It's only "revealing" to you, Andy, because you've been out to lunch for this entire discussion, harping on "demonstrable influence on Obama's political views" when not a single person other than you has been interested in discussing that line of inquiry.

As a single 'nother person interested in discussing that line of inquiry,
I object. Andy's made excellent points in this regard. You disagree, and that's fine, but the "demonstrable influence", aspect is important. I don't give much of a damn about McCain chasing Jerry Falwell's endorsement (sluts will be sluts), as long as he doesn't (didn't) adopt any of Falwell's legislative agenda (in other words, no demonstrable influence).

Bush has been quite bad, but not historically bad...

Or we talking, "bad for a president of the United States", or "bad for a leader of the old Soviet Union"?

I watched his [Obama] "Understand each other" speech.

Dial or anyone else, can you direct me to a link or a date or some context that I can better google? The only extended bits of Obama I've really focused on was the 04 convention keynote and I guess the recent Midwest small town snafu.

Dial or anyone else, can you direct me to a link or a date or some context that I can better google? The only extended bits of Obama I've really focused on was the 04 convention keynote and I guess the recent Midwest small town snafu.

Obama's first speech addressing the Wright controversy and race in general (which I assume is what Chris is talking about) is on YouTube here (it's in four parts on YouTube, the link is to part 1 - links to the other 3 parts should be there).

GWB not "historically" bad like:
Stalin "historical"
Pol Pot "historical"
Commodus "historical".

Easily worst US president in 20th C. Although I know I will get some blow back from the FDR haters... at least he WON the war (No.. No... it was all Truman!)

Damn, worse than Nixon? Hmmm... maybe not to date. But I think when the whole Iraq snafu unravels, and the long term repercussions are felt, the history books will not be kind to ol' W.

Damn, worse than Nixon? Hmmm... maybe not to date. But I think when the whole Iraq snafu unravels, and the long term repercussions are felt, the history books will not be kind to ol' W.

I don't quite know how we might compare and contrast Iraq and Vietnam. Nixon did inherit a full-blown war, though also expanded and extended it, whereas W. has no one but himself to blame for his war crimes. On the domestic front, when it comes to savaging the Constitution, and raping the treasury on behalf of his ilk and cronies, Bush makes Nixon look like a rank amateur.

n/m

CONSERVATIVE: "I don't quite know how we might compare and contrast Iraq and Vietnam. Nixon did inherit a full-blown war, though also expanded and extended it...

It's misleading in a broad sense to say Nixon "expanded" the Vietnam War (unless by that you mean the air war). I assume you are making reference to the bombing of Cambodia. But since it was the North Vietnamese who moved into Cambodia to transport their men and materiel into South Vietnam, Nixon's attack on these supply chains was a necessary reaction to protect our soldiers downstream.

Moreover, right from Nixon's assumption of the White House, he began a reduction of American troop presence in that war. Our troops in Vietnam fell from 536,000 to 475,000 Nixon's first year (1969); they then fell 334,000 the following year; they dropped to 156,000 in 1971; and by the end of Nixon's first term, American troop levels were down to 24,000.

You also argue that Nixon extended the war. I'm not really sure what that means. If your argument is that the deal Kissinger struck in 1973 could have been had 4 years earlier, that may or may not be true. It's always easy to argue that kind of thing in hindsight. But if you want to argue that, then you would have to say that JFK, who really got us into that quagmire, could have had that deal 6-7 years before Nixon was elected president.

I think what Nixon most deserves criticism for with his handling of the Vietnam War goes back to his 1968 campaign promise: that he had a secret plan to end the war. As history played out, it was clear he lied, and that lie was part of the reason he got elected. To me, that's shameful. It's one of the many shameful acts of Nixon that forever tarred his historical reputation.

... whereas W. has no one but himself to blame for his war crimes."

What specific "war crimes" are you indicting Bush with?

CONSERVATIVE:..

This foolish baiting is past tiresome, Rich. Not sure why, at this point, but I expect a little better from you.

Easily worst US president in 20th C. Although I know I will get some blow back from the FDR haters...

...and calendar lovers. Which C, exactly?

In the actual 20th C, I think Woodrow Wilson is likely the worst. Unlike Bush, he was a serious threat to civil liberties; unlike with Bush, dissenters really were locked up. Also, unlike Bush, an actual racist who actually helped increase segregation in the U.S. And he got us into a war while campaigning against doing so. And he botched the aftermath.

FDR was very very very very bad; unlike with Bush, he was a serious threat to civil liberties, as the Nisei and Issei could tell you. That's not to mention raping the constitution with his vast expansion of the federal government, his attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court was a far greater threat to the Constitution than anything Bush could even imagine doing. Bush has (mostly unsuccessfully) tried to increase the executive's war-fighting powers; FDR (successfully) tried to increase the executive's powers to run the entire country.

Yeah, if you don't do era adjustments for racism (and there's a lot of good reasons to not do so), Bush gains a lot. He didn't annex Hawaii to help white business owners in the name of "democracy" while disenfranchising the native AND immigrant worker populations. He didn't start concentration camps.

However, it doesn't change the fact that out of the 200 some-odd million people we had to choose from, he was probably one of the worst possible.

Amazing to me how opinions get thrown around here as if they were incontrovertible facts. I'm all for free speech and hearty discussions. But when you postulate something that 2/3rds or more Americans will disagree with, dontcha think a tinge of humility somewhere might be a good thing? Instead I see almost ubiquitous arrogance.

Actually, isn't the real answer where Wright said it, sort of a "what's said in church stays in church" feeling about rantings against "the Man".

Exactly. Wright lost the cover of the pulpit.

At DeVry, they must also have skipped over reading comprehension, Google Boy. Nieporent doesn't say or even imply that "it's OK to think all black people think alike." (Your false quote.) He implies that it is unreasonable to think that all whites think alike. He said it is unreasonable to conclude that all blacks think alike. However, he said it is "not quite as unreasonable" to wonder about the latter, in light of Obama's strong black vote.

Wrong. It's not "reasonable" to wonder if Obama thinks the same as Wright by sampling a group of people that don't include Obama. In fact, it's evidence of the same racial double standard discussed in the very post at which his post was aimed.

1. It is down to two Democratic candidates, so all black voters in that party's primaries have to select either Clinton or Obama. When voters have a choice only between two candidates,* they may not agree with the one they are voting for on all or most issues. But they may have more disagreements with the other candidate. As such, their "unity" in thought can be misleading;

You, like Nieporent, are simply imagining the level of racial solidarity that obtains here. Others can find the data as easily as I can, but Obama is running way ahead of the level of Af-Am support he had when the campaign began.

It's that this is a situation where there essentially aren't any ideological differences at all between the candidates, and 90% are voting one way based solely on racial solidarity.

The "solely" is your imagination at work.

Your premise is also, to use a pet phrase of yours, self-negating. If in the end, blacks vote for the black guy regardless of anything else, the "anything else" would contain squarely within its sweep differences in intellectual perspecive and positions on issues.

Not to mention once again that the undertone of so much of this Wright obsession has been personal, and directed not against Wright but against Obama*, and with that in mind it's not exactly incomprehensible that black people would rally around him. This is a circle the wagons phenomenon that exists among every minority group, and is far from unique to black people.

*Read the unfiltered "comments" sections of the MSM websites---and not the right wing ones, either, but the Washington Post---for many hundreds of examples of this every day. It's the rawest sort of mob mentality imaginable, not exactly the internet's finest hour.

What specific "war crimes" are you indicting Bush with?

Have you read the news lately?

What specific "war crimes" are you indicting Bush with?

Umm, implementing a policy of torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions? I don't care if the Military Commissions Act said he can't be prosecuted for it, it's still a war crime.

Actually, isn't the real answer where Wright said it, sort of a "what's said in church stays in church" feeling about rantings against "the Man".

Exactly. Wright lost the cover of the pulpit.

I don't believe this excuse is valid, and neither, apparently, does Obama. Obama didn't say "I don't mind that he said all of those crazy things in church; but it's not acceptable to say them outside of church." Obama drew no such distinction. (And I don't even see how that argument makes the slightest bit of sense in the first place.) Instead, he claimed that the Reverend Wright of this past weekend "was not the same man that I met 20 years ago."

As I said, at best -- and I don't think anyone really believes that this best-case scenario is true -- Obama is a horrible judge of character, and incredibly naive. He knew this man well for 20 years, and couldn't see what millions of strangers saw within 5 minutes?

Bush vs Nixon.

I think Nixon was undoubtedly better than Bush wrt foreign policy. In fact, I think that Nixon was a huge success in foreign policy - winding down the Vietnam War, relations with China, did OK-ish in 1973 with the Arab-Israeli war. Chile and Bangladesh more controversial but things worked out. Bush has been a pretty unqualified foreign policy disaster - and not just Iraq, either.

Economy: Nixon had wage and price controls, and did more damage to the economy than even the most ardent Bush-hater can accuse Bush of. Nixon was also to some extent responsible for the oil shock - I'm not sure if this should go into the foreign policy section though. OTOH Bush has overspent wildly and this will have to be paid for. Still an easy win for Bush here.

Constitutionality etc: Neither exactly cover themselves in glory. Bush has probably been caught doing worse stuff (like the war crimes) but I think this may simply be due to era differences. Neither one can be said to have been much concerned with rule of law. I'm going to call this one a draw.

Other: Nixon can be said in retrospect to have set up a number of farsighted programmes (e.g. the EPA) but we don't have the benefit of history on Bush yet. This kind of area is more controversial anyway because, for example, Eraser-X would probably give points to Nixon for affirmative action whereas I would take points away. Overall I think Nixon was an over-regulator and so I will dock him points here. I give points to Bush for forcing quantitative testing onto teachers in NCLB, for reforming bankruptcy law, for immigration, for his Supreme Court appointments and for trying to tackle social security. But he loses points for the environment and for Katrina. Here I think it's a narrow win for Bush.

Overall: I think it's closer than I would have imagined.

As history played out, it was clear he lied, and that lie was part of the reason he got elected. To me, that's shameful. It's one of the many shameful acts of Nixon that forever tarred his historical reputation.

I just started reading Robert Dallek's book about Nixon and Kissinger and read about that very topic last night. The whole thing with Thieu/Chennault/Johnson/Humphrey was interesting stuff I was not fully aware of.

Isn't Caro doing a the final book about LBJ? I saw Caro interviewed like six years ago and he was going to Vietnam to do research.

Isn't Caro doing a the final book about LBJ? I saw Caro interviewed like six years ago and he was going to Vietnam to do research.

He publishes them very sporadically. The first volume came out in 1982 -- 26 years ago.

But when you postulate something that 2/3rds or more Americans will disagree with, dontcha think a tinge of humility somewhere might be a good thing? Instead I see almost ubiquitous arrogance.

So, in other words, BTF's political discussions are pretty much just like the baseball discussions.

Ha-ha, it turns out that Obama is now sending out e-mails to his supporters trying to sell "Limited Edition" DVDs and print copies of the Philadelphia speech where he said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community or his white grandmother. The very same speech that he nullified yesterday. I swear, you just can't make stuff like this up.

Wright really was right: Obama is every bit as shameless as any politician.

As I said, at best -- and I don't think anyone really believes that this best-case scenario is true

What the heck does this mean?

The first volume came out in 1982 -- 26 years ago.

Yeah, I know, but it usually takes about 6-7 years per book I thought, and he was about up to 1960 in the bio, so only has about 13 years of LBJ's life to cover.

it turns out that Obama is now sending out e-mails to his supporters trying to sell "Limited Edition" DVDs and print copies of the Philadelphia speech where he said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community or his white grandmother. The very same speech that he nullified yesterday. I swear, you just can't make stuff like this up.

Wright really was right: Obama is every bit as shameless as any politician.

So, once you take a position you stick o it - regardless of new information? Seems like a good idea.

Obama is a horrible judge of character, and incredibly naive.

Other possible topics for Character Judgment Studies 101:

Bush / Cheney
Bush / Rumsfeld
Bush / "Brownie"
US Electorate 2004 / Bush

Of course since all of the above wear little American flag pins, all is forgiven. Their character judgment is impeccable.

Andy, who has said here that Bush has good judgement? Nice strawman.

Also, unlike Bush, an actual racist

From Mr. Perhaps All Black Do Think Alike: pot, kettle

Bush did lock dissenters up at the RNC en masse in NYC- dragnets, Pier 57, the 17th street arrests (which I witnessed firsthand). Of course, such a facistic tactic wouldn't have been possible without the Patriot Act, but apparently DN has no problem with that. The Patriot Act was used blatantly to suppress dissent during the RNC, which was at the heart of the left's objections to it...

Free pass on sanctioning torture too, I guess?

Are Muslims another group that all "think alike" too?

I know there's no point engaging with ignorance, but whenever he makes a point, just bear in mind: you're dealing with someone who thinks it's OK to infer thought patterns of a whole population linked only by skin color from their preference in a democratic primary...

Andy, who has said here that Bush has good judgement? Nice strawman.

And yet how many of you would think that Bush's judgment of character is still better than Obama's?

And how many of you pious Obama-bashers were raising similar questions about Bush's "character judgment" and "associations" at the time when it wasn't too late to do anything about it?

DN only cares about civil liberties when he can pretend to be defending them. he's intellectually bankrupt and incoherant. i don't see why anyone pays him any mind.

DN only cares about civil liberties when he can pretend to be defending them. he's intellectually bankrupt and incoherant. i don't see why anyone pays him any mind.

David's worth paying attention to for many reasons, one being that he's always provocative, and another being that it's seldom that you're able to find such a perfectly distilled case of free market and libertarian religious dogma taken to its many logical deadends. If you had to think of his epitaph, it might be "D.M. NIEPORENT---MANY QUESTIONS, ONE ANSWER".

Andy, you're really tilting at windmills if you think you're battling with ardent Bush supporters speaking ill of he who apparently cannot be criticized...

Andy, you're really tilting at windmills if you think you're battling with ardent Bush supporters speaking ill of he who apparently cannot be criticized...

Please. there's a difference between reasonable criticism and "Obama is a horrible judge of character, and incredibly naive."

Please. there's a difference between reasonable criticism and "Obama is a horrible judge of character, and incredibly naive."

Indeed. As I said earlier, Obama, like all candidates, has a team of advisors who, unlike Wright, actually do have his ear on policy matters, and yet it's likely that half the people who are so fired up about Wright can't name more than one or two of them, if that. Once again, the emphasis on the sensational rather than the substantive is telling.

How do you rate his judgement of character in this case, Chris? Honest question.

Please. there's a difference between reasonable criticism and "Obama is a horrible judge of character, and incredibly naive."

Of course, unreasonable criticism is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that there are folks reading this board who find some Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) supporters' criticisms of Bush to be unreasonable.

Does anyone think it is possible that the actions of the last two days have been a planned cooperation by Wright and Obama's campaign?

It definitely wasn't a pre-planned thing between the two of them. The New York Post got confirmation from an external source that Wright is really pissed off at Obama and feels like he and his church have been betrayed by him. The relevant article is here:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04302008/news/nationalnews/rev_enge_is_sweet_for_betrayed_pastor_108791.htm

Bush did lock dissenters up at the RNC en masse in NYC- dragnets, Pier 57, the 17th street arrests (which I witnessed firsthand). Of course, such a facistic tactic wouldn't have been possible without the Patriot Act, but apparently DN has no problem with that. The Patriot Act was used blatantly to suppress dissent during the RNC, which was at the heart of the left's objections to it...

(1) Bush didn't lock up a single person in New York City. I know liberals don't even understand the concept of federalism, so I'll use small words: President Bush has no authority over the NYPD.
(2) You're delusional; it doesn't even have the slightest thing to do with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is not shorthand for "things which are bad." It's a specific law with specific provisions, none of which involved the power to lock up dissenters.
(3) You're doubly delusional if you think that how the NYPD treated protesters in 2004 was comparable to what Wilson did. (To be fair, I don't know if it's delusion or abject ignorance. Could be both, of course.)

One of the common complaints of anti-war people nowadays is that they think it unfair that politicians/pundits/etc. who supported the war are still taken seriously while those who opposed it are still often treated as unserious people. It's hysterical claims like the one above that help explain why. (The presence of giant puppets, Free Mumia demonstrators, etc., at the various anti-war protests didn't help, either.) Were there some negative provisions of the Patriot Act? Yes. Was the way it was passed troublesome? Yes. Was most of it problematic? No. (Cite: ACLU.) Is the Patriot Act responsible for every bad thing in your life, including the flat tire you suffered on the way to work and the fact that your girlfriend dumped you? No. Are you living in a police state? No. The Patriot Act is not the Espionage Act of 1917 or the Sedition Act of 1918.

How do you rate his judgement of character in this case, Chris? Honest question.

Honestly? I don't. I mean, Wright's character 20-years ago is probably markedly different than the character he revealed when backed into a corner.

I'm a pretty passive person usually. My daughter wandered off. I could have killed during that 15 minutes. You meet me in that 15 minutes, and I am the biggest psychopath of single-minded purpose you have ever met. Why would anyone befriend someone who could act like I did for that 15 minutes?

20 years ago, Wright, while also empassioned about Black America, was also good at helping others come to embrace the word of God - however Wright delivred it,and the rest of the church community, created a circle of trust for Obama. Wright 955 of the time displayed a devotion to the lord and his congregation that was admirable - admirable enough to be invited to the White House by Bill Clinton. Over a 20 year period Wright gave hundreds and hundreds of sermons. We've seen about 3. I think Wright's character shouldn't be defined solely by the worst ones, and to do so takes a big lack of introspection.

Wrigth *is* over the line at this point. But for the first 20 years of his and Obama's relationship, it wasn't like it has turned, with the way the media has traeated.

Jim Leyland loves Barry Bonds. How is his judgment of character? Well, personal relationships are different.

I think Obama probably had some incredible care and love from Wright 20 years ago, and for a decade past, but as Obama's commitments got greater, he was less involved in the church, and as Wright grew older and bitter from the DC disenfranchisement began clinging to the more extreme aspects of his belief, a side that grew larger as his loving side grew smaller. the man Obama met and grew to love and appreciate became devoured by a differnt man - one who embraced hate more - Obama was not generally exposed to that forthe first 15 years of their relationship, and while Wright has made some inflammatory remarks, it wasn't a big portion of his persona - now it is - that's different.

I think we all know people we grew up with and loved, but they became bitter or more extreme, and we had trouble moving away because we knew a different person - and inside we felt the "good" person we knew was still in there.

Just like I defend Bonds against people who say Barry Bonds is an #######, and I say "you don't know him - just what some people we know don't get along with him tell you about him." Rev. Wright didn't get the congregation he has by always preaching the worst. He didn't. That's naive to think so. If he always preached that, how would he get invited to the White House?

I don't know Rev. Wright, and I believe he has some strong feelings, but I also believe that he has led a large group to better themselves, their community and love one another and help one another. He's not some demon, or at least he isn't always.

Of course, unreasonable criticism is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that there are folks reading this board who find some Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) supporters' criticisms of Bush to be unreasonable.

I agree. You'll be hard-pressed to find me doing so. You are more likely to find me defending Bush in a similar fashion that I defend Obama.

Now, Andruw Jones - he's a pariah.

Are you living in a police state? No. The Patriot Act is not the Espionage Act of 1917 or the Sedition Act of 1918.

Since I mostly tuned out those RNC demonstrations, I can't say that I have much knowledge of them, but unless they were handled about a hundred times more brutally than I can ever imagine, they couldn't possibly be compared to the Palmer raids of 1919-21, which featured a prolonged series of mass arrests and deportations. In terms of civil liberties, and in many other things as well, I have to agree that Wilson is right down there with the worst Presidents in our history. It's no accident that those raids were where J. Edgar Hoover launched his career.

(3) You're doubly delusional

Jack Nicholson: "Is there any other kind?"

Chris, that was a terrific post, and every point you made was spot on.

Looks like Chris has a cheerleading section.

Looks like Chris has a cheerleading section.

I liked Chris' post, too. Plus this gives me an excuse to wear a short skirt and jump up and down (luckily I'm alone and no one can see me).

Looks like Chris has a cheerleading section.

Yes, that sums up Andy and my relationship.

There are issues here that approach Shakesperean dimension. To limit the landscape to mere "character" misses the point completely.

Looks like Chris has a cheerleading section.

Yes, that sums up Andy and my relationship.

Yeah, Ray, Chris and I go back a long ways. I think he was the minister at my wedding or something.

I agree. You'll be hard-pressed to find me doing so. You are more likely to find me defending Bush in a similar fashion that I defend Obama.

Just to clarify, while I quoted you in making that post, I did not intend that to imply an accusation that you were guilty of that particular hypocrisy. It was more that your turn of phrase provided me with a convenient opening to make a point that was gnawing at me.

Hopefully, you didn't take it as an accusation in the first place, but better safe than sorry.

I second Andy, very thoughtful post, Chris. With many good points within.

The only place I would possibly disagree is that Trinity is founded on black liberation theology, to which Wright subscribes and has for a very long time. It's based in some really hateful and racist stuff. I heard on the radio that there's a document that Obama signed in becoming a member of Trinity showing his acceptance of this theology. If that's true, I think it goes deeper than the thoughtful way you described Wright above.

Anyone else hear about this document? Andy will be pleases to know that I haven't done well with 'teh google :-)

This might (or might not) be an opportune time to step back to September 13, 2001, when America was in deep mourning for her lost children, and re-examine how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were thinking. In their own words:

Jerry Falwell: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. ...what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

Pat Robertson: Jerry, that's my feeling....

Jerry Falwell: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

Pat Robertson: Well yes.

Jerry Falwell: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Pat Robertson: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government....



Now that's character.

The only place I would possibly disagree is that Trinity is founded on black liberation theology, to which Wright subscribes and has for a very long time. It's based in some really hateful and racist stuff.

I don't hold any particular brief for black liberation theology -- although I do hold one for the other sort of BLT -- but I am a little leery of making too much out of what a group is "founded on" versus what it has actually done. Good ideas can come out of bad ones; bad ideas can evolve into good ones.

This isn't to say that we should dismiss the issue entirely -- if someone starts, say, a charity group based on some particularly loathsome principles (pick your favorite), that's an excellent reason to look more closely at the group's activities and see what they're actually doing and advocating. But the looking more closely part is important.

I heard on the radio that there's a document that Obama signed in becoming a member of Trinity showing his acceptance of this theology.

I find the whole idea of signing a document that testifies to your ideology in order to join a church a little creepy, but that's probably my upbringing showing.

Well, I thought Chris's post was thoughtful, but I don't think there is any evidence for his thesis that Wright became more bitter and more extreme to the point where he suddenly crossed a line. The controversial remarks from Wright's sermons go back at least to 2001 -- several years; Wright has carried on a longstanding relationship with Farrakhan, dating back decades; and Wright said nothing new substantively over the weekend, which means that he could not have suddenly crossed a line.

And Chris's evidence to counter all of this is: Bill Clinton invited Wright to the White House.

If Obama were reading this he'd laugh to himself that the people defending Obama are even more naive than he himself pretends to be.

The best line I've ever heard relating to religion and politics was from a leftist Duke Law student who was running for some local office in Durham in the late 60's or early 70's. He'd been inside a church about twice in his life, and the election had nothing to do with "social issues" of any type. He was expecting nothing but questions about budgets.

So here's this total atheist with no political experience whatever, and the first question he gets in his very first appearance is this:

I want to know, Mr. Keenan, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

Now admit it, 99.999% of us secularites at that point would have gulped, coughed and squirmed to the point that by the time we got a word out, the election would have been in the tank. But instead, Jim Keenan didn't skip a beat in his reply:

Yes, and I'd feel sorry and pity for any man who hasn't!

I can't remember whether he actually won the election, but he had to have at least won a f*ck*ng Oscar.

Anyone else hear about this document?

I haven't heard anything about it. If it's true, it's pretty interesting, because your post just made me realize that I don't think I've heard one journalist yet directly ask Obama whether or not he subscribes to the belief system of James Cone's B.L.T. If he doesn't, then his signing of such a document would essentially be a fraud.

Isn't Caro doing a the final book about LBJ? I saw Caro interviewed like six years ago and he was going to Vietnam to do research.

It's my understanding (recalling a Booknotes interview with Brian Lamb) that the full biography will be in 5 volumes. The next one is going to end with the end of his presidency and the final volume will deal with the final years of his life. However, I wonder if Caro might not combine those last two volumes into one, as he himself might be getting too old to wait 15 more years to finish this work.

"This foolish baiting is past tiresome, Rich. Not sure why, at this point, but I expect a little better from you."

Go buy a sense of humor. They're now on sale at http://www.youcanbuyasenseofhumorforlessthanyoumighthavethought.com

Jerry Falwell: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. ...what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

Pat Robertson: Jerry, that's my feeling....

Jerry Falwell: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

Pat Robertson: Well yes.

Jerry Falwell: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Pat Robertson: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government....

Ummmm... that's great. You've demonstrated that Falwell/Robertson are (were for Falwell) asshats of the highest order. Was anybody here really arguing otherwise? Is there a point other than to make you feel good about hating fundy christian nutjobs?

but I don't think there is any evidence for his thesis that Wright became more bitter and more extreme to the point where he suddenly crossed a line. The controversial remarks from Wright's sermons go back at least to 2001 -- several years; Wright has carried on a longstanding relationship with Farrakhan, dating back decades; and Wright said nothing new substantively over the weekend, which means that he could not have suddenly crossed a line.

And Chris's evidence to counter all of this is: Bill Clinton invited Wright to the White House.

Well, no it wasn't. Are you intentionally misprepresenting what I said? We have about *3* instances of this type of speech, but Obama has been a senator for longer than that, and we have nothing before 2001. So, where are all the tapes for Obama's first 15 years in the church?

Why aren't their tapes for practically every sermon for 20 years (that's about 1000 chances)?

As you handwave away Wright's invitation to the White House, are you saying he was invited despite routinely making hate speech? Either he wasn't making the speeches routinely (or at all), or it wasn't reported, or something. What is your explanation?

If Obama were reading this he'd laugh to himself that the people defending Obama are even more naive than he himself pretends to be.

Ray, this is pointlessly disrespectful, and exactly what you whimpered about with E-X. Act like you've got some sense.

This might (or might not) be an opportune time to step back to September 13, 2001, when America was in deep mourning for her lost children, and re-examine how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were thinking.

Actually, it's not such an opportune time, since nobody here is defending Falwell's comments. I certainly don't, and found both Falwell's comments -- and Falwell himself -- to be despicable.

But I guess people can't resist bringing up irrelevancies like Bush and Falwell as a substitute for actual arguments.

SBB: "You, like Nieporent, are simply imagining the level of racial solidarity that obtains here. Others can find the data as easily as I can, but Obama is running way ahead of the level of Af-Am support he had when the campaign began."

If you would actually read what I said, you will note that I mentioned that his support among black voters did not begin as strong as it later became: "I think the polls showed that prior to the South Carolina primary, the black vote appeared to be more up in the air."

I'll grant you Woodrow, David.

Ummmm... that's great. You've demonstrated that Falwell/Robertson are (were for Falwell) asshats of the highest order. Was anybody here really arguing otherwise? Is there a point other than to make you feel good about hating fundy christian nutjobs?

Yes -- to have a sense of proportion.

As to the questions, we can start with: What is the quality of their character, and why are those they endorse and befriend never asked such questions? We can move on to ask those people: "What is your relationship with these two buffoons?" and "Would you denounce these sentiments?"

And once we've asked those, we'd be at about a tenth of the questions Obama has been forced to answer about something less than a tenth as appalling.

Rich,

I think I saw that interview. In that interview or another, Caro said he still produces his stuff on custom-made Smith-Corona typewriters. Doesn't use a computer, or didn't as of then.

Well, no it wasn't. Are you intentionally misprepresenting what I said? We have about *3* instances of this type of speech, but Obama has been a senator for longer than that, and we have nothing before 2001. So, where are all the tapes for Obama's first 15 years in the church?

I don't know; I'm not sure whether the church has tapes of everything, or what it's released.

The tapes we do have (whether it's three, or four, or five I'm not sure) do stretch back several years, so it's not like Wright just started making inflammatory comments a year ago.

As you handwave away Wright's invitation to the White House, are you saying he was invited despite routinely making hate speech? Either he wasn't making the speeches routinely (or at all), or it wasn't reported, or something. What is your explanation?

Who knows? Maybe the WH didn't know of his hate speech, or maybe they didn't care.

Ray, this is pointlessly disrespectful

Fair enough. I withdraw the comment.

GOOGLE: "Of course, such a facistic tactic wouldn't have been possible without the Patriot Act..."

more GOOGLE: "I know there's no point engaging with ignorance..."

I find it fascinating that the facile fabricator who frowns on ignorance cannot spell fascistic.

Well, no it wasn't. Are you intentionally misprepresenting what I said? We have about *3* instances of this type of speech, but Obama has been a senator for longer than that, and we have nothing before 2001. So, where are all the tapes for Obama's first 15 years in the church?


I don't know; I'm not sure whether the church has tapes of everything, or what it's released.

The tapes we do have (whether it's three, or four, or five I'm not sure) do stretch back several years, so it's not like Wright just started making inflammatory comments a year ago.

Well, you are extrapolating awfully far. And Obama and Wright goes back 20 years, so unless you can present some facts that suggest Wright never provided Obama with a caring environment, I'm going to have to go with what is most likely. You can go with what is least likely.

As you handwave away Wright's invitation to the White House, are you saying he was invited despite routinely making hate speech? Either he wasn't making the speeches routinely (or at all), or it wasn't reported, or something. What is your explanation?

Who knows? Maybe the WH didn't know of his hate speech, or maybe they didn't care.

So, they just invite anybody to the White House? No background checks? This is some shaky foundation you are pushing. What is *likely* the case?

"In that interview or another, Caro said he still produces his stuff on custom-made Smith-Corona typewriters. Doesn't use a computer, or didn't as of then."

David Letterman had a funny comment last night where he said someone (I don't recall specifically whom he was referring to) was out on the town shopping for typewriter ribbons. It occurred to me, hearing that, that it must be damn hard to find those things, now. And while I suppose you can buy a supply on-line somewhere (ironic as that may be), eventually no companies will make them.

Ummmm... that's great. You've demonstrated that Falwell/Robertson are (were for Falwell) asshats of the highest order. Was anybody here really arguing otherwise? Is there a point other than to make you feel good about hating fundy christian nutjobs?

Yes -- to have a sense of proportion.

As far as I can tell, SugarBear, your thinking was:

"These people are criticizing Obama, and Obama is on the left, so obviously these people must be members of the Religious Right. That means they must worship Jerry Falwell. Here, I'll expose their hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty by bringing up the irrelevancy of Falwell."

Why not respond to the actual arguments being presented?

Actually, it's not such an opportune time, since nobody here is defending Falwell's comments. I certainly don't, and found both Falwell's comments -- and Falwell himself -- to be despicable.

I was particularly impressed with Falwell's interruption of his tag-team partner, lest his moment of briliance ("The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.") be wasted before the thought passes.

As far as I can tell, SugarBear, your thinking was:

"These people are criticizing Obama, and Obama is on the left, so obviously these people must be members of the Religious Right. That means they must worship Jerry Falwell. Here, I'll expose their hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty by bringing up the irrelevancy of Falwell."

That's not even close to my thinking. Try 2465 (**).

(**) Plus of course the inherent comedy in realizing that two people can say such ridiculous things so gravely (you can almost picture Falwell wondering if he should jot a couple things down on paper and nail his theses to the Trade Center skeleton) and not be laughed out of public life forever. Reprinting it here is really no different than making a Seinfeld allusion, notwithstanding the pieties that inevitably accompany any discussion of fundie nutjobs.

So, they just invite anybody to the White House? No background checks? This is some shaky foundation you are pushing. What is *likely* the case?

We're talking about Bill Clinton right? I imagine that he probably invited anyone to the White House who either contributed enough money, or was willing to give him a humjob.

Yes -- to have a sense of proportion.

As to the questions, we can start with: What is the quality of their character, and why are those they endorse and befriend never asked such questions? We can move on to ask those people: "What is your relationship with these two buffoons?" and "Would you denounce these sentiments?"

And once we've asked those, we'd be at about a tenth of the questions Obama has been forced to answer about something less than a tenth as appalling.

This has already been addressed here. Politicians who kiss up to Robertson/Falwell don't have the same kind of relationship with those clowns that Obama had with Wright. It's the same reason Democrats can cozy up with Al Sharpton with impunity. It's generally assumed that the relationship is a cynical political grab for votes/money/credibility with X interest group, and accepted by both the public and media as such. Partisans on either side grumble, but it's generally a non-issue in the big picture.

It's why I personally believe Obama would have been better served throwing Wright under the bus early on. People would have concluded his relationship with Wright and his church was primarily motived by cynical political expediency, which might have hurt him a little with some of his idealistic supporters, but ultimately would have cut much of this inquiry short. People would have understood that. Now, people don't know what to think. The lesson here is if you're going to rip off a scab, do it quickly and in one go.

We're talking about Bill Clinton right? I imagine that he probably invited anyone to the White House who either contributed enough money, or was willing to give him a humjob.

Perfect response from the perfect person.

It's why I personally believe Obama would have been better served throwing Wright under the bus early on. People would have concluded his relationship with Wright and his church was primarily motived by cynical political expediency, which might have hurt him a little with some of his idealistic supporters, but ultimately would have cut much of this inquiry short.

I agree with this; it's much worse that Obama went down the path of vouching for Wright (not completely, obviously, but he "could no more disown him") and _then_ had to reverse course on that.

Of course, the real problem is that Obama stayed at the church listening to Wright for so long to begin with. That will continue to dog him, and Obama's defenders who ask "What else can he say?" are missing the point. Sometimes, things are irreversible (cheating on your wife; betting on baseball) and there's nothing you can ever "say" that's going to completely undo the damage.

Obama can survive this, but if Wright opens his mouth and directly contradicts Obama's explanations on this, it could well be curtains for Obama's campaign.

I agree with this; it's much worse that Obama went down the path of vouching for Wright (not completely, obviously, but he "could no more disown him") and _then_ had to reverse course on that.

In order to believe Wright's extremism hasn't increased, you'd hae to believe that Obama was "in line", and Wright's attitude was ignored for the first 20 years of Obama's political career - that the Illinois press and Obama's political opponents merely just ignored this "trouble spot". And it flies in the face of credibility.

Obama is running for office - were Wright "this bad" 20 years ago, Obama would have distanced himself sooner were he "just a pol."

Your "theory" holds less water.

This has already been addressed here. Politicians who kiss up to Robertson/Falwell don't have the same kind of relationship with those clowns that Obama had with Wright. It's the same reason Democrats can cozy up with Al Sharpton with impunity. It's generally assumed that the relationship is a cynical political grab for votes/money/credibility with X interest group, and accepted by both the public and media as such. Partisans on either side grumble, but it's generally a non-issue in the big picture.

Robertson nearly won the Iowa caucuses in 1988 and beat Bush 41 handily. That's a little inconsistent with your caricature of him as a guy pols pat on the head wink-winking at the voters all the while.

"In terms of civil liberties, and in many other things as well, I have to agree that Wilson is right down there with the worst Presidents in our history."

I have a more mixed opinion about Wilson. While I think he had some good points -- particularly the creation of the Fed -- my overall view of him is negative (though less so than David's view).

In my opinion, the much bigger and historically far more important failing of Woodrow Wilson was his premature armistice, ending WWI. He doesn't deserve sole blame for this decision. Lloyd George and most of our other allies, save Georges Clemenceau, favored the armistice.

If you are unaware of the reaction to the armistice in Germany (and to a lesser extent in Austria), you would not understand why this was such a tragic mistake, one that helped make WWII possible. It needs to be understood that World War I was not fought in Germany. It was fought in the Balkans, in France, in the Tyrol, in Belgium, in Russia, and so on. But for all the German people, save their soldiers, WWI was a distant conflict. Their economy was mostly strong during the war. Living standards were fine. All of the newspapers in Germany reported every day or week how well the German soldiers were doing, how well the war effort was going, how defeated their enemies were, how righteous the German cause was, and so on.

Thus, when the war ended and the armistice was declared, the German people were in shock that they had "lost." German nationalists thought the declaration of defeat was treason. The vast majority of German people agreed with this assessment. They had all been taken in by the propaganda. They saw no reason to give back all of their gains from the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. They saw no reason to pay reparations. They wanted a new war in which Germany could restore its national pride and its rightful place in Europe. That sentiment sowed the seed for a popular new party to form which promised it could do all of this for Germany's national interest.

Because, by November, 1917 we had in fact thoroughly crushed the Kaiser's army, we could have in a few months marched on Berlin and given Germany the defeat it deserved (and got 28 years later). If the Allies had done that (as Clemenceau wanted at that time), the German people would have understood what everyone else knew: that Germany and Austria were to blame for the war, that the Teutons had lost, and that the victors had the right (just as they had after WWII) to set the terms and conditions for peace.

In essence, the peace in Europe that followed V-E Day could have been had after WWI. But Wilson (and Lloyd George and others) didn't have the good sense that Roosevelt and Churchill had at the end of WWII: that you don't win a war if you fail to capture then enemy's capital and make it clear to his people that you won and you won't tolerate any more belligerence from him.

In order to believe Wright's extremism hasn't increased

I'm not arguing that it hasn't increased; I'm arguing that for at least several years it has been above a certain threshold.

Obama is running for office - were Wright "this bad" 20 years ago, Obama would have distanced himself sooner were he "just a pol."

Not if being a member of the church was an asset in local politics instead of a detriment.

Not if being a member of the church was an asset in local politics instead of a detriment.

Only if he ran unopposed.

I'm not arguing that it hasn't increased; I'm arguing that for at least several years it has been above a certain threshold.

Uh, yes you did.
"but I don't think there is any evidence for his thesis that Wright became more bitter and more extreme to the point where he suddenly crossed a line."

You might feel that line was 2001, but you said there wasn't evidence that happened, and here you agree that it did.

Not if being a member of the church was an asset in local politics instead of a detriment.

Then he was in the church for "pat on the head to get votes" reasons and there's no need for additional inquiry on the "belief through osmosis" hypothesis.

Chris: I said "to the point where he suddenly [over the weekend] crossed a line." That is exactly consistent with my other statement.

But if I didn't make that clear, fine; I'm doing so now. I think if Wright crossed a line -- instead of always holding these views -- he did it several years ago.

Since that's how far back some of these nutty statements go.

I think if Wright crossed a line -- instead of always holding these views -- he did it several years ago.

Now that you are *here*, go back and read my post at #2441

While "what if" is always tricky, I don't think that's fair, Rich. Setting aside whether anybody had the stomach for that much more fighting, I don't see any reason why Wilson should have believed that capturing Berlin would have somehow changed the outcome. Fighting between European powers had been going on forever without anybody scoring a decisive WWII-style victory that ended war. Did, e.g., the capture of Napoleon III and the surrender of Paris to end the Franco-Prussian war avert WWI?

The peace in Europe that followed V-E Day was not the result of merely capturing Berlin; it was the result of (a) completely devastating Germany before capturing Berlin, and (b) the Soviet threat being bigger than Western European differences. The Allies, even if they had the stomach for the extended fighting necessary to capture Berlin, didn't have the capability to do to Germany as a whole in 1918 what they would do to it in 1945.

I'll stick to criticizing Wilson for his domestic "accomplishments." And questioning whether the U.S. really belonged in WWI at all.

Robertson nearly won the Iowa caucuses in 1988 and beat Bush 41 handily. That's a little inconsistent with your caricature of him as a guy pols pat on the head wink-winking at the voters all the while.

Yes, I have fond memories of President Robertson's administration.

The fact that the most god-fearingest candidate lost a republican caucus, in Iowa, in 1988, doesn't really do much to show his mainstream popularity, or anything else. Robertson's candidacy for president was little better than Sharpton's in terms of its popular appeal, and worse than Jesse Jackson's. And that was back before his 9/11 comments.

"I don't think that's fair, Rich."

Fair or not, let it be said that many people at the time -- most notably in France -- were upset with the decision to 1) declare an armistice; 2) not destroy the German war machine; and 3) let the Germans sort out their own affairs. Because of Germany's mass media and her rather efficient economy, the German loss in WWI was unique* among war losses up to that point in history, in how the vast majority of German people led comfortable lives and had been misled to believe they were winning the war. This disconnect was actually well captured in Erich Maria Remarque's book, "All Quiet on the Western Front."

"I don't see any reason why Wilson should have believed that capturing Berlin would have somehow changed the outcome."

I believe this comes from a West Point document written before the Civil War: "Strategic objectives include defeating, destroying, or forcing enemy armies to retreat; seizing enemy strategic sites (supply lines, depots, arsenals, communications centers, and industry) crucial to his military effort; capturing the enemy capital; disrupting his economy; and demoralizing his will to wage war."

War strategy is not my area of expertise, but I thought this principal of capturing the enemy capital was ancient, not something that Woodrow Wilson and his contemporaries would have been unfamiliar with.

* Unique in that this was a major war fought just outside of Germany's national boundaries. I realize that many countries have fought (and today fight) wars in which the war is small or very distant and life goes on fine at home.

"I don't see any reason why Wilson should have believed that capturing Berlin would have somehow changed the outcome."

I believe this comes from a West Point document written before the Civil War: "Strategic objectives include defeating, destroying, or forcing enemy armies to retreat; seizing enemy strategic sites (supply lines, depots, arsenals, communications centers, and industry) crucial to his military effort; capturing the enemy capital; disrupting his economy; and demoralizing his will to wage war."

War strategy is not my area of expertise, but I thought this principal of capturing the enemy capital was ancient, not something that Woodrow Wilson and his contemporaries would have been unfamiliar with.

Of course. But that's on par with the other strategic objectives listed, with the ultimate goal of winning the war -- not the ultimate goal of defeating the enemy so thoroughly that he never fights you ever again. The Allies did win the war. What you're saying is that Wilson should have foreseen that winning the war wasn't sufficient.

Of course, the US had recently won a war against Spain without marching into Madrid. Nothing like a "major" war, but one which involved considerable geopolitical consequences, as had the Japanese victory over the Russians in 1904-05. That might not count as a major war either, perhaps, but those were the conflicts that the WWI principals had in their immediate past as models for ending wars.

"What you're saying is that Wilson should have foreseen that winning the war wasn't sufficient."

Yes, because we failed to "demoralize the enemy's will to wage war" down the road.

My criticism of Wilson (et al) is not unique or original. I picked that up reading histories of WWI. (My favorite is Martin Gilbert's, "The First World War: A Complete History.") It is my sense that the generation of leaders who won World War II took the incomplete victory as a major lesson from WWI: that you cannot win a war without total surrender.

Maybe I have overdrawn that lesson. But I do think that our total victories over Germany and Japan were the foundation* for the subsequent peace. And I cannot see how, if that is true, that total victory in WWI would not have worked as well.

* You make a good point about the Soviet Union, by serving as a common threat, forging together the Western nations. And maybe you are right that we "didn't have the capability to do to Germany as a whole in 1918 what they would do to it in 1945." If that is so, then my argument is weakened.

Debatable senses of humor aside,

If you are unaware of the reaction to the armistice in Germany (and to a lesser extent in Austria), you would not understand why this was such a tragic mistake,...

I would be fascinated to read the argument for this. Is there one particularly good book on it?

War strategy is not my area of expertise, but I thought this principal of capturing the enemy capital was ancient, not something that Woodrow Wilson and his contemporaries would have been unfamiliar with.


This ignores, however, that even though we ended up on the same side as the French that our interests at the time were the same as the French. Our goal, once we got involved, should have been to end the war more than helping one group of squabbling children defeat the other group of squabbling children.

While one could argue that crushing the Germans completely could have averted WWII, by what justification should we have done it at the time? Frankly, the French had plenty of later opportunities to avert WWII, when the stakes were clearer and the justification far stronger.

Now that you are *here*, go back and read my post at #2441

I did, and I reached the same conclusion as I had the first time I read it; I think Wright was plenty "extreme" (over this "threshold") at least 7 years ago, and, yet, Obama stayed. How can we assume that these 3 (or whatever) sermons just happen to be the only sermons of this type that Wright gave in 20 years (which presumably goes to the point that Obama may not have heard these messages before)? The first time Wright got a chance to open his mouth after this blew up, he proceeded to repeat precisely the things he was saying in the clips of the sermons.

Obama admits he misjudged Wright, and somehow it's people like me -- who judged him correctly the first time -- who are missing something?

Basically what happened was this:

Clips of Wright's racist and anti-American rantings become public.

People like me: "Wow, that's some pretty vile stuff in the clips of his sermons; Wright is racist and anti-American. Why did Obama stay there for so long and welcome Wright into his life?"

Obama: "No, no, those were just soundbites."

Clips of Wright's racist and anti-American rantings over the weekend become public.

Obama: "O-U-T-rageous!!! He goes too far!"

Rich -

I 100% disagree. For a start, the Germany accepted the Armistice unconditionally. As a matter of morality, and as a metter of public opinion, how can you justify continuing to kill people when they are waving a white flag and saying we'll give you whatever you like?

Secondly, you are committing the exact same errors that the likes of Clemenceau made in 1918. What does it mean or matter who was "to blame for the war"? This kind of vindictive thinking is precisely what led to the disaster of the Versailles treaty. The Germans knew and accepted that they had lost. In fact it was the near-mutinies on the Western Front (and the actual mutiny at Kiel) that killed off the German war effort. If the people had been willing to keep fighting the German government would have kept fighting, at least until pushed back well onto German territory. It was the fact that the German people wanted to surrender that caused the surrender.

And why did the German people want to surrender? In large part because of the blockade, but in large part because of Mr. Wilson and his Fourteen Points. It was not the Armistice but the Treaty of Versailles (and related treaties), which applied the principle of self-determination to every nation in Europe except the Germans - and instead treated them with manifest unfairness - which caused such bitterness in Germany. The Allies said lay down your weapons and we'll sort this out on the basis of fairness. The Germans said yeah, OK. Then the Allies said "haha, fooled ya!" Not surprising they should be angry in light of that, and particularly given the frankly unforgiveable Franco/Belgian behaviour into the 1920s - how many people do you suppose know that France invaded Germany in 1923?

Secondly, you are committing the exact same errors that the likes of Clemenceau made in 1918. What does it mean or matter who was "to blame for the war"? This kind of vindictive thinking is precisely what led to the disaster of the Versailles treaty. The Germans knew and accepted that they had lost. In fact it was the near-mutinies on the Western Front (and the actual mutiny at Kiel) that killed off the German war effort. If the people had been willing to keep fighting the German government would have kept fighting, at least until pushed back well onto German territory. It was the fact that the German people wanted to surrender that caused the surrender.


And they surrendered because, in large measure, their society had already been radicalized by the war. The combination of German defeat, a flawed peace, and continued German radicalization was the proximate cause of WWII.

"For a start, the Germany accepted the Armistice unconditionally."

That is internally inconsistent. The armistice itself ("a temporary cessation of hostilities") was a condition. "You guys stop shelling us, and we'll go home."

Beyond that, there was a long list of other conditions, including how far allied troops could go into what had been German territory. As such, your assumption is factually wrong.

"It was the fact that the German people wanted to surrender that caused the surrender."

This is the opposite conclusion of many of the books I have read on World War I. If you believe what you do (which I believe is incorrect), then you cannot understand the rest of my argument.

I should be clear that I am not saying no Germans wanted to surrender. Nor am I saying that the Kaiser's government or army was unconvinced they were thoroughly beaten. But what I have read many times (and believe) is that the vast majority of ordinary Germans had no notion that their army was beaten in the field (due in large part to effective propaganda), and that the populace viewed their government accepting "defeat" as treasonous.*

"It was not the Armistice but the Treaty of Versailles (and related treaties), which applied the principle of self-determination to every nation in Europe except the Germans - and instead treated them with manifest unfairness - which caused such bitterness in Germany."

No one doubts that the Nazis (and other German nationalists) exploited the T of V to their advantage, sowing bitterness in Germany. And many (probably most) blamed Clemenceau for insisting on onerous reparations. However, that treaty would not have been necessary (in the form it came out) had the Allies done what Clemenceau really wanted to do: finish the war in Berlin.

SBB: "their society had already been radicalized by the war."

I don't believe this is true. (If you have an authoritative source, I'll take a look.) It is my understanding that the "radicalization" grew during the hyperinflation of the 1920s, when the Weimar government printed worthless notes. The Nazis (and commies) exploited this, as well as the feeling that they should never have agreed to end the war.

That said, before the war, there was "radicalization" of a sort in Germany, inspired by the Kaiser's belligerence. If you read Robert K. Massie's brilliant book about the arms race leading up to WWI, "Dreadnought," you will get a sense for the hyper nationalism that was already common among the Germans in that post-Bismarckian era.

* Anecdotally, I know an old German man (he's the grandfather of a close friend of mine) who, although a Hungarian-German, fought in WWII for the Nazis (and was imprisoned by the Russians in a POW camp from 1945 until 1953!). I don't recall how this came up, but he mentioned in passing (probably when we were drinking some of his fine home-made wine) something like, "Germany didn't lose the first war. The government was weak and gave up for no good reason."

Basically what happened was this:

Or basically not. You clearly aren't reading #2441 in depth. 7 years isn't 20. Have you ever known anyone for 20 years? Have you ever known anyone whose apparent attitude on somethign you consider important evolved over time to a point where you couldn't accept it? Maybe a friend who used to be casually anti-abortion became vigorously pro-life?
You have no experiences to draw upon?

I am surprised you don't. Everyone you ever met you evaluated their entire spectrum of beliefs before you allowed them to become part of your life.

That seems...unlikely

I don't recall how this came up, but he mentioned in passing (probably when we were drinking some of his fine home-made wine) something like, "Germany didn't lose the first war. The government was weak and gave up for no good reason."

I believe the phrase you're looking for is dolchstosslegende.

2500.