Interesting article on how Barack Obama used to be when he was a law professor at U. Chicago. I think we can probably learn a lot about him from this article. Also check out the exam questions he put out. They give interesting insights into his professional life and thinking. But I guess the real sense you get from the article is what happens at the end:
But as a professor, students say, Mr. Obama was in the business of complication, showing that even the best-reasoned rules have unintended consequences, that competing legal interests cannot always be resolved, that a rule that promotes justice in one case can be unfair in the next.

So even some former students who are thrilled at Mr. Obama’s success wince when they hear him speaking like the politician he has so fully become.

“When you hear him talking about issues, it’s at a level so much simpler than the one he’s capable of,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “He was a lot more fun to listen to back then.”
Obama is becoming less and less complicated in his rhetoric, and I don't like that one bit.


Blogger Markus Gaupås Johansen said...

If you have lots of spare time, and are interested in Obama, you also should read this article on Obama's past as a politician in Chicago.

It shows very well that he's the contrary of what he says he is. Obama is a political animal. Slippery slick as few. He has been building his career on surrounding himself with liberal connections, which has given him a liberal flair, and at the same time he's been executing consevative politics.

That's why both you, Siv Jensen, Solheim and Eirik Løkke can give him the thumbs up.

By the way, where can I find the rest of your article on Obama's past as a legal professor? It looks interesting and seem to confirm my impression that his ideas on politics are actually a philosophy of buraucracy.

August 01, 2008 1:39 am  
Blogger Markus Gaupås Johansen said...

Sorry, forgot to provide the link

August 01, 2008 1:42 am  
Blogger Eirik Løkke said...

You are indeed right about one thing Markus - I do fancy Obama. His rhetorical skills are second to none, his abillity to inspire is truely wonderful and I like his political insticts. I do not believe that he is a protectionist, no matter how hard he attack NAFTA.

Obamas position on Afghanistan I fully support. Getting in more troops and for real start to excersise real pressure on the pakistanis and their tribal areas, which are the main tactical problems for NATO in Afghanistan.

I of course worry (or do not like) about his flipfloping, although a considerble amount of his positions has to be put in the "bag of politics". If he is to be elected he necessearly has to move to the center, without loosing to much of his liberal base. This is so obvious for everybody who follow american politics, it quite simply is the rule of political gravity.

When I still lean towards McCain, it has much to do with McCains character, believe in free market and his eager to get rid of reckless spending.

Certainly, both Obama and McCain would be a huge leap forward for America. Sorry to say that I cannot be more "orginal" on that.

August 01, 2008 12:53 pm  
Blogger Markus Gaupås Johansen said...

Løkke: My point is not that Obama' s too unoriginal for me. That would be an awful political standpoint.

My point is that he is more conservative than he seems to many on the left. He wants to use huge tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Even though these are for the middle class, and you might think it' s a good idea, we can agree upon that huge tax stems from a conservative way of thinking. This is NOT the new new deal.

His ability to inspire people with empty words will mean nothing when he' s elected president. I predict a huge downfall for president Obama

August 01, 2008 6:03 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home