Jim, Jim, Jim. I am not attacking Sen. Obama.
Dig's edit: As for being asked a politically charged question, given the setting, circumstances and questioner, what else should Sen. Obama expected?
This leads to the question...How prepared is Sen. Obama to lead if he can't anticipate something as basic as this?
Once again, if the question is a question that any answer assumes you think your relationship with god is somehow more valid than others, and you don't believe that, how is it viewed that Obama was unprepared when he said the answer is above his pay grade? I don't get it. The objective of the interview is to see how Obama thinks. In this case I thought his answer was a relief - no "elitist" implication that he is tied into the direct Bush-link to god and got the word on this subject.
As for the "legal" frame of reference for the question, it has been legally decided. Roe vs. Wade is the legal decision that all this right to life religious right political power is being built on resisting. To suggest this is a "legal" argument is two faced. It is a religious right grab for power move. Plain and simple. Divide and conquer, us vs. them, the Aryans vs. Jews, Whites vs. Blacks, etc. all over again. Pro-choice allows anyone to not have an abortion. Pro-live enforces a specific interpretation on others who may not agree. Big difference. Like making Christians believe in Allah as I see it.
Religious organizations have shown over and over in history that they do not have the skills needed to wield political power to bring peace. Why do we have to learn this over and over?
In addition to the usual reasons I come here, I am also seeking some enlightenment and education. FTL has had a profound effect on me and I would describe my political awareness prior to these happy days at BWOT as somewhere in the neighborhood of a 15 watt bulb. Now I feel llike a 40 watter, aspiring to 60! I read what everyone says and try to sort it out but sometimes I have questions. I want clarification so I ask.
Given the vociferousness of the lefterly side of this happy band of palaverers, I have no choice but to ask of those who post.
As for the right, I could ask Jay but he mostly talks in graphs which are too small for me to read and comprehend. If I ask the others, the left side swings into action like a fire horse hearing the bell so I just save a step and go directly to the source.
This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue until you agree the conservatives are no longer "conservative" because their interpretation of the United States Constitution is conservative - they are now "conservative" because they are pandering to the religious fanatics who call themselves Christians in this country to "conserve" their political power. Like the Crusaders the religious right in America is looking to tell people from all faiths and beliefs how to run their lives. That this somehow appeals to the conservatives of old is bizarre.
Obama seems nice enough. He is acknowledged to be just right of Karl Marx but if everyone says that's ok, then I'll consider him.
Like I said previously, I voted for the Dem. candidate in the last two presidential elections. Are you certain you want me to do so again?
Dig's edit: I tried to edit once but it didn't appear.
Once again I'll try. Regarding the "politically charged question", given the setting, circumstances and questioner, shouldn't Sen. Obama have been prepared to provide an answer? Does this speak to his readiness to lead?
The objective is not to get you to vote one way or another. It is to keep the evaluation of facts just that, evaluation of facts, even if they affect the outcome of an election or could be presented with a spin one way or the other. In this instance there was a suggestion that Obama was not prepared to give an answer. I don't think that is true. His answer is merely "I don't have an answer to that question." Which I believe is a truthful answer and no amount of preparation will make it any more truthful or meaningful. It could become more politically pandering, but I doubt it would be more honest and to the point. But you wanted him to squirm more. Sorry. I think he did a good job deflecting the intent and spirit of the question.