Jed - "You may not agree with him, but you cannot accuse him of hiding his agenda or views."
Synchronicity in action: At the very moment I read those words of yours above I was listening to the recording of Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw discussing how nobody knows where he really is philosophically and to some extent politically. Actually I agree with you that indeed we do know what his views are: he's liberal. It's just that you and others here tend to like who that is, and I most likely don't. Example of not knowing for sure where he's coming from: <fuzzy memory alert, details likely to be slightly off> during the campaign, some handgun law somewhere was struck down in court, in DC I think, maybe it was in NY. BO was asked about it, and I said "Ha - here we go..." and listened to his response which was all about how people have a right to keep such firearms in their homes and have a right to armed self defense, and that the judge made a correct decision in the case, etc. I recall the reporter who asked the question sounding surprised and pitching a follow up to give him an opening to retrace a bit (as all good liberal media members should do if Their Man stumbles astray), but he just confirmed his opinion. I think I actually kind of enjoy the dizziness hit I felt that comes with that much cognitive dissonance, as long as I don't hurt myself hitting the floor. A spokesperson for the NRA couldn't have said it better than he did. This assumes (correctly) that the standard liberal take on firearms is to keep and expand stringent laws like the (DC? NY?) law, if firearms are even allowed to be to kept and borne at all. So what will he really *do* RE 2nd amendment issues? Your guess is as good as mine.
