Obama '08?

Is this the far left liberal Democrat indicated by his voting record, or is it the new thinker indicated by his lofty rhetoric. Cyclo apparently believe these questions can be answered by consulting his web site. I don't.

I see on our news that Sen Obama has had his personal security tightened up a lot, by the FBI or whoever does these things.

I don't want to be Mr Gloomy, but Mrs Clinton might be considering that when she considers the VP post, should it be offered.

Hagee, Obama and Lebanon
Posted on February 28th, 2008 by Daniel Larison
John Hagee, who described the bombardment of Lebanon in the summer of 2006 as a "miracle from God," has endorsed John McCain. Long-time readers will remember that he and Huckabee were consorting together not too long ago, which may be part of the reason for Huckabee's weakness in capturing much of the Catholic vote in the primaries. When he is not glorying in the bombardment of countries with large Christian (and non-Protestant) populations, he pushes quite venomous anti-Catholicism. Glenn Greenwald finds the double standard applied to McCain, who happily accepted Hagee's endorsement, and Obama, who has "denounced and rejected" Farrakhan, to be startling and glaring, but Greenwald can't be all that surprised. Whatever his apocalyptic visions (which the secular supporters of Israel regard as nonsense), Hagee is on board with hard-line policies towards Palestinians and Israel's neighbours that count as respectable and "responsible" views, while Obama is being linked, either through his pastor or otherwise, with figures who obviously do not endorse those policies, so in this truly odd view a Hagee endorsement is a feather in McCain's cap and Obama's associations are troubling and in need of clarification.

While it is, of course, true that Hagee's vision of Armageddon is not what anyone could reasonably call "pro-Israel," the working definition of what it means to be "pro-Israel" in America is already fairly unreasonable. Obama recently received praise in some quarters and scorn in others for distinguishing between pro-Likud and pro-Israel positions, but when it was the current Israeli Kadima government that embarked on one of the most counterproductive campaigns and suffered one of the most ignominious military failures of Israeli history (which Obama dutifully supported in the Senate) this does not really reflect all that well on his policy views. What I haven't seen anyone mention is that Obama endorsed the same campaign in Lebanon in terms that would have been quite satisfactory to John Hagee. By the conventional definition of these things, this means that Obama is clearly not "anti-Israel." However, if the sort of overreaching military responses that Hagee endorses and McCain, Lieberman and Obama all support are not really in Israel's best interest it may not be all that desirable that Obama can demonstrate his "pro-Israel" bona fides. What the double standard of treatment means, however, is that Obama is going to have to overemphasise his willingness to endorse dangerous and reckless policies towards Iran and other Near Eastern states to overcome the completely false perception that he is somehow insufficiently "pro-Israel."
link The Glenn Greenwald article on Salon is powerful and can be found at the link I posted.

well it wouldn't be the first time in RECENT history we had a more powerful and influential vp than president....

McTag wrote:

I see on our news that Sen Obama has had his personal security tightened up a lot, by the FBI or whoever does these things.

I don't want to be Mr Gloomy, but Mrs Clinton might be considering that when she considers the VP post, should it be offered.

There's a good chance that that deal has already been brokered, so the offering of the post would be mute.

Derogatory statements about Hillary and her character are not valid arguments one way or the other. She's stabbed Obama in the back no less times that he has her. Observe, of instance, his declaration that she will do anything to win, etc. Both oponents have been trying to win in the way candidates try to win an election. They have very clearly been cooperative and pleasant with each other for the last four debates. They were asked by Wolfe Blitzer if they would consider running together. They both said it was too early to say. They were both trying to win the nomination first. But neither said, "No" either directly or indirectly. They've both been asked that question repeatedly since then and neither has ever said, "No." We'll see. It's the only way I can think of to reunite the party. And it would be an unbeatable ticket.

The word is already out in many extreme evangelical circles that, as it was said to me, "Obama may be the anti-Christ." Wow! We could have seen that coming. However, I think it will do nothing to iinfluence the general election. People aren't into listening to the evangelical right wing nuts for now.

Lola wrote:

The word is already out in many extreme evangelical circles that, as it was said to me, "Obama may be the anti-Christ." Wow! We could have seen that coming. However, I think it will do nothing to iinfluence the general election. People aren't into listening to the evangelical right wing nuts for now.

I have long believed the Evangelicals were a largely spent political force. No one listens to them more than Lola.

I was disappointed to read about McCain's acceptance of the endorsement from Hagee, whom I consider to be a figure comparable, in his wisdom and beneficial influence on others, to Louis Farrakhan's.

Do you consider all who oppose Obama to be "Obama haters"? You appear to imply that.

The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image
By Rick Santorum

Let's face it though, Obama is not working overtime to correct the notion that he is some sort of Expected One. I'm not saying that he is laying claim to such a status or even that he is deliberately trying to lead people to such a conclusion, but he is using allusions to the messiah mythos to create a sense that his candidacy is something very different and very special. "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" If that doesn't smack of prophecy, I don't know what does. The use of "we" versus "I" makes the statement a bit awkward, but imagine if he used "I!" Of course he couldn't, but as the obvious leader of the "movement" (a semi-religious term in itself) he gets the benefit of invoking messianic allusions without seeming like a madman.

It's a damned clever approach and it is working. I don't fault him for using it. Voters should be able to recognize it for what is is --- an appeal to extremely powerful cultural programing. If they don't they kid themselves.

His use of the approach doesn't disqualify him for the office and, arguably, there are several reasons to vote for him that have nothing to do with some sense that he is The Expected One, but it's naieve to think he isn't utilizing the approach.

McCain is also trying to connect with voters at a level of primal cultural themes: The Scarred but Triumphant Warrior. It doesn't play with religious themes, but military ones are almost as powerful.

The foolishness any of us may be guilty of is in denying that these approaches, are being employed, and, at some level, can affect us.

Just as McCain's warrior mythos runs the risk of a "War-monger" backlash, so does Obama's messiah mythos run the risk of an "Anti-Christ" backlash. The difference for Obama supporters is that "War-monger" is a perfectly acceptible epithet while the use of "Anti-Christ" is hideously insane.

The reality is that from the perspectives of both factions, the epithets are really roughly equivalent.

This is The Hour...

"You have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour.
Now you must go back and tell the people that this is the Hour.
And there are things to be considered:

Where are you living?
What are you doing?
What are your relationships? Are you in right relation?
Where is your water? Know your garden.
It is time to speak your Truth.
Create your community. Be good to each other.
And do not look outside yourself for the leader.
This could be a good time!

There is a river flowing now very fast.
It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid.
They will try to hold on to the shore.
They will feel they are being torn apart, and they will suffer greatly.

Know the river has its destination.
The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river
Keep our eyes open and our heads above the water.
See who is in there with you
And celebrate.

At this time in history we are to take nothing personally.
Least of all, ourselves.
For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.

The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!
Banish the word "struggle" from your attitude and your vocabulary.
All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

The Elders / Oraibi, Arizona / Hopi Nation

"We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For"

A reader writes:

It surprises me that some commentators see messianism in a phrase that strikes me as deeply anti-messianic. The line is akin to "there's no Justice, there's just us" in that it calls on us to give up our fantasies of some deus ex machina descending to make everything right and just, and urges us to roll up our sleeves and get involved.

In a slightly different context, Reagan could have said it. As someone involved in the gay rights world for a while, it strikes me that this is also a core message we need to convey. The Clinton model - exemplified by the Human Rights Campaign - is: give us some big donor checks, we'll hire a lobbyist (if you're lucky), and we'll work the Democratic party establishment to give you your equality (which somehow never happens). Meanwhile: keep whining (and sending the checks). The Obama model is: you will only get your equality if you stand up for it, risk your job, status, even life for the sake of your own integrity. Stop whining and start explaining and persuading and acting.

So many gay people over the years have asked me where our "leader" is. It's the wrong question. We are the ones we have been waiting for. Be the change you want to see in the world. And the world changes. In exact proportion to the number of gay people who have abandoned their fear and self-hatred, it already has. No excuses, guys. And no need to wait.

We are the ones we have been waiting for

It's been shown that the more informed voters are, the more they favor Obama -- I can get you that info if you'd like (nimh posted it recently on his "polls" thread).