Obama - Just Passing Through

David Brooks opines on Obama's unimpressive standing in the polls during what ought to be a strong Democratic year:

And the root of it is probably this: Obama has been a sojourner. He opened his book “Dreams From My Father” with a quotation from Chronicles: “For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers.”

There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart. He put one foot in the institutions he rose through on his journey but never fully engaged. As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded.

It is well worth reading in full.  Brooks does not frame it this way, but one might ask, what are the core principles for which Obama would fight without surrender?  Not his opposition to offshore drilling (fair enough, it is a minor point but happens to be in the news); not his advocacy of publicly-funded election campaigns.  Not American victory in Iraq.  He did finally rouse himself top denounce Jeremiah Wright after Wright questioned Obama's credibility, so at least we can expect Obama to fight for his own reputation if nothing else.

I'll clip a bit more from Brooks in for the non-clickers out there:

His college years were spent on both coasts. He was a community organizer for three years but left before he could be truly effective. He became a state legislator, but he was in the Legislature, not of it. He had some accomplishments, but as Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker wrote, he was famously bored by the institution and used it as a stepping stone to higher things.

He was in Trinity United Church of Christ, but not of it, not sharing the liberation theology that energized Jeremiah Wright Jr. He is in the United States Senate, but not of it. He has not had the time nor the inclination to throw himself into Senate mores, or really get to know more than a handful of his colleagues. His Democratic supporters there speak of him fondly, but vaguely.

And so it goes. He is a liberal, but not fully liberal. He has sometimes opposed the Chicago political establishment, but is also part of it. He spoke at a rally against the Iraq war, while distancing himself from many antiwar activists.

Just passing through on his way to the White House. 

MORE:  Alex Castellanos, writing at the Huffington Post, makes the same argument:

The Molten Core of Barack: Why Obama Can't Win.

...Despite the McCain campaign's effectiveness, however, the best campaign against Barack Obama is not being run by his opponent, but by Barack Obama. It is Obama's campaign that presents their candidate as an ever-changing work-in-progress. It is his own campaign that occludes our ability to know this man, depicting him as authentic as a pair of designer jeans.

...In the defining moment of his life, McCain was willing to give everything for one thing, and that one thing was his country. Contrast that with Obama, who has told America that he is "a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world." Obama is the talented salesman who seduced one state after another saying "Iowa, this is our moment," "Virginia, this is our moment," "Texas, this is our moment," and then tells Europe, "people of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment." How many times can Barack Obama sell the same moment to everyone, before he becomes Mel Brooks in "The Producers"? Who is Barack Obama? His campaign, as it reupholsters him before our eyes, says we can never know -- perhaps because Barack Obama does not know himself.

We have no idea who this guy is or what he believes.  Let's elect him quick so we can find out!

Comments

[Sue]

Just passing through

Must have been something he ate.

[Ranger]

I've heard it said several times that there are two kinds of people who run for president, those who want to be somebody, and those who want to accomplish something. The great presidents are of the latter group. Obama is, at least to me, of the former: He is running because he wants to be president. What truely concerns me is that once he is there, he will get bored with the job just like he has gotten bored with every other significant position he has held.

[sbw]

TM: ... what are the core principles for which [one] would fight without surrender?

The essential question of society -- defined as the minimal requirements where any two individuals or cultures meet. The only two core principles I have found are doubt (known as humility) and reciprocity (respect for others with humility).

Anyone can deduce these from their own personal experience, and deduce a functional framework for behavior independent of moral relativism.

[Peter]

Can I really be the first to post? Hey, Jim O'Sullivan, enjoy your vacation

[kim]

What a high-falutin' way to say the suit is empty.
=============================

[bio mom]

As the Brooks column shows, Obama has truly accomplished absolutely nothing of worth. Editor of the Harvard Law Review who published nothing. Law school "professor" who published nothing. In those two jobs it is the usual requirement that people publish scholarly work. Also, does it not seem strange that someone in his early 40s would write two autobiographies about himself? Who does that?? 60s, 70s, and older I can see. Maybe 50s if you are running for president already. But 40s?? Seems so egotistical.

The presidency is not an affirmative action position. Vote McCain

[Chris]

"Also, does it not seem strange that someone in his early 40s would write two autobiographies about himself?"

Why, yes, it does. Even stranger that the first one was written in his early 30's. Guess we're just cynics.

[centralcal]

"Just passing through on his way to the White House."

What makes anyone think that if he reaches the White House he won't just be "passing through" that as well?

[Daddy]

"What are the core principles for which one would fight without surrender?"

Excellent question. Of Obama I can't think of any that come to mind. But in order to be fair and to offer contrast, the question also needs to be asked of McCain.

In McCain's case, I'll simply start with a fundamental one from his Viet Nam war experience: That one does not accept early release from a Prisoner of War camp ahead of those who have been there longer than you have, because such would be a propaganda victory for the enemy and a surrender to both one's self and one's fellow prisoners. I see nothing in Obama that comes within a hundred miles of this tough example of principal which young John McCain lived by, each and every day, for more than half a decade.

[Michael J. Myers]

Bill Clinton had the same problem; he had wanted to be POTUSA from his high school days posing for a photo in the Rose Garden with JFK. He knew he wanted the job--but he sure as heck didn't have a clue as to what he wanted to do with the position once he got there. I've seen the same phenomenon with some corporate CEOs. They spent their careers climbing the corporate ladder reaching for the next rung. Once they got to the top, they didn't know how to do the job they had--they had spent a lifetime preparing for the next job or the job after that. In a word, they were flippin' disasters. And so it will be with the Obamessiah.

[ben]

"What makes anyone think that if he reaches the White House he won't just be "passing through" that as well?"

As citizen of the world his ultimate ambition is probably "World President", a position the U.N. will create just for him.

[Nenicho]

All of this is well and good, but who and what is behind him. I don't think he's smart enough to have master-minded the progression from mere mortal to Messiah. Surely he's not like Forrest Gump who just propelled his way through life with stupidity. Although I think he is stupid and egotistical at the same time.

[Barney Frank]

He did finally rouse himself to denounce Jeremiah Wright after Wright questioned Obama's credibility, so at least we can expect Obama to fight for his own reputation if nothing else.

Well, I'm not sure this is a plus. When the only thing one will fight for is oneself you're dealing with some pretty strong pathologies.

[sbw]

Prior to the 1960s the question "What are the core principles?" need not have been asked because there were adequate substitutes -- an education that translated classics of Cicero and Tacitus, a strong religious equivalent that explained what to do (if not a reasoned explanation why), and peripheral organizations like scouting that had their own codes.

But the 1960s fractured the framework by asking "Why?" and, although there were good reasons for acting a certain way, our institutions did not have an adequate answer to substitute for "Because I said so!" backed up by a ruler or a hand to the seat of the pants.

A cadre of teachers and journalists are at work now who were taught by the no-reason-why generation that was cast adrift in the 1960s into an angry sea of moral relativity. A second generation is now getting lost in the first generation's fog.

There is a way out, but we do not teach it. -- In fact, we cannot teach it so much as pose the questions that let an intellect stumble over good answers in passing.

[bad]

There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart.

If you recall the interview with the Sun-Times some years back (maybe 2004?) he talked of being a born again Christian but holding himself apart from God.

I'll find that article and link to it when I get a chance.

[centralcal]

Speaking of Obama's "core," Alex Castellanos at the Huffington Posts calls it the "molten core."

An excerpt:

"He has been called distant, aloof and somewhat unapproachable, perhaps because we cannot approach what he does not have, a solid core. His soul seems to be molten and made up of dreams, which is at once breathtakingly inspiring and forbiddingly indeterminate. When this young man with the flowing, passionate core, when this candidate without the solid-center changes positions and transforms himself as we watch, it leaves Americans much more in doubt about who he is and how he would lead us. It also reveals an Obama of unapproachable arrogance and inestimable self-regard: He appears confident voters will appreciate his superiority regardless of where he journeys or what he becomes to meet his political ambitions. "

LUN (Link under name)

[DrJ]

Law school "professor" who published nothing. In [that] job it is the usual requirement that people publish scholarly work.

Not to pick nits, but a lecturer (either full-time or part-time as Obama was) is not required nor expected to publish anything. They are hired to teach classes and nothing more.

[bio mom]

I was being facetious using "professor". That is the term touted by his campaign. He is a law school professor according to them.

[DrJ]

Their claim indeed is terribly disingenuous (I called it bald-faced lie in an earlier thread). I personally prefer to hold them accountable for that lie, rather than a lack of publication when holding a position from which none is expected.

I do grant that the distinction between professor and lecturer is lost on most people.

Another question to follow on is, "when was he granted tenure?" Yes, I've heard about the putative offer, but it was declined.

[RichatUF]

Humm, the same themes are popping up in print and online-looks like an Axelrod rebranding attempt with a new batch of talking points.

[Jane]

That really is a great question. Obviously McCain would fight for his country, for freedom, for the American way - seems he has devoted a lifetime already to that cause.

Perhaps Obama would fight to change the American way - to make it more "fair" AKA less competitive.

For years I've believed that democrat ideals are based on a change in human nature. Maybe that's what Obama is trying to accomplish.

[glasater]

Another question to follow on is, "when was he granted tenure?" Yes, I've heard about the putative offer, but it was declined.

BHO is lazy and cheap--unbecoming qualities in anyone.

[Rick Ballard]

DrJ,

Would tenured (or tenure track) faculty have any more than cursory interest in a lecturer's opinion concerning matters of department or school governance? He had no standing, why would anyone be more than polite to him in the first place?

[DrJ]

Would tenured (or tenure track) faculty have any more than cursory interest in a lecturer's opinion concerning matters of department or school governance?

No. Most departments or schools do not even allow lecturers to attend these sorts of meetings, let alone vote.

He had no standing, why would anyone be more than polite to him in the first place?

No reason whatsoever. Faculty do appreciate lecturers, because it allows them to lessen their teaching loads. They may also be nice or interesting people. But their opinions have never held in much weight in my experience.

The only caveat is that my experience is with the physical and biological science and engineering departments. I would be much surprised if it is any different in law schools.

[MayBee]

For years I've believed that democrat ideals are based on a change in human nature. Maybe that's what Obama is trying to accomplish.

Yes, I absolutely agree with that.
I think Obama is from the Barney or Rainbow Fish school of interpersonal behavior.
Which is fine when you are trying to get children to share their toys and there's an adult moderating the playroom. Not so realistic in dealing with citizens of a country.
On a world wide scale, it is naive or dangerous. In everything he says about international relations, he indicates that if the US was just nicer, would just share more, we would all get along.

[RattlerGator]

He was in Trinity United Church of Christ, but not of it, not sharing the liberation theology that energized Jeremiah Wright Jr.

Says who?

What is it about white people that makes them blink time and again on this one question? You simply cannot be a member of that church and have a deep relationship with the head of that church and *NOT* believe in black liberation theology.

Quit blinking, people. Ask the damn question and demand a reasonable response.

[sbw]

I'd like to learn what Obama understands about liberty and its interaction with enforced equality.

I'd like to learn from him why legitimate power is anything you can get away with. Then he can explain why any dollar I earn belongs to the powerful. Then he can explain what "fair" means.

[centralcal]

RattlerGator: I agree with you. Nearly everyone I know (not talking about the people who post here) thinks Barack and Michelle stronly hold the views of BLT.

I have never believed that this was their church just for political expediency reasons (Chicago politics, not national politics).

I think a few people have tried to "ask the damn(ed) question and demand a reasonable response," but not nearly enough -- beginning with the media.

[SWarren]

Law school "professor" who published nothing. In [that] job it is the usual requirement that people publish scholarly work.

I read somewhwere recently that Obama was recommended to UC by a Judge and was given a fellowship and an office. He was writing 'Dreams of My Father' and asked permission for that to be his required writing.

[MayBee]

I'd like to learn from him why legitimate power is anything you can get away with. Then he can explain why any dollar I earn belongs to the powerful. Then he can explain what "fair" means

sbw- yesterday on NPR, I heard an interview with Rick Warren about a forum he will hold with Obama and McCain (appearing back-to-back, not side-by-side). He said he intends to ask them questions he never hears asked, such as what is each candidate's understanding of the Constitution.

I don't know if it will be ridiculous or beneficial, but if he asks what he says he will, we may actually learn some things. I have my doubts, and think it will end up in religious pandering of some sort.

[Pofarmer]

I did just a few minutes research on Evan Bayh last night. It seems he's one that has been saying that "Bush lied us into war" while at the same time not disclosing that he sat on the Senate Select Committee for intelligence, the same as John Kerry. Are these Folks that incurious and stupid, or are they just that dishonest? I'm disgusted with Dimocrat politics right now.

[Appalled]

David Brooks is a little high-falutin on this topic for my taste. The question on Obama is -- What specific policy thing has he done, that had any kind of high profile? When has he taken his principles into action, even at the risk of popularity, or in defiance of the then present popular wisdom?

The only place he seemed to have done that is Iraq. With that having much less salience of an issue, one's left scratching one's head about this.

[DrJ]

SWarren,

I've not seen that, but it would be consistent with the way academia works. Odd way to fulfill a writing requirement, if that was a fellowship requirement.

[Danube of Thought]

The guy's a weirdo, and the people of this country will not elect him as their president.

[anduril]

On the previous thread, Cecil and I were discussing the anthrax case. As I said, I have no dog in that fight. I am not insisting that Ivins is the perp, but I'm willing to weigh the FBI's claims to have gotten it right this time. There are a number of articles out this morning and here are some links.

The first is from the WSJ and is written by the fella who was cited in the WaPo article that Cecil linked:

Bruce Ivins Wasn't the Anthrax Culprit

By RICHARD SPERTZEL

Next, Gabe Schoenfeld weighs in in the LATimes:

Not the FBI's proudest moment

The anthrax case may be the latest botched investigation by the bureau.

There are also two subsriber only articles in the WSJ, which go to the mounting pressure on the Government to release the details (in light of the Hatfill fiasco):

According to the WSJ's Law Blog, A Rift Between DOJ and FBI Over Whether to Release Ivins Evidence? the rift is based on DOJ's wish to go slow and the FBI's desire to release the evidence because they thing their case is secure (this time). The Law Blog also links to these two articles which discuss some of the technical details that may be the basis for the case, as well as investigative tactics:

Pressure Grows for F.B.I.’s Anthrax Evidence

The investigative tactics were sometimes brutal. The scientific evidence is beyond me, but this appears to be the core:

F.B.I. officials say they do know a great deal about what happened and will make it public, possibly as early as Wednesday. They say the core of their case will be the science, which produced the giant step from a globe of possible suspects to a single lab and a single flask.

Faced with the scientific mystery of the powder, government and outside scientists first looked at chemical isotopes in the attack strain for clues as to when and where the bacteria had been grown. Analyzing traces of the beef broth used to grow the anthrax, scientists measured carbon-14 left from nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s, whose quantity diminishes every year.

By calculating the ratio of carbon-14 to the normal kind in residue of plants eaten by the cow from which the broth was made, investigators learned by June 2002 that the anthrax had been grown within the last two years.

A second clue was developed from the new ability to sequence, or decode, the chemical letters of DNA. Scientists at the Institute for Genomic Research, a pioneer in genome sequencing, sequenced the full genome of the anthrax recovered from the blood of Robert Stevens, the first victim of the attacks.

The genome of various stocks of the Ames strain of anthrax used in the attacks were almost identical in all the 5 million chemical letters of their DNA. But researchers found enough differences in the attack strain to provide a reasonable chance of identifying its source.

The chief difference was that a stretch of DNA was flipped head to tail in some bacteria in the attack strain, but not in any other samples.

Further, the attack strain contained bacteria with both the flipped and the unflipped DNA, showing that it was a mixture of two strains, which analysts later found reflected a mix of origins — 85 percent from the Dugway Proving Ground of the Army in Utah and 15 percent added at Fort Detrick, according to one person close to the investigation.

To make sure the case for the distinctive features of the attack anthrax could hold up in court, agents collected thousands of samples of Ames strain anthrax from labs around the world, said scientists familiar with the F.B.I.’s thinking. “This is the step that took so long,” one scientist said.

Decoding the genome of a bacterium like anthrax may have cost around $500,000 in 2002, and even the F.B.I.’s budget would have been strained to decode thousands of genomes. A new generation of sequencing machines can now sequence bacterial genomes for around $500. But those machines did not become available until about 2005, which may have been another reason for the delay.

Despite speculation that the anthrax had a special coating to make it more deadly, an F.B.I. scientist, Douglas Beecher, published an article in 2006 saying no such sophisticated additives had been found. That finding broadened the number of scientists and technicians who could have made the anthrax, another obstacle to a quick resolution.

Richard Ebright, a Rutgers University biochemist and an opponent of the rapid expansion of biodefense research since 2001, said the F.B.I. should long ago have released some of its scientific conclusions.

“The finding that the attack material could be traced definitively to a U.S. bioweapons research lab could, and should, have been released as soon is it was obtained,” Dr. Ebright said, noting that the finding could raise questions about the wisdom of proliferating stocks of anthrax and other pathogens.

Note that the FBI scientist's conclusion appears to factually contradict a major part of the basis for Spertzler's defense of Ivins.

The WaPo article also addresses some of the questions of feasibility, as well as the problems of identifying a single perp:

Anthrax Dryer a Key To Probe

Suspect Borrowed Device From Lab

Bruce E. Ivins, the government's leading suspect in the 2001 anthrax killings, borrowed from a bioweapons lab that fall freeze-drying equipment that allows scientists to quickly convert wet germ cultures into dry spores, according to sources briefed on the case.

Ivins's possession of the drying device, known as a lyopholizer, could help investigators explain how he might have been able to send letters containing deadly anthrax spores to U.S. senators and news organizations.

The device was not commonly used by researchers at the Army's sprawling biodefense complex at Fort Detrick, Md., where Ivins worked as a scientist, employees at the base said. Instead, sources said, Ivins had to go through a formal process to check out the lyopholizer, creating a record on which authorities are now relying. He did at least one project for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that would have given him reason to use the drying equipment, according to a former colleague in his lab.

...

Scientific analysis helped researchers pinpoint the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases as the likely source of the powder, which was the Ames strain of anthrax bacteria used in various projects at Fort Detrick. Further testing allowed them to narrow down the age of the substance, concluding that it had been cultivated no more than two years before the attacks.

Eventually, through more elaborate DNA testing of the power and tissue cultures from the victims, they determined that the powder probably came from supplies made by Ivins, to which about 10 other people had access. Authorities last week cited "new and sophisticated scientific tools" that helped advance the investigation.

...

Ivins was not charged before his death July 29. Paul F. Kemp, his attorney, has repeatedly asserted Ivins's innocence, and colleagues and friends say government officials fixed on the wrong man in a race to close a seven-year investigation rife with dead ends and missteps. They also note that other U.S. scientists had access to some of the same material and equipment that authorities apparently used to focus on Ivins.

The lyopholizer Ivins used in the fall of 2001 is commonly employed by pharmaceutical companies and laboratories, as well as food processors, to freeze a liquid broth of bacteria and quickly transform it into a dry solid without a thawing stage.

Scientists and biodefense experts familiar with USAMRIID's procedures say that Ivins's department rarely used such freeze-dryers, because the researchers there worked with anthrax bacteria in a liquid form.

"Dry anthrax is much harder to work with," said one scientist familiar with Ivins's lab. A lyopholizer would fit inside the ventilated "biosafety cabinet" at the lab and could have been used without drawing notice, the scientist said. The machine could have processed a few small batches of anthrax liquid in less than a day, he said.

Other biodefense experts noted that the drying step could have been carried out with equipment no more complicated than a kitchen oven. "It is the simplest . . . but it is the least reproducible," said Sergei Popov, a former Soviet bioweapons scientist who now specializes in biodefense at George Mason University. "If you go too fast you get 'sand,' " he said, referring to the coarser anthrax powder used in the first attacks, in September 2001.

The second batch of letters contained a much finer powder. "To me, it all indicates that the person experimented with the ways to dry the spores and produced small batches -- some of them not so successfully -- he later used to fill up different envelopes," Popov said. "The spores are naturally clumpy. As I understand, he just overbaked the first batches."

[glenda waggoner]

To God's ears, DoT....
I've always been an optimist about this, because when you add up the bureaucrats, the powerseekers and sheep, it will never equal the informed "folks" (responsible& educated by life who love God & their country).
And fight for it.
And vote.

[SWarren]

This was from Jodi Kantor at NY Times:
Mr. Obama arrived at the law school in 1991 thanks to Michael W. McConnell, a conservative scholar who is now a federal appellate judge. As president of The Harvard Law Review, Mr. Obama had impressed Mr. McConnell with editing suggestions on an article; on little more than that, the law school gave him a fellowship, which amounted to an office and a computer, which he used to write his memoir, “Dreams From My Father.”

But I remember reading somewhere that his time was running out and he asked his professor to consider his memoir as fulfilling the requirement. I'll keep looking.

[Ann]

Pofarmer,

Evan Bayh was also one of the few that voted against Condi Rice for Secretary of State in 2005.

[ajacksonian]

Hmmm... perhaps he is just vague and vagrant:
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Vague \Vague\ (v[=a]g), a. [Compar. Vaguer (v[=a]g"[~e]r);
superl. Vaguest.] [F. vague, or L. vagus. See Vague, v.
i.]
1. Wandering; vagrant; vagabond. [Archaic] ``To set upon the
vague villains.'' --Hayward.

She danced along with vague, regardless eyes.
--Keats.

2. Unsettled; unfixed; undetermined; indefinite; ambiguous;
as, a vague idea; a vague proposition.

This faith is neither a mere fantasy of future
glory, nor a vague ebullition of feeling. --I.
Taylor.

The poet turned away, and gave himself up to a sort
of vague revery, which he called thought.
--Hawthorne.

3. Proceeding from no known authority; unauthenticated;
uncertain; flying; as, a vague report.

Some legend strange and vague. --Longfellow.

[anduril]

Brooks and Castellanos make good points, and I agree with the bottom line: if McCain wins it will likely be because of Obama, not because of McCain.

However, I disagree with this Brooks statement:

There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart.

I would maintain that what causes Obama's apartness is not something unique in his background--by which I understand Brooks to be alluding to Obama's mixed race background. For starters, in America, that's not all that unique. But what really caused Obama's apartness, his sense of not belonging, is also something that is not terribly unusual in America: it is the fact of his being raised without a father. Obama himself in his autobiographies doesn't hide this factor: his life has been characterized by estrangement from his mother and a search to belong that has been focused on finding a father figure--a search that has led to disappointing results for him. Ultimately, his sense of belonging has been supplied by an ideological alignment. But for real flesh, blood and spirit human beings a sense of belonging to an ideology--a collection of ideas--is a poor substitute for real family ties. I think most of us in our lives have at one time or another encountered people like that, whose primary loyalty is to ideas, and I think most of us have found such people to be one dimensional and ultimately empty.

[Barney Frank]

The guy's a weirdo, and the people of this country will not elect him as their president.

I applaud the sentiment DOT but the names Clinton, Carter and Nixon, just to go back forty years or so, suggest it is not an axiom.

[Elliott]

Part seven is now available.

[anduril]

I haven't read the entire articles here by Thomas Sowell:

Bankrupt "Exploiters"

Bankrupt "Exploiters": Part II

but I was attracted by the first line of the second part:

We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating.

[PaulL]

Anduril, thanks for all the anthrax articles. I find Spertzel's column to be utterly unconvincing, and its headline is way too much for its content.

The drying device angle is fascinating, as is the fact that the first letters contained grosser anthrax spores--because they'd been overcooked.

Probably the most ridiculous aspect of this case is the defense of Ivins based on him seeming like a nice guy, church goer, sports lover, et cetera. He just didn't look like your normal anthrax killer!

[DrJ]

I remember reading somewhere that his time was running out and he asked his professor to consider his memoir as fulfilling the requirement. I'll keep looking.

It is a minor detail, but interesting. Usually fellowships are awarded so that something specific can be done (such as work with professor XYZ on this or that research topic). Usually students/postdocs/whatever use the time to do something that will further their career, but along the lines of the fellowship goals. That does not include writing a biography.

That he would obtain such a fellowship on a judge's recommendation does not strike me as unusual -- this sort of thing happens all the time. It depends of course on the nature of the fellowship, but every department, school and University has discretionary funds that can be used to support promising candidates at any level if they hold promise for doing something that refects well on the University, its fund raising, its scholarship, or some such.

What is odd is that he used that fellowship to write an autobiography. I've not heard of such a thing, but again I don't know how law schools in general, or Chicago law in particular, work.

[PapayaSF]

RattlerGator: Indeed. Nobody sits in a church which has a theology that distinct, for years, without agreeing with most of it.

Regarding the vagueness, it seems increasingly clear to me that Obama is on the far left ideologically, and yet wants to be a politician on the national stage. The problem is, nobody gets elected President while singing the virtues of Alinsky, Fanon, and socialism. So Obama has to somehow reconcile the contradiction of being true to his beliefs and energizing his leftist base while not seeming like a leftist to the majority of voters. So we get lots of vague hopiness and changitude and attacks on opponents, plus a lot of pandering to the center. Unfortunately this undercuts his reformer and above-it-all image, and even his core supporters are starting to notice.

[anduril]

PaulL, you're very welcome. I understand that the anthrax investigation is OT, but I had the sense that a lot of people are interested and I do consider it important.

On a slightly different topic, here's the free preview of another WSJ article:

MIT Graduate Seen as 'Fixer' For al Qaeda Is Charged in Attack
Associated Press
Word Count: 509

NEW YORK -- An MIT-educated Pakistani woman once identified as a possible al Qaeda associate has been brought to New York to face charges she tried to kill U.S. agents and military officers during an interrogation in Afghanistan, federal prosecutors said.

Aafia Siddiqui, who was shot and wounded last month during the confrontation, was expected to be arraigned Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan on charges of attempted murder and assault, U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said in a statement. A lawyer for her family said the allegations are false.

Ms. Siddiqui, 36 years old, was stopped by Afghan police on ...

[narciso]

Elliot, you know Col. Ichikawa is a reference from the cyber punk anime
"Ghost in the Shell" right. That's from
part 6.

So where did he get the Dugway strain; how did he get it to Ft. Dietrich, and how did he get to Princeton, from which he mailed
the letters from; this story makes not too much sense.

[DrJ]

The anthrax postings are interesting. The two key points to me are the presence (or lack thereof) of the silica coating on the spores, and the particle size of the final powder. Silica coating is easy enough to do, but it does take some experimentation to get it right. The particle size is critical, though. The spores were exactly in the right size range to ensure that they would go deep into the lung. If they were larger or smaller, they would be retained on the way down by two different physical mechanisms. The minimum removal efficiency centers on 1 micron. This person knew what they were doing.

The emphasis on the lyophilizer may be a red herring. One could easily enough freeze a sample in liquid nitrogen (to keep the final particle size down), put it in a cold chamber slightly below freezing, and then suck on it with a vacuum pump. Nearly every lab has a dissicator, a refrigerator and a vacuum pump. Even mine does. Not as convenient, but easy enough to cobble together.

The DNA sequence information is pretty compelling.

[Sara]

Well, if he sat in that church all those years and did not believe in BLT, then why did he subject his children to their propaganda? He should be charged with child endangerment and contributing and child abuse. Schooling your children in hate, when you yourself don't believe is not just weird, it is pathological.