Thank you for speaking the truth. As I read your other comments, I was again struck by how far Obama's supporters will go to defend him -- no matter what!

Christen

I listened to the audio of the fundraiser and noted the context in my article. You seem to know what Obama meant. I heard it differently.

Obama has a view of why he has not caught on in some quarters, and I advanced another - he has not shown evidence of doing what he says he most qualified to do: unite the nation. He has consistently been one of the most partisan liberal Senator and has not reached across the table. If people are skeptical, perhaps we should start with the difference between his rhetoric and his record.

On the religion, etc comments. Obama's remarks cast religion, gun ownership, and so on as reactions to persistent economic declines. Of course, rural and small town folk are full of faith and tradition. However, he was not simply describing the ways of small town America, he was evaluating them. If he was simply providing demographics information, we wouldn't be have this conversation. However, he went beyond description to evaluation of the function of religion

I am surprised that the Professor did not understand the context of Obama's remarks, and chose to respond based on emotion. As the author stated in his article, Obama was responding to a specific question from a supporter heading to PA to campaign for him.

What the author did not understand is that Obama was talking about the challenges he faces in getting small-town folk behind his campaign, specifically those who continue to support CONSERVATIVE stances, eg. "the Reagan Democrats." He said nothing derogatory about these communities, just that they generally vote on conservative causes and resist taking a chance with someone like Obama who is trying to help them out of economic hardship. Please correct me if I am wrong, but pro-gun sentiments, deep religious practice, anti-immigration, and resistance to "change" are sentiments usually associated with conservative communities. They would characterize many of my relatives in their small towns (villages)in the Midwest.

Hi,

This article seems to confirm my belief that cognitive dissonance theory is alive and well in this country. Especially with people who claim to be academics with a clear view of the truth.

It is clear that the professor is not fan of the Senator, and, like a lot of people, he is just looking for excuses to confirm his all ready established beliefs. The world is complicated and the search for the truth is even more so. God granted us the ability to reason, which is a gift that requires a constant struggle to earn and enjoy.

I actually find Senator Obama’s struggle to find the truth more refreshing then those who believe they know the truth or confuse faith with facts. His struggle to gain understanding is punished by some, because of his honesty and desire to struggle with it openly.

You defined what he said as an attack, which it is not. But a dialogue that is not complete and needs responses that are not attacks.