1. Maybe its willful blindness, but connecting Obama to Ayers “the terrorist” says nothing racial. Not even if I stretch it. What is the implication, that since Obama is hanging out with a terrorist, that people of skin are terrorists? Even though Ayers is WHITE? Hogwash. That one or two individuals interpret that speech in that way says nothing about the racial intentions of the speech, given the connection between race and Ayers is so tenuous.

If that is the hermeneutical standard, I suppose we can call Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” remark as “unmasking” Obama’s sexist intentions. No?

2. As for Palin’s church ..if you are going to talk about faith traditions, Jeremiah Wright’s/Obama’s racist church is a thousand times more problematic than Palin. Talking about God’s will as if it be in line with your own is problematic, although certain people, like Lincoln presumed to think he was doing God’s will. Palin’s words on the war being God’s plan were completely distorted by ABC and the AP. Go here and I think you will agree: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/

Question: Do you think bringing up Ayers is a legitimate issue if Obama has praised some of his views in the past?

2.My point was to show the equivalent ridiculousness between branding someone as in league with terrorists because he sat in the same room with Ayers six times and the equally tenuous association of linking Palin to a witch hunter pastor who she received prayer from once. I think they are both equally ridiculous associations.

That said the one thing about that clip that does bother me and which I find problematic for me personally is that Palin has been part of a faith tradition that strongly holds to the belief that we can in nearly every situation unequivocally discern god’s will. That is evidenced in Thomas Muthee’s prayer and in other clips of Palin speaking to her former church about Iraq as “a holy war” and referring to the Alaskan pipeline as “god’s will.”

And as for racism….I am interested to know if you think she is seriously fanning the flames of racism? You link to it, but I almost find it too incredulous to think you really believe that it is subtly racist. Am I incorrect?

2. As for the Palin associations, I really don’t think you can compare the associations a visiting pastor laying hands on you and someone you have known for 20 years, called a close mentor, etc. with Wright and Ayers (whom he knew for at least a decade). I certainly wouldn’t want to be judged on who has ever prayed for me. Would you?

@Jonathan, @ Mike.

I do believe there should be restrictions on abortion. And I will repeat: I am against abortion. But my point here was NOT to talk about my position on abortion, so much as my position on how Roe v. Wade and other related political legislation fits into one’s political choices. This was not my attempt at an all-inclusive presentation of my full beliefs on abortion. Something that I’m not sure I could even do now or in this forum. I will repeat, though, I do not believe in abortion.

I think my underlying belief in the fact that nothing gets truly done without being done on the micro level informs what I’m trying to express–there are more effective ways to address abortion than by voting R on a ballot every few years.

I knew a family growing up that renovated a portion of their house to make room for pregnant women to live there, providing options for women who had no family or money to turn to in their crisis. I think they were effective.

My personal conviction against abortion is informing my rather pragmatic position of being “pro-choice.” [Again, I’ll also reiterate: I don’t think this definition is helpful or even necessarily accurate, but it’s my way of working within an issue that’s been binary to the exclusion of actually talking about how it pertains to our vote]. Because, while the abortion rate has fallen somewhat in the past few years, the trend line overall has been steadily increasing. And the U.S. still has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the developed world with teen birth rates on the rise.

Which, to me, suggests a bigger problem than legislation can fix.

Now tell me, does that sound like a good way to start a conversation? Just imagine doing that to an actual stranger on the street. Someone you don’t know, wearing a pro-Obama t-shirt or something, just going up to them and saying, “Hey baby-killer! Guess your money’s more important than not killing babies!” And then walking away. Does that sound civil or decent to you?

I don’t care if you disagree with me or anyone else, but I do care about how you express your views. So, while I appreciate your follow-up comment - the one that contained actual, fully-formed arguments - the way you started things off was uncalled for.

Seriously? Fully formed arguments?

What does drilling, NRA, or Mulsims have to do with abortion?

Mike: If you’re looking for more snappy and thoughtless phrases you can spout out whenever you’re met with someone that disagrees with your nuanceless grasp of the issues, try these out:

-When someone thinks we should create a whole new source of jobs via research into and implementation of green energy infrastructures, you go look them right in the eye and say, “DRILL BABY DRILL!” Their expression of pity and mournful shaking of the head indicates you won the conversation!

-If someone suggests that we avoid getting further entrenched in an endless, pointless war, and instead plan for a responsible withdrawal that takes into account the situation on the ground, tell them “These colors DON’T RUN!” Also, given your interlocutor’s position on war, odds are they are not a member of the NRA, so you can go ahead a wave any firearms you own in their face to punctuate your point, secure in the knowledge that they’re not similarly armed.

-Whenever you are simply overcome by differing opinions that are better articulated and more thought out than yours, just start screaming “USA! USA! USA!” That should do it. You may also want to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a radical Muslim terrorist.

OR, and this is totally crazy I know, you can instead respond with a fully-formed argument like an adult, and save the clever comebacks for youth group.

Thanks.

Finally, your comment that “making abortion a key pivot issue on whether you vote D or R is distracting and irrelevant” is quite alarming. Certainly I don’t have to agree with your position on Iraq, the economy, and health care. But to call it irrelevant and distracting in making a voting choice between R and D shows a fundamental disrespect for those who believe it is an important issue. I don’t agree with granting habeas to foreign terrorists out of the States, but it is relevant and important. How much more relevant is the statistic that 10 million less people will live in our country in the next ten years because of anti-life policies like late term abortion and easy access to federal funding on abortion (and judges upholding those policies) - something the candidates CAN be involved with.