There’s been a lot of writing about the “cult-like” nature of the support for Barack Obama.
I stumbled across this Washington Post blogger who writes exclusively for them about religion and the presidential campaign, and his observation that you could easily mistake Barack Obama for Mike Huckabee if you read the transcripts of his speeches without knowing which candidate it was. Here’s an example:
Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you’d be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon’s lyric “Imagine all the people, Living life in peace”:
“And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life.”
And you’d probably be thinking again of applying for Canadian citizenship — just ‘fess up: you were scouting properties in northern Manitoba back around Thanksgiving 2004 — if the former governor of Arkansas declaimed:
“And whenever I hear stories about Americans who feel like no one’s looking out for them, like they’ve been left behind, I’m reminded that God has a plan for his people. . . . But it’s a plan He’s left to us to fulfill.”
But these are not Huck’s words. They were, in fact, pronounced by Sen. Barack Obama. He delivered these remarks this past Friday to about 150 Latino Evangelical and Catholic clerics at the University of Texas at Brownsville.
The blogger, Jacques Berlinerblau, makes the argument that liberal Democrats, in particular secular liberal Democrats, are giving Obama a free pass on this stuff because they’re a bit too caught up in the cult-of-personality that the Obama campaign has built. That secular Democrats are too intent on winning the prize than they are on supporting a candidate who represents the goal of a faith-blind, secular, progressive society. In his follow-up post a couple of days later, he even has a counter-argument for the inevitable comments that there is somehow some qualitative difference between a Republican playing the religion card and a Democrat doing the exact same thing, reminding said secular liberal Democrats about their enraged response whenever a Republican does it. And he has them dead to rights.
I have a couple of my own observations to add. First, the mini-scandal about the Obama advisor who told some Canadian politicians not to worry about Obama’s anti-NAFTA speeches because they were “just for the campaign” (my quotes) reveals a side of Obama that doesn’t get a lot of play in the fawning press coverage: that in many ways Barack Obama is just as calculated and just as facile as Hillary Clinton, willing to say one thing and do another to achieve his objective. Indeed, this particular quality is almost universal among politicians, and Obama is just better at hiding it than Clinton. So, it might be a reasonable assumption that he is just saying things that religious Democrats and moderate Republicans want to hear, and really isn’t a Jesus freak. Also, because the Republicans (and, to some extent, the Clinton campaign) have already started with the whispering campaigns about him secretly being Muslim, it seems to me that perhaps Obama is “preaching it up” to fight off that particular smear.
Next observation: even though Obama is half-African, he doesn’t identify squarely with the traditional African-American political experience. A lot of black politicians complain that Obama isn’t “black enough” to suit them or their constituencies. But his own constituency as an Illinois state senator was from a district in the South Side of Chicago, and there’s no doubt he learned from the traditional black politicians there how to play to the black voters by emulating the preachers. So it’s also reasonable to believe that this is less about courting middle-class white voters than it is about making sure the black voters are comfortable with him by presenting himself as the next in line after Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson, even though he’s really a buppie (or a bougie, as black urban professionals are sometimes called).
Thirdly: if this is all just for show, then you’d better watch out for this guy as yet another “Slick Willie”, able to turn the charm off and on as needed to get what he wants. If it isn’t for show, then you’d better watch out for this guy as “Huckobama”, as Berlinerblau calls him.
Maybe it’s because I’m not a secular Democrat, but I find this line of thought to be a load of crap. I have no problem with politicians espousing their religious beliefs (yes, even Republicans). The difference is that they’d better not be doing so in conjunction with a push to mix church and state–which Obama has NEVER EVEN HINTED AT DOING. In fact, he’s been quite consistent in his stance on that for a long time.
And let’s keep things in perspective, too… I’m much more afraid of the candidate that actively courts John Hagee than anything either Democrat has ever said or done. Ever.
No doubt. Personally, I would prefer to see a campaign season that did not require fealty to Jesus Christ as a pre-condition for election, regardless of the machinations the candidates employ to convince people of it.
The picture at the top of this article says it all. It is obvious that you have no respect for people that believe in Jesus.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. I have respect for some people who believe in Jesus, but my respect for them has nothing to do with their misguided beliefs. In fact, I’d say that I respect them in spite of their belief in Jesus because their other fine qualities outshine that one unfortunate one. And, not to put too fine a point on it, as it stands I am having a hard time including Barack Obama in that group, and when I read rhetoric like the quotes in the Washington Post blog it does little to make me feel the least bit better about him.
“First, the mini-scandal about the Obama advisor who told some Canadian politicians not to worry about Obama’s anti-NAFTA speeches because they were “just for the campaign” (my quotes) reveals a side of Obama that doesn’t get a lot of play in the fawning press coverage: that in many ways Barack Obama is just as calculated and just as facile as Hillary Clinton”
This might be a good time to point out that shortly after the righteous indignation expressed by HRC and her minions, one of her advisers was exposed as having done the exact same thing…not that the Mainstream Media paid any attention to this reality. HRC whines about being treated far more harshly by the media than Obama, but the truth is that she far too often is given a free pass.
The reality is that there is little in the way of substantial policy difference that divide Obama & Clinton. I’ll admit my bias toward (and my endorsement of) Barack Obama. Both would make phenomenal Presidents, but HRC’s “slash and burn” style seems to be indicative of her desire to win regardless of the costs incurred and the damage done to the Democratic Party. Is that who we REALLY want running against John McCain??
Thank you for adding the point about Clinton’s campaign doing the same thing.
I don’t want to create the perception that I am supporting Clinton over Obama, because I am not. I find both of them equally lacking.
Right along I have said that I would hold my nose and vote for whichever one finally came out as the nominee, but lately I have begun to consider the possibility of not voting at all because I really don’t support either Clinton OR Obama (and could NEVER support John McCain). I have paid more attention to Obama because I feel that he’s getting too much positive attention as if he were the Second Coming (hence the title of the post) rather than a one-term center-right senator with a great stump speech and a huge fanboy crowd. At least Clinton is a known quantity, as distateful as she is.
Lifting this quote from Thudfactor: “…if you can’t trust Obama then … what? You vote for the person you can trust to do you harm? Because at least you know where she stands?” Thus, I sympathize with your “not gonna vote for anyone” stance. I just think the duty of the governed is to choose who they want to govern (even if the choices are less than ideal), rather than give it a big “I don’t care. You guys pick.”
You vote for the person you can trust to do you harm? Because at least you know where she stands?
Yes, because you go in with your guard up and your eyes wide open. My point is that Obama is just as flawed and untrustworthy as Clinton and is just as conservative and rightward-leaning as Clinton, you just don’t know how he’s going to screw us over yet. Should Clinton get the nomination somehow (which is increasingly unlikely with each passing moment) and then beat John McCain somehow, she would face scrutiny the likes of which no modern president has had to endure. Obama gets a free pass because he doesn’t have as much public baggage, but it doesn’t mean he’s one whit less likely to fuck people over once he’s in office.
“I don’t care. You guys pick.”
I think you know me well enough to know that it’s not a case of not caring about this. I care very much about this and am very sorely disappointed that we are down to having to choose between these two people to face a slimeball like John McCain. I did not vote in the Massachusetts primary because the two candidates I would have supported had both dropped out. For now, I am still prepared to vote for the Democratic nominee, even though it would be without any enthusiasm, but it’s a long way to November and plenty of time for both Obama and Clinton to hammer the final nail into the coffin for me.