Plus side: Is it really accurate to call him left-libertarian? Does the linked-to article accurately describe Obama's positions? If so, sign me up!
(It seems strange to me that there would be ambiguity, or argument, about what a candidate's positions are. You can argue about whether those positions are correct, whether supported programs are consistent with supported positions, unintended consequences, etc., but in this information age you'd think candidates' own views would be more widely circulated.)
Minus side: I guess this should be worrisome, though honestly I don't see any particular problem. If I were ambivalent about Obama this might have had some small effect; if I disliked him as a candidate maybe this would have lowered my opinion. It doesn't seem to tell us much about him, though, or so I claim.
(N.B. I've also utterly failed to object when various Republican candidates have visited Bob Jones University during their South Carolina campaigns. Either they're not doing this in 2008, or it's not making the news, or I'm just not noticing.)
Posted by Matt Bruce at January 14, 2008 12:41 PMin this information age you'd think candidates' own views would be more widely circulated.
Maybe the Information Age is having the opposite effect and actually creating the ambiguity. How? By making available every speech, every debate, every action, every unscripted, off-the-cuff remark they have had for the past 10-15 years. If we did that to you, would we find 100% consistency or would there be a lot of things like "Well, it seems like he advocates X, but then here are a couple of blog posts that seem to advocate a different position Y."
Posted by: Kubi at January 14, 2008 05:37 PMAlso, Bob Jones removed its ban on interracial dating a few years ago, so a candidate speaking there would be less controversial now.
Posted by: Joshua at January 15, 2008 03:16 AM