Barack Obama certainly dominated the news cycle this week. I hope that is not a purveyor of things to come, but more and more, this election does seem to ride on whether or not a majority (or plurality) of the voters will accept Obama in spite of his inexperience. (Can't discern any bias there, can you?)
I want to hand it to Obama, though, for a gutsy move in his Father's Day sermon last Sunday. He said things that needed to be heard from a prominent figure like him, even though he had to know it wasn't the politically correct thing to do. Of course, there were the prompt denunciations of some on the right (like the inestimable Rush Limbaugh) to the tune that this was just a calculated "Sister Souljah" moment, but Obama raised the hackles of many on the left, too, like Michael Eric Dyson and Marc Lamont Hill. My feeling is that he spoke the truth when he could have ducked it and no one would have noticed. I like that. Here is the text of the entire message.
Obama's new church choice is very interesting...a holiness church, no less! When I read their doctrinal statement, I find nothing with which my own church would differ. Is it not a little ironic that Barack Obama's church maintains doctrinal positions that are closer to the Church of the Nazarene than any Presidential nominee of either party since Richard Nixon? Nixon was a member of the Quaker tradition or the Society of Friends, for the more proper among us, which fits into the Arminian tradition, though not very squarely. Some might say that I shouldn't have skipped George W. Bush, who is a Methodist. You would have a good point, although Newsmax reported this week that Bush is considering converting to Roman Catholicism. The predominance of Presidential nominees, including John McCain (Baptist) have been from Reformed traditions over the last 40 years; why is that? Might be an interesting study to undertake.
In other Obama-related news, he has also rejected public financing. Ho HUM. Yes, it is hypocritical and he has broken his promise, but how many American voters even are aware of what this means, much less care? It is not an issue that will get any mileage, period. End of story.
I will be highly interested in who both candidates choose as their running mates. Bill Richardson said on Hannity & Colmes last night that he think it will be close to convention time before Obama chooses his. This is just what I said, I think about McCain, a few weeks ago.
Ralph Reed said, also on Hannity & Colmes, but more recently on Alan Colmes' radio show, that he feels that the VP picks in 2008 are more important to the race at large than they have been since 1960. It could turn out that way, depending on who is picked, which, I suppose, is what Reed meant (maybe even what he said when he elaborated, if I had his exact words in front of me).
With Obama opting out of public financing and opening himself up to unlimited campaign funding, how does McCain not pick Mitt Romney? Obama has already outraised McCain 3 to 1, according to Hannity & Colmes' figures last night. It seems to me that the signs are pointing that way, with the friendship that has clearly developed between them in the months since the bitterly contested primary fight.
While I'm on this note, I will iterate that I feel McCain's veep pick has the potential to really cause conservatives to either close ranks behind him or give him up for good. If McCain chooses someone with solid credentials, this will go a long way. On the other hand, let's say he taps Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for instance, for whatever reason. (Some might say money, justifiably.) Should that happen, I would have to seriously look at Bob Barr. I do not want to vote for a third party candidate. I have not given up on the Republican party. But how do you pin any conservative hopes at all on a McCain/Bloomberg ticket? And I know I wouldn't be alone here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A commenter on another post says it much better than I can:
"They say McCain reads the blogs, so here goes --
Senator McCain- Don't let the campaign kibbitzers muddle things up.
First and foremost, Sarah Palin shares your values. She killed the bridge to nowhere. Need we say more?
As for the politics, Sarah Palin transcends geography. Her constituency, like yours, goes beyond state lines.
She will get your ticket access to voters all over the country based on who she is and what she stands for. Because she's young, a woman, a mother with young kids, she will grab media attention more than any other potential candidate.
Gov. Palin also has a son in the active duty military. You have very wisely taken your son's service in Iraq off the table as a campaign talking point. That is and should be respected. But others can talk about it and reflect on what it means.
A McCain-Palin administration would be the first in memory which has family members in uniform during wartime from both the President and Vice President. That would be a powerful statement as to the importance of national service, especially in uniform.
Most importantly, any Vice President should be ready to step up and serve in the event she is needed. Frankly, who is really ever ready? Gov. Palin is as ready as anybody, she is a quick learner, and in her public career has exhibited the courage and decisiveness needed for a great leader.
Godspeed to you in your campaign and in making this important decision."
Yah, moreover, in addition to her overwhelming attraction on the oil/energy issue and the female/disaffected Hillary voters, Palin's human interest story will generate millions and millions of dollars worth of publicity and media coverage — essentially free to the McCain campaign — more than offsetting Obama’s reported money advantage.
Post a Comment