--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, enlightened_dawn11 > > <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > > > > > > i find it odd that those who would criticize our next > > > > > > > President for the company he may keep hold him to an > > > > > > > impossible standard, and one that is impossible for > > > > > > > any public figure to uphold. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way these accusations are always framed imply that > > > > > > > as a public figure, you are responsible for the lives, > > > > > > > values, judgments, speech and actions of everyone you > > > > > > > have ever had more than a passing association with, > > > > > > > past and present. > > > > I think that's *sometimes* the attitude, but by no > > means "always." I also think there's a range of > > possibility in terms of meeting standards. No public > > figure is going to meet an absolute standard, but > > some come closer to it than others, in terms of the > > nature of their associations and the degree to which > > the associations seem repellent. > > > > And I think Obama tends to *invite* this kind of > > criticism because he really does present himself as > > holier-than-thou, spotless and untouchable. Plus > > which, some of his repellent associations have been > > quite recent, such as with the homophobic "reformed > > gay" Donnie McClurkin. > > > > Just in general, if he had been more straightforward > > and forthcoming about his past associations from the > > get-go, it would have been much more difficult for > > folks to use them against him. > > > > So I think there's some truth to your premise and > > conclusions, but the situation isn't nearly as cut- > > and-dried as you make it sound. > > > thanks for answering. as to this holier than thou perception > of obama, i'm just not seeing it. he protects and crafts his > public image, sure, but i don't get the whole better than > anybody else attitude from him.
OK. I can't account for what you see and don't see. But this is a big reason why some of us find him, shall we say, less than appealing. i do on the other hand think he is one of the few > presidents we have had who is a good fit for the times; able > to truly lead instead of just making things worse for most > of us. God knows, I hope you're right. But I'm not optimistic. > to excuse any of this stuff being thrown at him as somehow > due to his actions i think gives those seeking to slander > him a free pass. Not sure where you've seen me or anybody else suggesting it was OK to tell falsehoods about him. Let's change "slander" to "criticism," OK? Because that's what the "stuff" I was talking about is: "to excuse any of this stuff being thrown at him as somehow due to his actions i think gives those seeking to criticize him a free pass." Doesn't make quite so much sense now, does it?
