Reading his words themselves, there's nothing wrong with em. The only wrong comes when people read into his words things he simply didn't say.

Obama did NOT for example, say ANY of the following:

(a) We should not be careful about how we achieve Social Security goals.

(b) There are no factors in a successful education beyond teachers.

(c) Parents are not a factor in a child's education.

(d) Poverty is not a factor in a child's education.

(e) Learning disabilities are not a factor in a child's education.


He simply didn't say these things. Nothing he said implied those things. Nothing he said so much as SUGGESTED those things. And yet your criticisms only make sense on the assumption that he did say those things.

I personally, for example, believe that pay for performance makes perfect sense. I also believe that poverty, parenting, and numerous other things need to be addressed in order to create a COMPLETE solution.

I think ascribing statements to someone that they didn't make - ESPECIALLY when they're trained lawyers (specifically trained to say EXACTLY what they mean) - is a rather low form of argumentation. All the more so when the person IS ON YOUR FUCKING SIDE.