heard. But he could sway so many people that plans changed. There are not many good-speakers that are in the politics - and I have not followed politics closely enough, but there did not seem to be any other candidates that passed the test. (maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe Hillary, but she was sniped in Sarajevo and was carrying a lot of wounds from that battle.) My point is - the democratic party had to try him out, he did not have a good competition.
Or maybe he did have some competition within the party - but I have not followed politics to really know. But now he became a political machine - he's from Harvard after all. Which brings me to the second point - maybe these associations have another dimension too, that of the political thought he'd use.
I saw this argument on several different articles. A few of them were from news.google's searches and a few from Glenn Beck. The story goes that he just used going to Wright's church as a political leverage within Chicago. After he left Chicago and Wright was causing him trouble - "he went down the drain." Hmmm, I kinda expect that from a Harvard alum - with some people in mind. Back to the story though - could it be that Wright's connection was just a political gimmick while he was in Chicago?
I don't know about your feelings toward political gimmicks but this one might show he is simply not naive. I do not know for sure - and I would not search the facts to substantiate my suggestion further, as I simply would not bother. But these gimmicks, I believe, work better when meeting people like Putin.
My post goes from what is a "proven" fact, to his quick rise within the last 2 years and I put one other explanation of his association with Wright. That's a lot. But either way, I would like to see more stories about this guy - and I wonder how would vetting people work better. I don't think the claims that he is consciously seeking "ex-terrorists friendship" carry any meaning though. The guy seems fine so far.
That said - yes, he has to hold his hand when he hears the anthem. Yes, he should have american flags waving around. Yes, he needs more experience in the foreign field and more "hawkishness." But I think he'd do alright. I am ready to bet some money, if you wish :-)
Now, I have one question for you though - can you think of a good way to really check how the presidents are going to act? Because right now we have half-told stories and I don't think that is enough. We have the debates and the the whole media flapping around and that seems to work ok; but should there be extra tests along the way?
I am all-in on electrics.
good for yu!