You might instead consider the obama Escrow Fund; a place you can park your pledge until obama quits walking and talking like bush lite.
Better yet, do not contribute anything to any of the pretenders to the throne. Let’s give an election and not attend!
No One for president!
Via Lambert.
Both clinton and obama have regularly played the faith card that colored so much of w’s time in office. Now obama has added a page out of the huckabee playbook to his campaign.
As the NPR article linked above shows, obama has been preaching this message throughout his campaign. It really shouldn’t have taken the Kentucky flier to quell PZ’s support a bit. Really, the dems have been pandering to this demographic for years now.
Regular readers know I place little faith in government and none in politicians. Nevertheless, I will admit to attending a democratic caucus and voting for obama. Why? Because of his opponent’s early and long support for the Iraq invasion and ongoing debacle. Failure to see through the bush veil of lies should itself preclude someone from this office.
Now, while obama still says he will end the war quickly he has started wearing the adornments of the bush administration war machine:
Really, his uniform was just fine without the lapel pin.
BTW, it might be reasonable for voters to trust democrats more than republicans however trusting politicians of any ilk is much like the chickens trusting the fox. Both parties are interested in taking care of the citizens voters only to the extent necessary to maintain power.
Some obama material contra to some of the stuff linked in this post.
Cass Sunstein, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago writes:
Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.
He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day.
On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President George W. Bush’s warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.
In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President’s power as commander-in-chief, the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.
Obama wanted to consider the best possible defence of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.
This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama’s mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.
Sunstein has more to say…go read the rest…and, for my part, I find this a very positive recommendation.
It makes it clear to me that I’d much rather have a beer with obama than the mccain depicted here. It also makes clear to me that even though I’m likely to disagree with both of these guys on many issues with obama there is a small chance, remember he is a politician, that I might get a reasoned depiction of why he has taken a particular position.