grmorton
March 16th 2008, 07:13 PM
I chose the name of this thread because of a funny site my son showed me, http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com/ which every time you click the page you get a wonderful new thing that Barack Obama will do for you or a note about how much Barack loves you. It fits with what my lovely future daughter-in-law called him, the Obamessiah.
Those who are familiar with my writings over on the Natural Science forum know that I often discuss the effects of bias upon our lives and the recent flap about Barack and his weird, angry pastor presents a perfect example of how bias can get in the way of dealing with reality. We all have our desires about how life should be. We all have our beliefs about the content of the world. But beliefs and desires do not a reality make. In the natural science forum I often take young-earthers to task for ignoring geologic data which they find uncomfortable. I also take old earther’s to task for their bias which leads them to never see the illogicality of claiming that there is no history in Genesis, while at the same time claiming that it teaches absolutely truth theology! I also take atheists to task for their bias in criticizing Christians for believing in unobservable things like angels, Gods, etc, when modern physics forces us to believe in the multiverse—an infinity of other unobserved universes which contain doppelgangers of you and I all doing precisely what you and I are doing right now. Only bias can lead one to criticise Christians for believing in an unobserved God but allow as scientific, the believing in the existence of unobserved other you’s!
The fascinating thing, to me, coming out of this week’s news about Obama’s weird pastor concerns what I think is the bias in the news media. I first heard about this weird church a year ago, but only on the internet, not in the news media. My observation is that in general, the news media has been supportive of Obama. I would cite several anecdotes as support for this contention, among them: Chris Matthews getting in trouble for claiming that Hilary would only be where she was because of her marriage (an event for which he was forced to apologize); Cooper Anderson’s casual dismissal of the weird pastor issue as a news story; Chris Matthews excusing Barack’s choice of pastor; Oprah’s support; Saturday Night Live’s (surely not a bastion of conservatism) spoofing of the debates where the Media gives Barack pillows and snaps at Hillary; the utter slowness of the media to bring forth anything bad on Barack (his ties to Rezko and indeed a slowness to report on the weird pastor). Thus, I would conclude that much of the press wishes Barack success and they think they are helping by ignoring potentially bad news reports about him.
I would also suggest that the press probably as a rule wishes that a democrat would win rather than McCain (Evidence: NYTimes’ made up piece about a fictional McCain affair which they had for months and only ran when McCain became the nominee). With this as a back ground set of assumptions, I would like to analyze the situation with the point to show that that bias is now getting in the way of democratic success.
Indeed, I would actually go further than merely saying that bias gets in the way. It has actually given huge hope to dispirited republicans. If ever there was a year when the democrats should win this is it. The American people are tired of the war in Iraq. Bush has not been good for the republicans, indeed he has been a bit of an embarassment. The economy is tanking. It has been 8 years of republicans and people are tired of them (especially since there is so little difference between the way they have governed and the way the Dems governed when they were in power meaning that there is little draw for the republican faithful). But, I would suggest that the bias in the media may turn things around for the republicans and now puts the Dems in a huge problem; indeed, there is a chance that they may implode. Here is why.
The role of the press in a campaign should be to vet the candidates. They should be out there digging up the hidden things so that the candidate is known—no surprises should be found past the convention. But often the press doesn’t do their job. When Dukakis ran for the presidency, there were party leaders who tried to warn the Dems about Willie Horton. But bias prevented this information being out there in public during the nomination. His supporters didn’t want to face this potential issue. In other words, Dukakis wasn’t fully vetted when he won the nomination. The press supporters of Dukakis wouldn’t talk about Horton in the press because they didn’t want to hurt Dukakis and they may really not have seen that this was a touchstone issue for the American public. For those who might not remember, Willie Horton was a murderer (they stabbed a gas station guy 19 times and dumped him in a trash can) that Dukakis’s government didn’t try to change the law that he inherited and so it gave a weekend pass from prison to poor old Willie and he promptly went out and raped two women, pistol-whipping and knifing a male companion in a most grizzly manner. George Bush Sr. invoked the political death penalty on Dukakis using Horton as the means. The final, but far too late involvement of the press was Bernard Kalb’s question to Dukakis in the debates about whether or not Dukakis would be for the death penalty if Kitty, his wife had been raped. Dukakis's answer sounded like a real wimp who didn't care a whit for his wife, cinching the election for Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton
Now, the press supporters of Dukakis would presumably have preferred to see a democrat win rather than a republican, but by failing to get this issue out on the table before the convention, they actually caused the loss to Bush. They might have found a more formidable opponent if they had been more diligent.
This is the analogy I see with the Obama situation. The news about the weird church was out there for a long time. The press supporters ignored it. Obama’s political supporters didn’t think it was a big deal (and still don’t). Their bias prevents them from seeing the impact on the average American. I was looking at the Daily Kos to see what they were saying about this issue. One guy put up a video of a lady talking about how nice, friendly and loving Trinity church is. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632
No doubt that is true, but it is irrelevant. The Daily Kos is, like many political gathering points, one huge echo chamber. What one says gets re-worded and said back to that person. and because it agrees with what they want to hear, they view it as confirmation of their beliefs. (Republicans, Christians, Atheists, etc shouldn’t take comfort that they see the truth and only the Dems are engaged in such an echo chamber—we are all subject to it, including me) Several people in the comments on this video think that the church is fine and dandy. Saying G-D America in church or calling the US, the ‘US of KKA’ doesn’t seem like a bad thing to them, maybe because so many on the Daily Kos say similar things each day. But by only hearing what they want to hear rather than actually listening to the arguments of the other side, one will quickly lose any understanding of the reaction of other communities in the nation. If one never listens to ones political/religious/scientific adversaries, one can't understand what would drive them; can't understand how they will react to certain situations. Without knowing that, one can't play a strategic game.
By only hearing one side, one begins to think that everyone agrees with what you believe! One often hears on political talk shows of all stripes, statements that start with “if the government doesn’t change this, the American people will rise up and change it”. Reality is that only that guy’s community is against it—someone is for it or the policy wouldn’t exist. Only the group with whom he talks would rise up, and that might be a tiny tiny minority. (The 5 angry peasants who had been seriously discussing how bad the king was, got their pitchforks and faced the army of 20,000! :lol:)
Now, by ignoring the Obama’s preacher story until this late date in the nomination process there are several problems that have been created. First,some people who supported Obama now are leaving him because they found the concept that the future president of the US would sit and listen to such statements about “Rich White Americans” and “the US of KKKA” untenable. The reaction of the crowd clearly showed that everyone in the church agreed with what the preacher was saying--so why not Obama? Some of his supporters might also find it a wee bit paranoidish of a minister to think that the US government invented AIDS with the express purpose of causing misery in Africans. One guy who claimed to have given Obama money and worked for him for a year said that after hearing this he was through with Obama. I heard several other supporters express similar disappointment. The refusal of the press to vet this issue has caused these people to waste much of their political time and capital.
Second, because of the group politics of the democratic party, we have two groups who have wanted the White House coming into conflict—women and African Americans. These are two of the major constituencies of the Democrats. As Donna Brazzille just said today, there are emotions. For 40 years women have wanted the White House and for 40 years blacks have wanted the White House. If this issue had been vetted a year ago, before the primaries, the expectations of Obama’s supporters might not be where they rightfully currently are. Of course Obama has been the vote getter and should get the nomination, he has trounced Hillary and gotten most of the vo tes—but would he be where he is now if the weird pastor story came out last year? Would the Dems be about to screw up their best shot of taking everything because the new media didn't do their job? I think it likely.
This conflict between the two groups is now causing blood letting within the Democratic party. Of the blood-letting between the women’s groups and the African Americans, Brazzille said that it was the kind of blood which can’t be eliminated with bleach! Obviously whichever side loses will be very unhappy. Several months ago, if the story on Obama’s choice of church had come out, there might be a different situation today. Expectations on the part of one or the other constituency wouldn’t be so intense. By being biased and not doing their job, the press has actually stuck it to the democrats, all the while, I am sure, they were thinking they were helping by suppressing bad news about their favorites.
The superdelegates now have the choice of going with Obama with whom they will get to hear Jeremiah Wright over and over all Fall in 3rd party ads (not to mention the fact that Wright’s views fit with Obama’s previous proclamation that he won’t wear a US flag lapel pin and his wife’s lack of pride in her country). This won't sit well with independents. What other skeletons lurk in Obama's closet (I have heard rumors of more stuff being reserved for now)? Or, they could go with Hillary and enrage the African-Americans who then won’t show up to vote for her, leading to a republican landslide. On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal had a poll which said that 20% of the Democrats wouldn’t show up to vote for Obama (of course, Hillary has her share of problems along these lines as well with 12% saying they would never vote for her, which 12% is likely to be larger if Obama doesn't get the nomination).
And this is the problem faced by the Democrats. A problem that their own biases caused. They failed to face up to this problem; they didn't have an ounce of skepticism about their own candidate and now they are paying for it. Adulation does not go hand in hand with rational skepticism. One other shoe that is falling from on high from Obama's closet is the Rezko affair, which they are not facing up to. The London Times has done a better job of reporting on this than anyone in the US.
] The Obamas bought a mock Georgian mansion in Chicago in June 2005, after he was elected to the US Senate. Mr Rezko’s wife, Rita, bought the adjacent garden on the same day from the same seller. The sellers say that Mr Obama and Mr Rezko toured the property together before the transaction. At the time, it was already known that Mr Rezko was under criminal investigation. Mrs Rezko paid the full asking price of $625,000 (£315,000) for the garden. The Obamas paid $1.65 million for the house – $300,000 below asking price. The garden could be accessed only through the Obamas’ property, and Mr Obama’s gardener mowed the lawn. In January 2006, Mrs Rezko sold a 10ft strip of her garden to the Obamas for $104,500 and a fence was erected between the two lots. Mrs Rezko has since sold the remainder of the garden to a lawyer for her husband’s business. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3486054.ece
This violates Senate Ethics rules for one thing. If Hillary doesn't file a complaint, I bet the republicans will before the Fall elections. (political games are a form of hardball).
The article cited above also notes that an Iraqi Billionaire with Syrian connections wired the Rezko’s a large sum of money just weeks before this deal. Prosecuters are interested in why Obama could buy his part of the property at a $300,000 discount. Is the bias in the press ignoring this Syrian connection???? Where is this going to lead when Obama gets the nomination? What do the Syrians want from him?
Obama has already scared another constituency of the democrats--Jewish Americans. I was at a party at a friends house. She is Jewish. When I raised this issue, she said that they were all very frightened by the rhetoric Obama is putting out about Israel. These are not normally republican voters, but I think I see some defections to McCain if Obama is the nominee.
According to a radio report, Rezko’s wife, with an income of $37,000/year but somehow plops down $625,000. Where did the money come from?
According to the Associated Press, “U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve jailed Rezko Jan. 28, saying he had disobeyed her order to keep her posted on his financial status. Among other things, he failed to tell her about a $3.5 million loan from London-based Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi – a loan that was later forgiven in exchange for shares in a prime slice of Chicago real estate. Rezko gave $700,000 of the money to his wife and used the rest to pay legal bills and funnel cash to various supporters.”
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4C33B7D0-C44E-4F03-919E-B71328BA42ED
Looks like Rezko's wife got to keep $75,000 and didn't make clear her true income. Walden further notes that the money trail may go into the UN’s oil for food program.
Now, whatever one thinks of the deal (which was great for the Obamas, no one arranges for me to buy a house for $300 grand less than the asking price by paying more for something else), if Obama is the nominee, this will come up again. Of this we can be sure. But the bias of devotees to a political candidate are making them blind to the coming problems. And the complicity of the press in remaining silent about these issues does the democrats a disservice. And this is what this article is really about.
If one really wants to succeed in life, in investing, in politics, one simply can’t ignore the bad news. Ignoring the bad news is now putting the democrats in the unenviable position of giving the nomination to a guy who has another real estate problem and a weird preacher with whom he has spent hours and to whom in 2006 gave $22,000, but who now claims never to actually have heard what the guy was saying! (What does it say about one's judgement to give money to causes you don't agree with?) Or the super delegates could give the nomination to the one who only has the real estate problem (Whitewater) but which is so old now no one cares, but in doing so, enraging a major constituency. Bias is corrosive ad self-defeating as the democrats and their supporters in the press are about to find out again as they did with Dukakis.
But, I won’t leave others untouched by this either. I wanted to put this in the Natural Science forum because the real thrust of this argument is not against Obama, but against bias in all forms: Bias against any evidence for a old-earth. Bias against hearing anything the democrats (or republicans) say. Bias against religion itself. Bias against atheists and against hearing their arguments. It is very easy to see bias in one’s opponents. It is extremely difficult to see bias in oneself. But if one is doing what I did when I was a young-earth creationist, not listening to arguments against one’s preferred position, one is risking even worse problems. (see Morton’s Demon, http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm )
Those who are familiar with my writings over on the Natural Science forum know that I often discuss the effects of bias upon our lives and the recent flap about Barack and his weird, angry pastor presents a perfect example of how bias can get in the way of dealing with reality. We all have our desires about how life should be. We all have our beliefs about the content of the world. But beliefs and desires do not a reality make. In the natural science forum I often take young-earthers to task for ignoring geologic data which they find uncomfortable. I also take old earther’s to task for their bias which leads them to never see the illogicality of claiming that there is no history in Genesis, while at the same time claiming that it teaches absolutely truth theology! I also take atheists to task for their bias in criticizing Christians for believing in unobservable things like angels, Gods, etc, when modern physics forces us to believe in the multiverse—an infinity of other unobserved universes which contain doppelgangers of you and I all doing precisely what you and I are doing right now. Only bias can lead one to criticise Christians for believing in an unobserved God but allow as scientific, the believing in the existence of unobserved other you’s!
The fascinating thing, to me, coming out of this week’s news about Obama’s weird pastor concerns what I think is the bias in the news media. I first heard about this weird church a year ago, but only on the internet, not in the news media. My observation is that in general, the news media has been supportive of Obama. I would cite several anecdotes as support for this contention, among them: Chris Matthews getting in trouble for claiming that Hilary would only be where she was because of her marriage (an event for which he was forced to apologize); Cooper Anderson’s casual dismissal of the weird pastor issue as a news story; Chris Matthews excusing Barack’s choice of pastor; Oprah’s support; Saturday Night Live’s (surely not a bastion of conservatism) spoofing of the debates where the Media gives Barack pillows and snaps at Hillary; the utter slowness of the media to bring forth anything bad on Barack (his ties to Rezko and indeed a slowness to report on the weird pastor). Thus, I would conclude that much of the press wishes Barack success and they think they are helping by ignoring potentially bad news reports about him.
I would also suggest that the press probably as a rule wishes that a democrat would win rather than McCain (Evidence: NYTimes’ made up piece about a fictional McCain affair which they had for months and only ran when McCain became the nominee). With this as a back ground set of assumptions, I would like to analyze the situation with the point to show that that bias is now getting in the way of democratic success.
Indeed, I would actually go further than merely saying that bias gets in the way. It has actually given huge hope to dispirited republicans. If ever there was a year when the democrats should win this is it. The American people are tired of the war in Iraq. Bush has not been good for the republicans, indeed he has been a bit of an embarassment. The economy is tanking. It has been 8 years of republicans and people are tired of them (especially since there is so little difference between the way they have governed and the way the Dems governed when they were in power meaning that there is little draw for the republican faithful). But, I would suggest that the bias in the media may turn things around for the republicans and now puts the Dems in a huge problem; indeed, there is a chance that they may implode. Here is why.
The role of the press in a campaign should be to vet the candidates. They should be out there digging up the hidden things so that the candidate is known—no surprises should be found past the convention. But often the press doesn’t do their job. When Dukakis ran for the presidency, there were party leaders who tried to warn the Dems about Willie Horton. But bias prevented this information being out there in public during the nomination. His supporters didn’t want to face this potential issue. In other words, Dukakis wasn’t fully vetted when he won the nomination. The press supporters of Dukakis wouldn’t talk about Horton in the press because they didn’t want to hurt Dukakis and they may really not have seen that this was a touchstone issue for the American public. For those who might not remember, Willie Horton was a murderer (they stabbed a gas station guy 19 times and dumped him in a trash can) that Dukakis’s government didn’t try to change the law that he inherited and so it gave a weekend pass from prison to poor old Willie and he promptly went out and raped two women, pistol-whipping and knifing a male companion in a most grizzly manner. George Bush Sr. invoked the political death penalty on Dukakis using Horton as the means. The final, but far too late involvement of the press was Bernard Kalb’s question to Dukakis in the debates about whether or not Dukakis would be for the death penalty if Kitty, his wife had been raped. Dukakis's answer sounded like a real wimp who didn't care a whit for his wife, cinching the election for Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton
Now, the press supporters of Dukakis would presumably have preferred to see a democrat win rather than a republican, but by failing to get this issue out on the table before the convention, they actually caused the loss to Bush. They might have found a more formidable opponent if they had been more diligent.
This is the analogy I see with the Obama situation. The news about the weird church was out there for a long time. The press supporters ignored it. Obama’s political supporters didn’t think it was a big deal (and still don’t). Their bias prevents them from seeing the impact on the average American. I was looking at the Daily Kos to see what they were saying about this issue. One guy put up a video of a lady talking about how nice, friendly and loving Trinity church is. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/15/203242/685/352/477632
No doubt that is true, but it is irrelevant. The Daily Kos is, like many political gathering points, one huge echo chamber. What one says gets re-worded and said back to that person. and because it agrees with what they want to hear, they view it as confirmation of their beliefs. (Republicans, Christians, Atheists, etc shouldn’t take comfort that they see the truth and only the Dems are engaged in such an echo chamber—we are all subject to it, including me) Several people in the comments on this video think that the church is fine and dandy. Saying G-D America in church or calling the US, the ‘US of KKA’ doesn’t seem like a bad thing to them, maybe because so many on the Daily Kos say similar things each day. But by only hearing what they want to hear rather than actually listening to the arguments of the other side, one will quickly lose any understanding of the reaction of other communities in the nation. If one never listens to ones political/religious/scientific adversaries, one can't understand what would drive them; can't understand how they will react to certain situations. Without knowing that, one can't play a strategic game.
By only hearing one side, one begins to think that everyone agrees with what you believe! One often hears on political talk shows of all stripes, statements that start with “if the government doesn’t change this, the American people will rise up and change it”. Reality is that only that guy’s community is against it—someone is for it or the policy wouldn’t exist. Only the group with whom he talks would rise up, and that might be a tiny tiny minority. (The 5 angry peasants who had been seriously discussing how bad the king was, got their pitchforks and faced the army of 20,000! :lol:)
Now, by ignoring the Obama’s preacher story until this late date in the nomination process there are several problems that have been created. First,some people who supported Obama now are leaving him because they found the concept that the future president of the US would sit and listen to such statements about “Rich White Americans” and “the US of KKKA” untenable. The reaction of the crowd clearly showed that everyone in the church agreed with what the preacher was saying--so why not Obama? Some of his supporters might also find it a wee bit paranoidish of a minister to think that the US government invented AIDS with the express purpose of causing misery in Africans. One guy who claimed to have given Obama money and worked for him for a year said that after hearing this he was through with Obama. I heard several other supporters express similar disappointment. The refusal of the press to vet this issue has caused these people to waste much of their political time and capital.
Second, because of the group politics of the democratic party, we have two groups who have wanted the White House coming into conflict—women and African Americans. These are two of the major constituencies of the Democrats. As Donna Brazzille just said today, there are emotions. For 40 years women have wanted the White House and for 40 years blacks have wanted the White House. If this issue had been vetted a year ago, before the primaries, the expectations of Obama’s supporters might not be where they rightfully currently are. Of course Obama has been the vote getter and should get the nomination, he has trounced Hillary and gotten most of the vo tes—but would he be where he is now if the weird pastor story came out last year? Would the Dems be about to screw up their best shot of taking everything because the new media didn't do their job? I think it likely.
This conflict between the two groups is now causing blood letting within the Democratic party. Of the blood-letting between the women’s groups and the African Americans, Brazzille said that it was the kind of blood which can’t be eliminated with bleach! Obviously whichever side loses will be very unhappy. Several months ago, if the story on Obama’s choice of church had come out, there might be a different situation today. Expectations on the part of one or the other constituency wouldn’t be so intense. By being biased and not doing their job, the press has actually stuck it to the democrats, all the while, I am sure, they were thinking they were helping by suppressing bad news about their favorites.
The superdelegates now have the choice of going with Obama with whom they will get to hear Jeremiah Wright over and over all Fall in 3rd party ads (not to mention the fact that Wright’s views fit with Obama’s previous proclamation that he won’t wear a US flag lapel pin and his wife’s lack of pride in her country). This won't sit well with independents. What other skeletons lurk in Obama's closet (I have heard rumors of more stuff being reserved for now)? Or, they could go with Hillary and enrage the African-Americans who then won’t show up to vote for her, leading to a republican landslide. On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal had a poll which said that 20% of the Democrats wouldn’t show up to vote for Obama (of course, Hillary has her share of problems along these lines as well with 12% saying they would never vote for her, which 12% is likely to be larger if Obama doesn't get the nomination).
And this is the problem faced by the Democrats. A problem that their own biases caused. They failed to face up to this problem; they didn't have an ounce of skepticism about their own candidate and now they are paying for it. Adulation does not go hand in hand with rational skepticism. One other shoe that is falling from on high from Obama's closet is the Rezko affair, which they are not facing up to. The London Times has done a better job of reporting on this than anyone in the US.
] The Obamas bought a mock Georgian mansion in Chicago in June 2005, after he was elected to the US Senate. Mr Rezko’s wife, Rita, bought the adjacent garden on the same day from the same seller. The sellers say that Mr Obama and Mr Rezko toured the property together before the transaction. At the time, it was already known that Mr Rezko was under criminal investigation. Mrs Rezko paid the full asking price of $625,000 (£315,000) for the garden. The Obamas paid $1.65 million for the house – $300,000 below asking price. The garden could be accessed only through the Obamas’ property, and Mr Obama’s gardener mowed the lawn. In January 2006, Mrs Rezko sold a 10ft strip of her garden to the Obamas for $104,500 and a fence was erected between the two lots. Mrs Rezko has since sold the remainder of the garden to a lawyer for her husband’s business. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3486054.ece
This violates Senate Ethics rules for one thing. If Hillary doesn't file a complaint, I bet the republicans will before the Fall elections. (political games are a form of hardball).
The article cited above also notes that an Iraqi Billionaire with Syrian connections wired the Rezko’s a large sum of money just weeks before this deal. Prosecuters are interested in why Obama could buy his part of the property at a $300,000 discount. Is the bias in the press ignoring this Syrian connection???? Where is this going to lead when Obama gets the nomination? What do the Syrians want from him?
Obama has already scared another constituency of the democrats--Jewish Americans. I was at a party at a friends house. She is Jewish. When I raised this issue, she said that they were all very frightened by the rhetoric Obama is putting out about Israel. These are not normally republican voters, but I think I see some defections to McCain if Obama is the nominee.
According to a radio report, Rezko’s wife, with an income of $37,000/year but somehow plops down $625,000. Where did the money come from?
According to the Associated Press, “U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve jailed Rezko Jan. 28, saying he had disobeyed her order to keep her posted on his financial status. Among other things, he failed to tell her about a $3.5 million loan from London-based Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi – a loan that was later forgiven in exchange for shares in a prime slice of Chicago real estate. Rezko gave $700,000 of the money to his wife and used the rest to pay legal bills and funnel cash to various supporters.”
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4C33B7D0-C44E-4F03-919E-B71328BA42ED
Looks like Rezko's wife got to keep $75,000 and didn't make clear her true income. Walden further notes that the money trail may go into the UN’s oil for food program.
Now, whatever one thinks of the deal (which was great for the Obamas, no one arranges for me to buy a house for $300 grand less than the asking price by paying more for something else), if Obama is the nominee, this will come up again. Of this we can be sure. But the bias of devotees to a political candidate are making them blind to the coming problems. And the complicity of the press in remaining silent about these issues does the democrats a disservice. And this is what this article is really about.
If one really wants to succeed in life, in investing, in politics, one simply can’t ignore the bad news. Ignoring the bad news is now putting the democrats in the unenviable position of giving the nomination to a guy who has another real estate problem and a weird preacher with whom he has spent hours and to whom in 2006 gave $22,000, but who now claims never to actually have heard what the guy was saying! (What does it say about one's judgement to give money to causes you don't agree with?) Or the super delegates could give the nomination to the one who only has the real estate problem (Whitewater) but which is so old now no one cares, but in doing so, enraging a major constituency. Bias is corrosive ad self-defeating as the democrats and their supporters in the press are about to find out again as they did with Dukakis.
But, I won’t leave others untouched by this either. I wanted to put this in the Natural Science forum because the real thrust of this argument is not against Obama, but against bias in all forms: Bias against any evidence for a old-earth. Bias against hearing anything the democrats (or republicans) say. Bias against religion itself. Bias against atheists and against hearing their arguments. It is very easy to see bias in one’s opponents. It is extremely difficult to see bias in oneself. But if one is doing what I did when I was a young-earth creationist, not listening to arguments against one’s preferred position, one is risking even worse problems. (see Morton’s Demon, http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm )