Posted by
Garnet92 on Monday, August 18, 2008 1:20:31 PM
I just read an excellent article by Joseph Farah (World Net Daily) about Obama’s “nuanced” responses to questions on the Rick Warren show.
And it struck a nerve.
The technique of “nuanced” response appears to be a tenet of the left. Rather than a direct, concise answer to a question, it appears that lefties are more impressed by obfuscation – by verbal gymnastics, in order to avoid a simple, direct answer. As an example from the Rick Warren’s forum, Warren asked about how to handle “evil.” John McCain’s response was “defeat it.” Obama’s “nuanced” answer took 1:27 minutes and it boiled down to “confront it.”
Like John (who served in Vietnam) Kerry before him, Obama’s command of the language impresses those with a lesser ability, and for them, that equates to a superior intellect. Why on earth would anyone answer a question with a simple “yes” or “no” when one could impress the sheeple with subtle shadings and delicate gradations, all the while spinning a web of misty confusion. “What the hell did he say?” “I dunno, but it sure sounded smart!”
It certainly appears to be a pattern. Remember John (he served in Vietnam) Kerry’s oratorical exercises when “answering” questions? His meanderings through the English language led his followers to believe him to be light-years above George Bush in intellect. Based on real evidence, it wasn’t true. I still have a 7-8 page study of their SAT scores and military tests that showed Bush to have a higher IQ than Kerry – whoda thunkit? Certainly not Kerry (who served in Vietnam) supporters.
And Barry Obama is perhaps even better at subtleties and waltzing with words than Kerry (who served in Vietnam) was. The problem is that Barry leaves one train of thought to insert another explanatory part-statement and before he’s completed that one, he’s off to yet another shading of the issue. I don’t know if the man is capable of a simple one-word “yes” or “no.” Evidence shows otherwise.
I’m beginning to believe that Barry’s disciples prefer the verbal meanderings since they result in a statement so ambiguous that a creative parsing of the words can yield almost any desired interpretation. Remember Bill Clinton’s "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?
His positions are hard to pin down, not only because they’re a moving target, but because his statements are so inexact. And, in that respect, Obama is an artist - a real Renoir of bullsh*t. When he speaks without the crutch of a teleprompter, the “ahhhs” and “ummms” are a signal that he is searching for a camouflaging statement to hide his real thoughts.
After all, if he answered questions with a simple, direct from-the-heart, honest answer, he could likely be indicted for sedition.