The point I'm making is that the YouTube thing is offered as something substantive and as evidence of knowledgeable Obama fans. It is neither.

What would be?

What could he have said different that would have made the difference in your mind that his answers were thoughtful, honest, and legitimate?

And did you notice that he actually "gave" answers to each question, on the spot? (As opposed to your still not coming up with any to those questions.)

He's clearly a lot more knowledgeable than you want to give credit for. Could your answers have possibly been any better, even after the time to think them through?

And do you have proof that the YouTube is...

read more»

The point I'm making is that the YouTube thing is offered as something substantive and as evidence of knowledgeable Obama fans. It is neither.

What would be?

What could he have said different that would have made the difference in your mind that his answers were thoughtful, honest, and legitimate?

And did you notice that he actually "gave" answers to each question, on the spot? (As opposed to your still not coming up with any to those questions.)

He's clearly a lot more knowledgeable than you want to give credit for. Could your answers have possibly been any better, even after the time to think them through?

And do you have proof that the YouTube is actually extemporaneous?

Ah. Perhaps it was staged, in other words, right?

Were his answers so good as to make you wonder that? If he had babbled his way through, appearing to not know anything, would that have been a better sign of extemporaneousness?

Would that have been more consistent with your expectations?

Instead, the young man seems halfway intelligent so you question if it was staged. That's okay.

We all have certain assumptions about things. But the fact of your suspicion betrays an assumption: that had his answers been stupid, you'd never have thought them rehearsed.

A young black guy appearing intelligent? Red flag! Incongruent with images brought to you by mainstream media.

Nevertheless, you might be right. Perhaps they were. Perhaps he'd actually thought out these differences before meeting the interviewer. Perhaps the interviewer was "in" on it, conspiring to appear intelligent against all expectations. You might be right.

It all does seems a bit suspicious.

Okay. What could he have possibly said to make you think otherwise?

The fact is, the tape would never have been put on YouTube if it didn't say what was wanted.

You mean by supporters!

Had he been a blithering idiot, he most certainly would have, except by the opposing sides.

Whether a set up was done, or instead it was done by interviewing a hundred different people until one said the words that were wanted in the way they were wanted doesn't matter.The story was selected, it is only one story out of millions that could turn out the same or very differently..

With this, I certainly agree. I don't think that interview was a one-shot random 'we're going to br...

Okay. What could he have possibly said to make you think otherwise?

The fact is, the tape would never have been put on YouTube if it didn't say what was wanted.

You mean by supporters!

Had he been a blithering idiot, he most certainly would have, except by the opposing sides.

Whether a set up was done, or instead it was done by interviewing a hundred different people until one said the words that were wanted in the way they were wanted doesn't matter.The story was selected, it is only one story out of millions that could turn out the same or very differently..

With this, I certainly agree. I don't think that interview was a one-shot random 'we're going to broadcast whatever happens' kind of thing.

It was sort of like watching Fox news in reverse.

It may be my own bias, but I truly don't think we'd be discussing this if the young man's answers weren't intelligent. In fact it is BECAUSE his answers are intelligent that we're discussing whether the interview was contrived.

And to me, that's a sad commentary.

It emphatically IS possible for a young black man to give reasonably intelligent answers, even if the interview wasn't planed.

Do you disagree with this?

The intelligence used in coming up with an answer is not the most important thing; it is the practical results that the answer make possible that count.

So you're seeing it as a political contrivance and nothing more? (A made to order ad spot appearing to be of a genuine impromptu interview?)

If that's the case, I can respect that and it might even be true. Candidates "bate" the audience with accomplices all the time.

But I'm curious, what could he have possibly said to make you think it was a genuine answer, supposing that it was.

For example: tell me exactly what McCain's medical insurance plan is, in the "win you over" detail that you expected from a quick interview of ...

The intelligence used in coming up with an answer is not the most important thing; it is the practical results that the answer make possible that count.

So you're seeing it as a political contrivance and nothing more? (A made to order ad spot appearing to be of a genuine impromptu interview?)

If that's the case, I can respect that and it might even be true. Candidates "bate" the audience with accomplices all the time.

But I'm curious, what could he have possibly said to make you think it was a genuine answer, supposing that it was.

For example: tell me exactly what McCain's medical insurance plan is, in the "win you over" detail that you expected from a quick interview of this fellow?

Since you haven't answered yet (and I've asked), my guess is that you can't give an answer any better than this young fellow.

So why the red flag, when there is no possible answer he could have given that would have changed your mind?

He was asked the "differences" between these candidates on medical insurance, and he gave them.

The interviewer asked nothing about "just trust Obama's magic touch". You brought that to the table all on your own.

I'm merely suggesting (as part of my own particular bias) that your assumptions might be rooted in the fact that the fellow unexpectedly gave reasonably good answers to the questions that were asked.

But more importantly, were his answers false? Take away the biases, mine, yours, age, gender, race, ...

Were the differences he described, true or false? I think that's the essence of the clip. Those are the differences upon which votes can be hinged. (Not the person who gave the answers.)

And I think that's partly what you're saying, too, correct?

If the youth had said, "Obama found the State of Illinois with a health care system that left 21.8% of the people in the State without adequate health care and he single handedly pushed through bills that authorized and raised the money needed so that thanks to Mr Obama, today there are only 6 people in the whole state that are not covered, but that's only because they just moved there and will be applying Monday..."

Excellent. Now compare that to what you know about McCain, or Clinton. Any compare remotely with the type of answer you're looking for?

Easily, no. (Remember, I've been asking all along if you knew anything about the others' plans.)

Do you thus have the s...

If the youth had said, "Obama found the State of Illinois with a health care system that left 21.8% of the people in the State without adequate health care and he single handedly pushed through bills that authorized and raised the money needed so that thanks to Mr Obama, today there are only 6 people in the whole state that are not covered, but that's only because they just moved there and will be applying Monday..."

Excellent. Now compare that to what you know about McCain, or Clinton. Any compare remotely with the type of answer you're looking for?

Easily, no. (Remember, I've been asking all along if you knew anything about the others' plans.)

Do you thus have the same disdain for either of the other candidates? In other words, do you use the same measure for them?

If so, doesn't look like you'll be voting!

As far as talking to our enemies...

Perhaps we should examine "why" they became our enemies. Hint. It wasn't anything "they" did! We (in America) have a tendency to export our own brand of terrorism. We just label it differently.

And when they fight back, we label them terrorists. But that's a bit off topic; sorry.

It's just that more of the same ain't gonna cut it. The world is getting tired of it. I know I am. And right now, any change is better than the folly of this current administration. And I think a lot people feel that way.