~>  EC> I haven't read it, although I have seen some of the fallout.
 
~> I haven't.  Other than a rather vicious post from Sauer - who apparently
~> hasn't read the article and got his materrial from an ultra-left wing site
~> that's apparently up in arms over the article.  I suspect that 'The Nation'
~> is a bit too right-wing for his tastes.

A standard MO.  Smear the source.  The only thing I have seen stick among
the actual attacks on the article is that he was 2 or 3 years off on the
date of a trip.  An irrelevant error, and the author admitted the error.

The rest seems silly.  The article says the Ex-Im Bank lend 2 billion to
Brazil "with Obama's backing."  This is getting called a lie because Obama
hadn't APPOINTED anyone to the board yet.  That doesn't change the fact
that it was done with his BACKING.  The Wall Street Journal even reported
back in 09 that Obama sent his National Security Adviser to Brazil to
discuss the loan before it was made.

But the best attack is when Howard Kurtz tries to deny the claim that Obama
was "influenced" by his father, by pointing out that the last time he saw
his father he was only 10.  Apparently Kurtz never read chapter 1 of
Obama's book!  Or even the title of the book!

~>  EC> But I don't have much interest in works that try to psychoanalyze a
~>  EC> public figure, or trace their early life, or look at their family
~>  EC> tree, or whatever, to try to show how they think or who they
"really"
~>  EC> are deep down inside.  I am interested in what he is doing, and what
~>  EC> he is going to do.  The "why" doesn't mean that much.
 
~> If you know why somebody does something you can predict future behavior
~> fairly accurately.

Mostly true, although some of the most significant actions of some past
presidents were breaks from their past actions.  But I guess that I would
rather look at what he IS doing rather than try to psychoanalyze WHY or
predict what he will do next.

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a