An Historic Speech (by Jim Wallis)
Yesterday morning, I started what would become an historic day with my favorite historian. As a young man, Vincent Harding was part of the inner circle of the southern freedom movement with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and later became one of the civil rights movement's best chroniclers and interpreters. Vincent has also been a mentor and trusted friend to me and to Sojourners for many years.
Vincent Harding was there at the Democratic Convention in 1964 when the party refused to seat the delegation from the Mississippi Freedom Party, and was close to its leader, famed civil rights activist Fanny Lou Hamer. When he told me that he would be there again this very night, at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, to witness the acceptance speech of the first African American to be nominated by any party for the presidency of the United States, he had tears in his eyes. Reflecting on the fact that this day was also the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s most remembered "I Have A Dream" speech, at the historic 1963 March on Washington, was almost too much to believe for both of us.
"When it comes to being a multiracial democracy," Vincent said to me, "We are still a developing country." He went on to suggest that “this would be a real opportunity for a new conversation between white people over these next 69 days.” I wondered how many white Americans are ready to evaluate this young man, Barack Obama, in the way that King had hoped his children would one day be in that famous speech 45 years ago, "Not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” along with Obama’s policy ideas and capacity for leadership.
All the news reports have described well the unforgettable scene with 85,000 people under a clear and warm Colorado sky. There have been only a few other times in my life where I felt like I was actually witnessing history -- such as the inauguration of Nelson Mandela to be the first democratically elected president of South Africa.
But the many impressive speeches, spectacular entertainment, and eye-popping display of fireworks were all overshadowed by the speech. I’ve heard many of Barack Obama’s speeches, from his keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention, to his address on religion and public life at our Call to Renewal (now Sojourners) conference in 2006, to many of his primary orations. But, as was almost universally recognized by the media commentators, this speech took Barack Obama’s message and campaign to another level. He was inspiring, as he has often been during this presidential campaign, but he also defined his meaning of the “change” he is calling for, more than he ever had before, so voters could either agree or disagree with his vision and policy plans.
Obama made it clear that he was ready and willing to debate John McCain, and yet he also made it clear that he would do so without attacking the character of his opponent. And while he challenged McCain’s record of ideas and leadership, Obama said his opponent was worthy of gratitude and respect from all Americans because of his service and sacrifices for the country. The sincere applause from the huge Democratic audience to Barack Obama's genuine recognition of McCain's patriotism was a high point of the night. I am hoping now to see that kind of applause to the recognition of Barack Obama’s remarkable American story and patriotism at the Republican Convention next week in St. Paul, where I will also be present. For his part, McCain offered a gracious comment on Barack Obama's night in Denver. He said, "Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America. Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, congratulations. How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow, we'll be back at it. But tonight, Senator, job well done."
Indeed, almost every one of the network analysts, across the political spectrum, said Obama’s speech last night was a job well done.
It was the kind of speech that could help the American people decide whether they agree or disagree with what Barack Obama proposes for America. My hope is that John McCain will also be evaluated on the clarity of his message and vision.
Once again, the personal story of Barack Obama also came through to a nation eager to evaluate his character, judgment, and leadership. And the picture of the Obama family afterward, on the stage with wife Michelle and daughters Malia and Sasha, provided a hopeful and heartwarming image of what family can be in a nation where so many of our families are unraveling. Both Obama’s ideas and character were very evident last night and throughout convention week, perhaps more so than at any time in this campaign.
Now John McCain has the opportunity to do the same thing next week. My next blog post will be from St. Paul, Minnesota.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Did you watch a different speech than I did? That was far from his best work. Nothing memorable, no unifying theme, the presentation was fair, although I was distracted by his attachment to the tele-prompter. He does have a beautiful family, but I'm not basing my vote on that.
Posted by: Bradley | August 29, 2008 8:37 PM
Pretty pictures. Lofty words. Vacuous and empty of substance. I'd vote for many blacks, Michael Steele maybe at the top of the list. It isn't about race.
It's about a black man who has voted "present" on 90% of the issues on on the one that ought to have been the most obvious moral choice, decided it was too much of a burden on an abortionist to have a second doctor verify that an aborted infant who was not "just limp and dead" ought to be given care. Then goes on national television and has the audacity to dodge the issue by saying it was "above his pay grade".
Wake up Christians! Wake up Americans. Obama is not the second coming of hope and decency. Far, far from it. I won't vote for him and it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the Democratic party platform. I am so far from the Democrats I couldn't even watch more than a few minutes of any of the convention.
Posted by: Dan | August 29, 2008 9:12 PM
I'll preface my comments that I'm a moderate voter who has been an Obama supporter since 2004. That said, I'm curious how back in 2004 Sojourners critiqued the way that GWB inserted scriptural language to interpret America in a messianic "imperial" role (I believe he conflated "the light that shines in the darkness" with the United States' fight against terrorists). Jim Wallis specifically cited this dangerous idea of a conflation of Americanism with the Jesus event.
I'm wondering if God's Politics will comment on Barack Obama's near identical practice? Over at Christianity Today Collin Hansen highlighted a few moments from BHO's speech where he too conflates Americanism with scripture references. http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/08/obamas_code_lan.html
Posted by: Matt K | August 29, 2008 9:23 PM
Vacuous and empty of substance.
Nonsense. I heard much substance. Plus I heard him take the offensive in the campaign. We can be sure that in the upcoming nine weeks, Obama will force the Republicans to defend their policies and proposals, some of which are indefensible.
Obama is not the second coming of hope and decency.
Who is saying that he is? Certainly not I.
Dan, the very fact that you have to announce to the world that "it has nothing to do with race" puts the lie to those words.
No, it probably wasn't Obama's best speech, though I think it stands head and shoulders above most of the acceptance speeches we've heard in the last few presidential primaries. But many of the comments I've heard so far have tended to judge it not so much on how it measured up in terms of oratorical and rhetorical excellence but by whether or not the commentator agreed with its content.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 29, 2008 9:29 PM
One more thing, Dan. You aren't the first one on this forum to admonish Christians to wake up, but frankly I'm already tired of it. Truth be told, I'm quite awake, thank you.
D
Posted by: Don | August 29, 2008 9:31 PM
Posted by: Matt K | August 29, 2008 9:23 PM
I noticed that too, Matt. Unfortunately, it's considered rather obligatory for presidential candidates to invoke ideas from our national mythology--you know, American exceptionalism, America as the new Canaan, America as the last best hope for the world, etc. It's as obligatory as saying "God bless America" at the end of the speech. Don't forget Reagan's bit about America's being the "shining city on a hill." We all know where that idea originated.
I think Rev. Wallis' concern about Bush's comments had specifically to do with his conflation of lines from Holy Scripture with support for war. Having said that, I wasn't all that happy with Obma's continuing the use of this messianic-nationalistic language, but I've come to ignore it.
How do others feel about this?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 29, 2008 9:39 PM
"But the many impressive speeches, spectacular entertainment, and eye-pooping display of fireworks..."
ROFL! Sorry, just thought I'd share. ;)
Posted by: Matt G. | August 29, 2008 9:42 PM
I don't have any problems with eloquent oratory that also carried substance. It's a delight to hear a candidate who knows what his own words mean, and is willing to live up to their obligations.
I believe that, under an Obama administration, I'll be able to say what I mean and vice versa without government manipulation and retribution.
And that silly messianic return stuff is a mere distraction from the reality that there maybe one Messiah, but there are many prophets. And the eyes of politicos who not only want our money and control of our souls -- those are the dangerous eyes to follow. They promise us power and wealth and all the mammon Jesus told us to watch out for.
The ultimate question for me to consider during this election will be, "Who believes I have lots to give to our world, and who trusts my willingness to do it? Who has faith that, if I follow a qualifited leader, I can listen, learn, and carry out the will of God to all of our benefit?
Posted by: openeyes | August 29, 2008 10:14 PM
I thought it was a rather mediocre speech - for Obama. Not his usually engaging visionary delivery. Perhaps my impression was considerably solored by my distaste for the leftist program that composed most of the speech.
Posted by: Gordon | August 29, 2008 11:02 PM
Does anyone even remember what the speech was about? Can anyone remember a single line from it without going back to look at the transcript? If you had to title the speech, what would you call it?
MLK-"I Have A Dream"
Reagan-"Tear Down This Wall"
JFK-"Ich Bin Ein Berliner"
Bill Clinton-"I Did Not Have..."
There was no unifying theme, nothing of substance, nothing memorable. (Except when he swiped the Reagan line about the U.S. being the "last best hope of the world.")
Oh, and I remember hearing the Brooks and Dunn song that Bush used in 2004 and I'm pretty sure that was the theme from Remember The Titans at the end.
Posted by: Bradley | August 29, 2008 11:34 PM
When did we learn more about Obama or his views? At the convention or at Saddleback two weeks ago? Wallis's silence on the latter is striking...at the very least I thought he would mention it. For someone so dedicated to faith and politics, surely this would have been a newsworthy event for him. How to explain the silence?
Posted by: jesse | August 29, 2008 11:36 PM
This speech was just more of the same failed democratic talking points that have lost them presidential elections for about the last 40 years. Change? Different? Not what I heard, not even close. As far as Republican policies being indefensible which ones? Please use scripture to back up your claims. Is being for abortion and gay marriage christian? What about stealing (thru taxation) others money to redistribute to people who have not earned it? How do you liberal christians defend those postions with scripture because try as I might I can't find anything in the bible that supports those views.
As for Mr. wallis silence about the debate at saddleback could it be because Mr. Obama got his lunch handed to him and shown to be a wolf in sheeps clothing? Just a thought.
Posted by: far right christian and proud of it | August 30, 2008 1:13 AM
The delivery was brilliant. The content was pretty much typical convention fare. My family rocks, I have respect for my old relatives, the other guy sucks (but deserves our respect), the troops are awesome, my administration will do lots of new things while cutting taxes.
I actually thought Obama would eschew the fanfare and offer weighty, SOTU-like speech. My guess is that McCain will offer almost the same speech, albeit less effectively.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 30, 2008 1:28 AM
As a conservative I thought it was a bad speech because of its content, but it was fairly well delivered.
"Obama made it clear that he was ready and willing to debate John McCain"
If he was willing to debate McCain he would have accepted to do some townhall meetings with him. It's easy for Obama to make that statement after the debates have already been scheduled.
Posted by: DITE | August 30, 2008 1:40 AM
I thought it was an excellent speech . If I was a Obama supporter I would have been more then inspired Even being a likely McCain voter I found it quite Reagan like in the matter that I felt he was including me , that we were all part of this great country . What brought me back to earth a little bit was when he talked to energy independence in ten years . That is what I think should be the number one priority , if not a close second to anything else right now . The deal is Obama included it in a laudry list of freebies . He has come out against nuclear energy , more drilling and natural gas . Some specfics would have been nice for energy independence , but the speech was more for the faithfull supporters I guess . Hopefully the debates and such will bring this all out .
Posted by: Michael | August 30, 2008 2:11 AM
I wasn't all that happy with Obma's continuing the use of this messianic-nationalistic language, but I've come to ignore it.
How do others feel about this?
Peace,
Posted by: Don
To me its almost like kissing babies . No big deal
Posted by: Michael | August 30, 2008 2:15 AM
"I'd vote for many blacks ..."
"It isn't about race. It's about a black man ..."
Hi all,
Those statements, including the Freudian slip (I guess) by Dan (2nd comment up there) are telling.
RACE, it seems, is the one thing that so many are denying will decide this election.
Let me guess now, Dan ... You are an African-American, right?
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | August 30, 2008 3:57 AM
Barack Obama is a gifted, gracious intellectual who also happens to be a black man. I hope he will be our next president. I will vote Democrat for the first time this year. Hatemongering and fearmongering Republican icons brought me to recognize how UNChristian my party actually was. I had bought the lie that as a Christian I should be Republican in spite of this war and its cost in human and monetary terms, in spite of the Republican party's lack of compassion for the needy and hopeless among us, and in spite of its practice of focusing in on and enlarging a few "sins" into political issues, causing division and strife, creating fear and hate between the two parties. I will not be manipulated ever again by powermongers who misuse scripture for political maneuvering. The focus on sin and laws may seem righteous and holy, but it is the opposite. It is called legalism and I want no part of that. What good are laws without compassion? Dan, I was "awakened" just in time for this historic and important election.
Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | August 30, 2008 8:40 AM
This speech was just more of the same failed democratic talking points ...
What about the failed Republican talking points that focus on personal attacks and fearmongering?
As far as Republican policies being indefensible which ones? Please use scripture to back up your claims ... try as I might I can't find anything in the bible that supports those views.
How about invading a country that didn't attack us and wasn't planning to, destroying that country's infrastructure and causing unnumbered deaths and untold suffering? How about making jokes about bombing another country, something that could kill thousands of innocent people and spark even more violence? How about pride and arrogance, acting like the Pharisees or as if we're the only ones right and everyone else is wrong? How about torture? How about suspending due process and other civil rights and spying on citizens? How about favoring the wealthy and trampling on the poor?
As far as Biblical support for my claims, I can only give you a few in this space. But do you think the prophet Amos would have supported these current Republican values?
"You trample on the poor
and force him to give you grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
you will not drink their wine.
For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.
You oppress the righteous and take bribes
and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts."--Amos 5: 11-12
"Hear this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the poor of the land,saying,
'When will the New Moon be over
that we may sell grain,
and the Sabbath be ended
that we may market wheat?'—
skimping the measure,
boosting the price
and cheating with dishonest scales,
buying the poor with silver
and the needy for a pair of sandals,
selling even the sweepings with the wheat.
The LORD has sworn by the Pride of Jacob: 'I will never forget anything they have done.'"--Amos 8:4-7
Or how about Micah?
"Hear this, you leaders of the house of Jacob,
you rulers of the house of Israel,
who despise justice
and distort all that is right;
who build Zion with bloodshed,
and Jerusalem with wickedness."--Micah 3:9-10
"He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."--Micah 6:8; all Biblical quotes from the NIV.
Plenty of Scriptures take opposition to the current regime in Washington and what they are doing to our nation and to the world. Like Cheryl from Lewes, Delaware above, I'm a registered Republican who has become tired of the lies and fearmongering, not to mention arrogant warmongering, all of which are clearly opposed by Scripture.
You can say what you want, "far right Christian," but the Scriptures speak so loudly I can no longer hear the likes of you, even when they are shouting.
As for Mr. wallis silence about the debate at saddleback could it be because Mr. Obama got his lunch handed to him and shown to be a wolf in sheeps clothing?
ROFL!!
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 30, 2008 9:25 AM
"You trample on the poor
and force him to give you grain"
How has this administration trampled on the poor?
Posted by: DITE | August 30, 2008 10:13 AM
Reading comments, of some who called themselves christian, but, however, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, we do not see Fruits of the Spirit of Living God! (11Thess-2-2-12)
All we hear on these threads is Judgment, Hate, Falsehood, Condemnation, Ungodliness, Self Righteousness, yes, All in Vanity. We need not look to ANY MAN, Obama, McCain or your pastor to Restore you or this Nation, ONLY Holy God has the Power to do that!! Christians???? I must ask, where is the Fruit of the Spirit of God, Love, Mercy, Righteousness, Holiness, Godliness, Charity, Faith, Patience, Glory, Peace Honour, and Power?
(Malachi-3-6-12) Don't blame members of the Government for Corruption across this Nation, Blame the Religious Leaders to whom God Made His Promises to Bless a Nation. They have been paid with God's Tithes and Offering, Yet, the simple Milk of the Gospel is not heard in their Church! (James-5-1-7) (Rev-3-15-20)
(Jude-12) These are spots in your feasts of Charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves withour Fear: clouds they are with Water, carried about of winds, trees whose fruit withered, without Fruit, Twice Dead, plucked up by the Roots. (Jeremiah-17-5-13)(Hebrews-12-25-29)God said, if My People will turn from their evils ways and evil doings, I will heal your land._The Only Hope for the Future of America!
Posted by: Annette | August 30, 2008 10:30 AM
How has this administration trampled on the poor?
I'll give one example that literally fulfills what the prophet was talking about, and I've used this example before: genetically modified (GM) crops that benefit big corporations and hurt small farmers, especially in the third world. Our government encourages corporations to do these sorts of things.
Revised from comments I wrote on Brian McLaren's July 29, 2008, post:
They have engineered so-called "terminator" genes that prevent the crop from yielding viable seed--that is, seed saved from this year's yield of genetically modified crops won't germinate and grow. If a farmer whose family has been saving seed specifically selected over generations for the local conditions has his crop contaminated by pollen blown in by the wind from a field where terminator-genetically modified crops are grown, his seed will be sterile and worthless. So the farmer will be forced to buy more (GM) seed from Monsanto or another large seed company.
These corporations have successfully sued farmers whose crops were contaminated with wind-blown pollen from genetically modified crops. The wind can carry that pollen quite far from its source.
GM crops, whatever their environmental and health risks might be, are a method for international mega-corporations to control world food production, for their own profit of course.
If this doesn't constitute trampling on the poor, I don't know what does.
Farm subsidies, coupled with so-called free trade agreements supported by the current administration (especially in Central America), also trample on the poor. Big Agriculture in the US can undercut small Latin American farmers, selling their corn far cheaper than the locals can. This forces the small farmers off the land. Can you guess where many of them end up? You're right, they come--or attempt to come--to the US where they work and live illegally and commonly get exploited by their employers.
Do you need more examples? If Rick is around this weekend, I'm sure he could supply you with some.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 30, 2008 10:35 AM
How has this administration trampled on the poor? Barack Obama answered that question quite eloquently in his very impressive, substantive speech, a speech that also admirably addressed all the current hot button issues some love to trot out when distractions are needed. The repeated phrase "You are on your own" summed it up quite handily, preceded with numerous examples of exactly how this government has left the poor ... and the middle class ... on their own. Until this wealthy nation provides universal health care, the poor are trampled. That's a single example.
Posted by: J.S. Brooks | August 30, 2008 10:43 AM
Don said, "Our government encourages corporations to do these sorts of things."
By "these sorts of things," I presume that you mean trying to feed as many people as possible as efficiently as possible and providing the food at an affordable price?
Posted by: Bradley | August 30, 2008 10:45 AM
"Until this wealthy nation provides universal health care, the poor are trampled."
Why stop at health care? The percentage of people who eat dwarfs the percentage who need health care. Why not provide universal food care, shut down those evil grocery stores and install government pantries?
What about electricity? More people need heat and a/c than use health care. Why not provide a central heating and a/c unit to every home and the electricity to run it at no cost?
What about homes? More people need a place to live than need health care. Why not provide every American citizen with a new home?
I could go on and on and on.
Posted by: Bradley | August 30, 2008 10:55 AM
Someone needs to be coaching the newsroom at Sojo as to what are the hot topics today. About 94 total posts on all the articles currently on the site. Write an article that talks about abortion and you would have that many on that article in about 6 hours.
Here we have in the first time in our histroy a woman or a black (half black) man will be in the number one or two spots of our gov't. Shoot the big four are going nuts over this.
Will be interesting what has to be said about St Paul - kinda lame with Denver.
All the Time - God is Good
.
Posted by: big guy | August 30, 2008 11:03 AM
Big Guy: "Shoot the big four are going nuts over this."
Believe it or not, Big Guy/Moderatelad, many of us don't get our news from the "big four" or CNN. We prefer to actually read the news or get it from commercial-free radio rather than have it spoon-fed in lite superficial bites squeezed in between advertisements. Try it some time--you'll be amazed at how much of what constitutes "news" on TV is evanescent froth that can be safely ignored.
Bradley: "By 'these sorts of things,' I presume that you mean trying to feed as many people as possible as efficiently as possible and providing the food at an affordable price?"
And here I thought corporate ag was trying to, by creating an oligopoly, squeeze out all competition. Silly me.
Posted by: carl copas | August 30, 2008 11:33 AM
By "these sorts of things," I presume that you mean trying to feed as many people as possible as efficiently as possible and providing the food at an affordable price?
GM crops actually don't do that. They actually yield less than conventional crops grown under the same conditions. The only advantage they have over conventional crops is convenience for American farmers who use pesticides and large farm equipment. Thye're no benefit to third-world farmers, in fact they hurt them as I mentioned above. They only benefit Monsanto and the other Giant Agra-Chem corporations.
Learn about this issue before you repeat Giant Agra-Chem's talking points.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 30, 2008 11:35 AM
Admin, I see, Fruits of Self Righteous when you and others look at everybody and everything instead of looking at SELF. Tell me when did God said that responsible is on the Government, that Government should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take-in the stranger (homeless) clothed the naked, visit the sick and go to those in prison? (Matthew-25-33-46) (Malachi-3-7-18)
(James-2-14-20) Since the so called CHURCH does Nothing, Thank God, Governments Does Do Something!
Posted by: Annette | August 30, 2008 11:40 AM
"I've used this example before: genetically modified (GM) crops that benefit big corporations and hurt small farmers, especially in the third world."
GM crops have saved billions of lives. If you are opposed to them then you are putting elitist ideology above the prevention of starvation.
We can agree that farm subsidies are bad, but Obama is as bad or worse on this front.
"Do you need more examples?"
Yes, preferably accurate ones.
"If Rick is around this weekend, I'm sure he could supply you with some."
You need a relief pitcher? Be warned, this Righty hits Lefties pretty well. ooooh. See what I did there?
As Bradley pointed out, our government should protect our rights, not create new rights and then assumed the responsibility of giving said created rights to its helpless citizens.
Posted by: DITE | August 30, 2008 11:42 AM
GM crops have saved billions of lives.
Nonsense. GM crops haven't saved any lives. All they have done is threatened to put world food production into the hands of a few increasingly wealthy corporations for the profit of a few at the expense of the many. Talk about elitism!
I am not an ideologue here. Genetic modification of food crops and other organisms may have some benefits down the road, and I certainly don't oppose any and all research in that area. However, the government has the GM R & D situation staked to benefit the large corporations, not people. That's the way our government is set up and that's one of the ways it tramples the poor, going back to my original point.
But you are spouting ignorant nonsense. Learn some things before you talk about things you know little about.
You need a relief pitcher?
I'm not all that familiar with the details of the plight of inner-city poor. I can't speak with much knowledge there. Rick can.
Be warned, this Righty hits Lefties pretty well.
So you think. I've watched Rick (and others) blow a few pitches by you more than a few times. (Rick isn't really a lefty, either. He throws from the middle. So do I. Payshun is the only real lefty on our "team.") Your batting average against them ain't so good. But sure, you can dream.
As Bradley pointed out, our government should protect our rights...
Make me laugh! (Going back to my original complaint), didn't you read what I wrote about the Bush administration's trampling of constitutional rights? Or do you think unauthorized wiretapping or Homeland "Security"'s collecting data on all the Web sites all of us visit doesn't infringe on peoples' rights?
peace,
Posted by: Don | August 30, 2008 12:23 PM
The last eight years...
How has tax cuts for the wealthy benefited the poor?
Answer: No. "Trickle down economics"= Pharaoh economics
How has deregulating the banking industry to increase economic productivity worked out?
Answer: it is economically destructive. When you don't have a form of "Jubilee regulation," stemming the tide of greed which actually hurts the entire economy, except for Pharaoh and his inner circle
How has deregulating the credit industry worked out?
Answer: Terrible. Many people end up with out-of-control debt where their lives belong to others
The problems we're seriously not talking about...
*we cannot sustain the current consumption of resources without environmental disaster and global (including national) insecurity
*note: as the economies of India, China and other nations rise, proportionate American influence will decrease- we need to find ways to go from the "lecturing mode" to the "collaboration mode"
*both McCain and Obama have fraudulent economic plans because we as a people want low taxes and high services which leads to skyrocking debt- google the movie "IOUSA"- until "we the people" realize that the current economic path requires courage and sacrifice our politicians do not have the cover to do the right thing because they'll be voted out of office immediately, namely raising revenue and cutting costs
The truth is not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. Unless we face the actual realities of the world rather than the propaganda stemming from the "Herod News Network" (Fox) to the other networks- we will be unable to do what needs to be done.
Perhaps Christians should return to the Benedictine option- simple, generous, community living.
Treasured people, treasure people,
duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | August 30, 2008 12:38 PM
"I wasn't all that happy with Obma's continuing the use of this messianic-nationalistic language, but I've come to ignore it."
Anyone who has been following politics for any length of time has learned to regard it as requisite rhetorical flourish. In his book, Wallis applied a standard to Bush that he would not apply to a Democratic candidate, and one that he will certainly not apply to Obama.
"As far as Biblical support for my claims, I can only give you a few in this space. But do you think the prophet Amos would have supported these current Republican values?"
I don't think we know enough about Amos to know which party's values he would have supported. I'm inclined to think he would be staunchly for property rights and opposed to legal abortion. He absolutely would criticize our sexual immorality, and our legal protections for pornography. Obviously, he would be an opponent of unfair taxation.
If government simply took the approach that the poor were to take care of themselves (which, btw, is not our government's approach), would he prophecy against the government? That is impossible to ascertain from text dealing with a government that was literally stealing from people.
The only specific example you cite, that of farm subsidies, is hardly specific to the Bush administration. Both parties leverage the farm bill to buy off special interests. Of course, the seeds (no pun intended) were planted when the government decided it needed to exercise control over farming in the first place.
A truly conservative viewpoint would seek to end the establishment of these programs, which are exploited by whichever interest has the most money to rig the system in its favor. The government can't trample the poor if it doesn't have any boots.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 30, 2008 1:11 PM
"Nonsense. GM crops haven't saved any lives."
Unbelievable. We have been genetically altering crops since human existence. People like Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug have gone to third world countries and helped genetically engineer their crops to make them more productive. When they gave him the Nobel Prize for this acomplishment they estimated that he saved around a billion lives. Saying this is a bad thing is what's fun about being an elitist. You can disregard common sense because common sense is for...well..."common people."
"Make me laugh!"
You're welcome.
"didn't you read what I wrote about the Bush administration's trampling of constitutional rights?"
Do you find it surprising that Congress, the Supreme Court, and rational people don't agree with you and haven't impeached Bush for policies that you think are Constitutional? I don't feel my rights are trampled on and I am thankful that the US hasn't be attached since 9/11/2001.
"How has tax cuts for the wealthy benefited the poor?
Answer: No. "Trickle down economics"= Pharaoh economics"
You answers lie in a macro economics class. Or you could google "fiscal economic expansion" for the dumbed-down version.
"we cannot sustain the current consumption of resources without environmental disaster"
We always have. The human imagination is our most abundant resource (See: America).
Posted by: DITE | August 30, 2008 1:21 PM
Barack Obama delivered a pretty good speech, but it had flaws. His delivery came across as angry later on, and his assertion of his own patriotism
(and his attempt to declare this a dead issue) struck me as a bit defensive.
As for the change, in the end Barack Obama offered us all the same old changes that Democratic candidates have offered for decades: a multilateral foreign policy based on international organizations like the UN and a reliance on soft power, a laundry list of government programs with an implausibly small price tag. These ideas have their supporters but they have been rejected more often than accepted. As a general rule Democrats get elected President by downplaying them.
Barack Obama's personal magnetism may be enough to get him elected President with a fairly standard Democratic liberalism. That is the change he offers, not any substantially new ideas.
LV
Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 30, 2008 1:40 PM
Unbelievable. We have been genetically altering crops since human existence. People like Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug have gone to third world countries and helped genetically engineer their crops to make them more productive.
Unbelievable is right. You really are demonstrating your ignorance here.
Don't you know the difference between genetic engineering and traditional methods of crop breeding, including selecting, crossing, hybridizing, and various methods of plant cloning--grafting, layering, etc.? These traditional techniques do manipulate the organism's genetics, of course, but through indirect means. With these traditional methods, all manipulated genes were already part of the organism's genome structure.
Genetic engineering is directly modifying an organism's genetics in a laboratory though isolating specific genes of interest, genes that are not part of the target organism's genome structure, from another organism (often an organism not even remotely related to the target organism--such as modifying a corn plant with a bacteria gene) and transferring it directly into the target organism's genetic makeup. This technique has only been possible for the last thirty years or so, and the first GM crops didn't start appearing until the early 1990s.
Once again: get your facts straight before spouting ignorance.
Posted by: DOn | August 30, 2008 1:45 PM
Do you find it surprising that Congress, the Supreme Court, and rational people don't agree with you and haven't impeached Bush for policies that you think are [not--sic?] Constitutional? I don't feel my rights are trampled on and I am thankful that the US hasn't be attached [sic] since 9/11/2001.
I know plenty of quite rational people who believe that Bush's wiretapping policy is unconstitutional and who also believe that Bush's policies are NOT re reason we haven't been attacked since 9-11. As for not impeaching Bush, am I to blame for a spineless Congress that won't take its own responsibilities seriously?
Posted by: Don | August 30, 2008 1:51 PM
Lord Voldemort:
Take a look at history; I think you will discover that multilateralism in foreign policy was not the provenance of Democrats alone until GW Bush came along. He has been the aberration here, not Barack Obama.
Posted by: Don | August 30, 2008 1:55 PM
Here are my thoughts on “the speech”.
The positives: Obama is a splendid orator. His decision, derided by many in the media, to speak in the stadium rather than the convention hall was a smart one. He pulled it off very well. His speaking ability is so much better than the mangled speeches we’re used to from Bush and much more enjoyable to listen to than the “this is what my teleprompter says so I’m going to say it” style of Kerry/McCain/Gore/etc. Perfect family for running for office too - cute kids and beautiful wife.
As for the policy, I think his overall criticisms of Republicans/Bush Administration are pretty close to accurate. They deserve not to be in power anymore. They don’t appear to be in touch with what Americans are going through right now and they aren’t re-crafting their policy ideas to meet the new challenges we face. This will appeal to lots of Americans, even those who aren’t hard-core Democrats.
I like his desire to change the temperament of Bush’s foreign policy. Other than trying to get the troops out of Iraq (which is going to happen regardless of who is President), Obama’s actual fundamental foreign policy beliefs aren’t that much different than Republicans, he just has a different style from Bush, which I think is welcome. I also agree that with the budget deficits we’re facing we can’t just keep cutting taxes and add to the debt. I like Obama’s desire to couple middle class tax cuts/tax credits for the poor with letting the Bush tax cuts for the upper income bracket expire. I also think his specific ideas (mandatory maternity leave and sick days) to help out workers will resonate with a lot of Americans and I agree with them.
The policy negatives: I think the philosophy behind a “windfall profits tax” is ridiculous (basically take an industry that people don’t like at the time being and increase taxes on it because it’s politically popular). Obama’s health plan is way too complicated and will result in more people depending on the federal government for their health care. If you want to help people afford health care, send them a check each year to help them purchase insurance. Monetary compensation for community service? Isn’t that called “a job”? Taxpayer funding for abortion? I thought the objective was to reduce abortions, not encourage them.
Then there’s the nonsense that every politician throws into their speeches that Obama couldn’t seem to avoid either. End dependence on mid-east oil in ten years? Lower everyone’s health insurance premiums? Stop jobs from going overseas? Raise teacher pay while increasing standards and accountability? Come on… There’s no way we can eliminate all mid-east oil, much less in ten years. Jobs will continue to be lost in an Obama administration and they’ll still be sent overseas. Economies change over time. This is a good thing. Implying that he can stop this is pure fantasy. Teacher pay isn’t set in Washington and it shouldn’t be.
But the biggest nonsense line of the night (outside of “McCain won’t even follow Osama to the cave he lives in”…What does that even mean?) is the one about Democrats and Republicans need to “cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past”. Puuulllease…The policies in this speech could have been, and have been, proposed by every Democrat nominee going back to…well, at least before I was born. Yes, they’re different than Bush’s policies, but Obama hasn’t cast off any worn-out ideas of the past. He’s advocating the Equal Right Amendment, a windfall profits tax, and cutting taxes while drastically increasing spending. These things have been failing for decades. Talk about worn-out ideas.
I get the feeling Obama’s entire shtick about working across party lines and being post-partisan is just a neat rhetorical ploy to him. I didn’t hear one instance in this speech where he hasn’t taken the doctrinaire liberal position. No mention of compromise at all. I don’t think he’s obligated to compromise, but if he wants to run as something different than other politicians he’s yet to show it. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Posted by: Eric | August 30, 2008 1:55 PM
I don't participate in any organized religious community. The American-superiority mantra does seem to have become essentially required content on all sides. Unfortunately, perhaps only when the rock hits those feet of iron and clay will this end.
I've heard some people say that things can't get worse in or for America (the American Promise, Constitution, Bill of Rights, poverty, endless war, religious war). I disagree. We in America have been spared the horrendous atrocities that have visited other lands, often because of our strategic interests.
We are full of ourselves and content. We are violent and dismissive of the desires and lives of others. How long will the universe allow this? At what point will the cup overflow, when the four winds will be let loose? God help us.
Do we have a lot of time? Obama we spot-on in the speech when he reminded that it isn't about him, it's about you and me. What kind of change are YOU?
Posted by: M | August 30, 2008 2:01 PM
Don,
No matter how you understand the word "altering," I am right that we have attempted to change plants for the better throughout history.
I have my facts strait. You are a Luddite.
Posted by: DITE | August 30, 2008 2:10 PM
"Plenty of Scriptures take opposition to the current regime in Washington and what they are doing to our nation and to the world "
This is quite the obsurd statement . Their are plenty of scriptues that could be used against the democratic party . Pharisees ? They are usually everywhere , but political partsians have a strange habit of picking them out of only the political party they support . As for one political party helping the poor , politically I am all ears , Bibically you are defintely out of line.
Posted by: Michael | August 30, 2008 2:21 PM
No matter how you understand the word "altering," I am right that we have attempted to change plants for the better throughout history. I have my facts strait. You are a Luddite.
DITE:
A "strait" is a narrow passageway. You neither have your facts nor your spelling straight.
The concern with crop modification that I expressed was strictly limited to the modern genetic engineering technique, not the older crop breeding methods, so the fact that we've been modifying crops for a long time is irrelevant to this discussion. Indeed, one of the threats that GM crops present to third-world farmers is the supplanting of their indigenous crops--which have been crossed and selected over many generations (in some cases, thousands of years) to be perfectly adapted to the local conditions (moisture levels, humidity, pests, and disease pressures)--conditions for which these newer, genetically modified organisms are not so well adapted.
And considering the last paragraph of my 1:45 PM comment above, your accusing me of being a Luddite is absolutely laughable. (Besides, real Luddites don't blog or use computers, either.)
To note your earlier analogy, you struck out a long time ago, but you are still at the plate trying to argue with the umpire. Sorry buddy, but you're out.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 30, 2008 2:40 PM
Posted by: big guy
The big four are ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN I also read from several news papers from Europe and FOX News. I use to listen to (sucking) Air America - that was on life support all the time. I have listened to NPR (National Political Radio) for thier take about liberals all over the world. So I believe that I do get a cross section for the most part of the news.
I have been listening to NPR more and more . Better world news , slanted yes at times . I noticed Oberman flipped on after the Ibama speech about a AP reporter who gave it a non rave but more of a report that the faithfull got a big kick out of the speech , Oberman thought it was showing the AP's bias not screaming how great the speech was , Chris Matthews almost cried I think , he got choked up . I ended switching to my slanted Fox , unfair and biased , so what .
"What about the failed Republican talking points that focus on personal attacks and fearmongering'
Wow do you listen to Air America ? Oberman ? The people here who speak to the character and integrity of the person ,when they do not support your supposedly republican views of less government they call them murders, liars, thieves , etc ?
Fear mongering Like taking away our social security ? Yikes , so nothing gets done no debate at all . Taking Medical care from women and leaving them bleeding in the alleys . Not helping the elderly , making sure minorities are trampled upon , actually showing a commercial of just that because of philospocial debates on Hate crime bills , which either side can say were used to pander to their side , because it has . How about using God as way to attract voters and invoke patriotism , whoops Wallis is doing that so its not as bad .
Please , the guy just gave a pretty good speech , came put attacking McCain pretty good , made a point of not attacking his character , spoke about all of us wanting the same things .
Don because the righties here came out is no surprise to me , but the difference between you and them is your political ideas help more people , and appear to be more forthright and closer to doing the right thing .
Welcome to conservatism and the people you trounc sticking up for your ideas and motives . You think conservatism is not a view held by many because it serves the greater good ? That is just wrong .
Unlike you I do not have a political party that I believe in , the GOP has been on many fronts ,spending and corruption , then hiding it . and I can actually bond a little with you over that. Your leaping to democrats for an answer is not something I could have done , thats me , my conscience ,spirtual , logical and ethic wise . Nothing in the fact that lowers your ethics or raises them . Its our perceptions . God judges the heart . Wallis and Falwell always forget that aspect of Faith in my opinion .
Posted by: Michael | August 30, 2008 2:46 PM
Which political party advocates turning spears into pruning hooks?
Which party advocates Jubilee, Leviticus 25, economics?
Which candidate is willing to lose his soul (and even the election) in order to gain life?
Who here is living in an Acts 2 community- sharing resources, living quarters, food, clothing, income, talents and vulnerabilities?
Who here responds to critics graciously, affirming them as beloved children of God?
Who here believes that God weeps as much for Iraqi victims of war as much as American victims of war?
Who here really prays for God's kingdom to come over against American Empire, regardless of Republican or Democratic flavoring?
Who here is following Jesus, selling possessions so that the poor might simply live?
Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner. Amen
Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | August 30, 2008 3:30 PM
"Which political party advocates turning spears into pruning hooks?"
Unfortunately, I've yet to meet a major American political party that advocated this. They all believe making war is one of many tools that can be used in conducting relations between countries.
Posted by: Eric | August 30, 2008 4:22 PM
How sad that a man named Wallis, needed to speak truth to power, is now a partisan flack. I mourn.
Posted by: Matt | August 30, 2008 5:16 PM
Matt wrote:
How sad that a man named Wallis, needed to speak truth to power, is now a partisan flack. I mourn.
I ask:
What in this article reveals Wallis as a "partisan flack"
I suggest:
We should not expect even Christian leaders to be Jesus and to possess all knowledge and insight.
I encourage:
If you have a disagreement, then "speak the truth in love"
Treasured people, treasure people,
Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | August 30, 2008 5:27 PM
Genetic engineering is not problematic in and of itself. To draw a distinction between (for example) hybridizing and engineering is technically accurate, but does not accrue any moral gravity to your point.
Moreso, government should stay out of the debate entirely until their is demonstrable evidence that any food produced is unfit for human consumption (which, at this point, is profoundly unlikely).
Do you think Barack Obama is going to be the one to end farm subsidies? He's counting on Iowa and Minnesota, and wants to make Indiana competitive. I haven't heard a peep from him about this.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 30, 2008 6:54 PM
Hey Bradley, you want to know what Obama's unifying theme was? It was actually one word, only stated once, but butressed by the narrative that followed:
ENOUGH.
Posted by: Sam Andress | August 30, 2008 6:56 PM
Duh-sciple,
Your list of questions posted on Posted by: Duh-sciple | August 30, 2008 3:30 PM are quite alarming! Why? I thought all you liberals decry conservatism's mixing of religion and politics? So, are we supposed to be living according to Acts 2 (which was a form of communism) or live according to a democracy?
Also, if you support a party that lives according to Leviticus 25, you best be prepared to live according to ALL of Leviticus, and if memory serves me correct, there are specific activities (and by activities, I refer to life-styles) that have Democratic support that would received deadly consequences.
You should be on guard a bit better - your double-standard roots are starting to show!
Cheers.
Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 30, 2008 7:33 PM
"How has this administration trampled on the poor."
Don,
Could you give us another example (since the GM crop thing seems to be going nowhere) of this administration trampling on the poor?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | August 30, 2008 8:29 PM
Carl said,
"Believe it or not, Big Guy/Moderatelad, many of us don't get our news from the "big four" or CNN."
Carl, hardly anyone gets their news from them. Have you seen their ratings? (And don't accuse me of being a FOX NEWS fan. I don't even have cable or satelite.)
Sam, "enough" is not a complete thought, nor is it a unifying theme. Enough what? It also implies too little of something else? Too little of what? If that was intended to be his unifying theme, he completely failed at developing it.
Posted by: Bradley | August 30, 2008 8:33 PM
"Carl, hardly anyone gets their news from them. Have you seen their ratings? (And don't accuse me of being a FOX NEWS fan. I don't even have cable or satelite.)"
I do have cable, and flipped over to Fox News after the Palin announcement. That really awkward anchor guy was doing a phone interview with Geraldine Ferraro.
She was telling an interesting, relevant story about her take on being a woman VP candidate when he stopped her and said:
"Sorry, the computer's telling me to cut you off."
And then proceeded to do so. Then, apparently realizing he had made a mistake, he said:
"Apparently, the computer wasn't telling me to do that. Sorry, I would never have cut off Geraldine Ferraro."
What? You have THE absolute most compelling source ON EARTH to discuss the nomination. Tell the computer to shove it.
Add that to MSNBC's bizarre meltdown, and I think it's time to trim the fat when it comes to cable news generally.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 30, 2008 11:22 PM
As long as the Democratic party continues to ignore sin, redemtion, salvation and personal responsibility I will never ever vote for a Democrat. Yes poverty,the enviorment are important but not at the cost of ignoring the killing of innocent babies. Besides liberal policies have been proven not to work.
Jesus never promised everything to everybody. It seems to me that Christians who are liberal are putting there hope and trust in the Govt. rather then in Jesus. Have a problem -don't put your trust in Jesus to provide because the Govt. is here to save the day. Govt. programs have not worked for over 100 years why would they start working now? The only thing libs don't trust the Govt. with is the military. That is the only thing that should be left to the Govt. Health care is not a right. To those that say it is why not just give a check to everybody without making them earn it? Oh yeah its already been done. What a surprise it made poverty worse not better. Why not have somebody else (the Govt)buy me a car, a house, pay for my next vaction, car insurance, The list could go on and on. Wake up for the time is short and the enemy is on the prowl seeking whom he can devour.
Posted by: Far right christian | August 31, 2008 12:11 AM
"How has this administration trampled on the poor?"-DITE
How about recruiting them with promises of good pay, education and careers to fight in an undeclared war and then awarding the "technical" work to free market capitalists Blackwater and Haliburton, extending their "tours" (aka "backdoor draft") and ignoring them should they become "collateral damage"? (Yes, Kevin, I thought of you each time I used those quotes.)
A2W: Good to read you again. Maybe I will have time tomorrow to engage you in more of my liberal double-speak. ;)
Don: If I can't get into Carl Corpas' heaven, can't I at least be on your team? Shalom
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 31, 2008 12:14 AM
"And considering the last paragraph of my 1:45 PM comment above, your accusing me of being a Luddite is absolutely laughable."
It's not laughable. You are against agricultural innovation that saves billions of lives. And more importantly, do you think Obama is going to end GM crops?
GM crops are not unique to this administration. So, do you have any examples of how this administration has trampled on the poor?
Posted by: DITE | August 31, 2008 12:14 AM
Bradley: Enough is enough.
Big Guy: There was only one candidate that emphasized the need for both personal and national humility at Saddleback. Guess who?
God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 31, 2008 12:21 AM
DITE: Isn't starvation one of the mechanisms of the free market to check the surplus population? Maybe you missed that in your macrocapital propaganda class.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 31, 2008 12:27 AM
Honestly, I was really tired, so I slept through most of the speech...
However, apparently McCain was impressed by the speech. There are many (esp in MN) who thought his running mate would be Tim Pawlenty, a very natural and even obvious choice. Suddenly, out of left field, is a woman from Alaska few have heard of with extremely sparse experience.
I think this choice came about for a number of reasons--1) McCain is hoping to steal the Hilary votes by adding a woman to his ticket, and 2) when he saw Obama's speech, he realized he needed to add someone who will give a sense of history to his campaign--first woman Republican vice president.
For McCain to choose her, after spending most of the summer questioning Obama's experience, strikes me as a move of desperation.
If he wanted to add the historical boost to his campaign and turn heads, he should have asked Maine's senator Susan Collins, who is largely regarded by both Republicans and Democrats as a respected senator with a reputation of reaching across party lines, just like McCain is known for.
I really don't understand why Republicans are excited about his choice. Maybe she will surprise me, but I am betting her lack of experience will become frighteningly obvious during the VP debates. I wonder if she really was his prefered choice, or if someone pressured him into it...
Posted by: squeaky | August 31, 2008 1:06 AM
"Isn't starvation one of the mechanisms of the free market to check the surplus population?"
Free markets don't have starvation.
Posted by: DITE | August 31, 2008 1:06 AM
One word, squeaky-abortion.
Thanks DITE. There are no losers in the free market because everyone gets what they've earned/deserve, right?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 31, 2008 1:32 AM
"Thanks DITE"
Glad to be of service.
"There are no losers in the free market because everyone gets what they've earned/deserve, right?"
There are losers in free markets. What's your point?
Posted by: DITE | August 31, 2008 1:49 AM
"How about recruiting them with promises of good pay, education and careers to fight in an undeclared war and then awarding the "technical" work to free market capitalists Blackwater and Haliburton, extending their "tours" (aka "backdoor draft") and ignoring them should they become "collateral damage"? (Yes, Kevin, I thought of you each time I used those quotes.)"
Did you think of me when you included your parentheses as well?
That said, I think your argument brings up a point. The matter of whether or not we are exploiting the poor boils down to what you believe about political issues.
If you believe it is appropriate to keep our troops in Iraq, then you do not think we are exploiting the poor. If you believe it is inappropriate to do so, then it you believe we are exploiting the poor.
Scripture, then, tends to justify the viewpoint to which you have already arrived. I have yet to hear any Christian suggest that they are fine with exploiting the troops. As such, citing the book of Amos is an insufficient counterargument to the notion that we should continue to keep troops in Iraq.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 31, 2008 1:51 AM
My last response to this got muddled, so I'll try again. This might just be a remix of an existing post, and I apologize if this is so...
"2) when he saw Obama's speech, he realized he needed to add someone who will give a sense of history to his campaign--first woman Republican vice president."
This is exceedingly unlikely. He would have had to fly in Palin overnight, arming her with a speech before an audience of millions on no sleep whatsoever. If McCain was somehow blindsided by this speech, then he has hired a campaign staff of folks who have never seen a convention.
"For McCain to choose her, after spending most of the summer questioning Obama's experience, strikes me as a move of desperation."
The desperation choice would have been Lieberman, to the degree that a candidate who is running virtually even in the polls can be desperate.
"If he wanted to add the historical boost to his campaign and turn heads, he should have asked Maine's senator Susan Collins, who is largely regarded by both Republicans and Democrats as a respected senator with a reputation of reaching across party lines, just like McCain is known for."
Collins wouldn't have made anyone happy. She is a moderate, yes, but not in the way that tends to inspire people. Most Republicans regard her as a compromise between the party's interests and the liberal that Maine would likely send to DC were she not around.
The pure splash pick here would have been Lieberman. But after the Saddleback interviews, McCain had to realize that evangelicals were moving in his direction. Palin foritifies this demographic while maintaining broader appeal.
If anything, the by-the-numbers Dem convention likely persuaded McCain that he could play the "maverick" role once again. This pick is in that mold. Plus it gets the abortion groups agitated, which augers well for him in Virginia.
"I really don't understand why Republicans are excited about his choice."
Conservatives like it because she is conservative. Moderate party activists like it because she is electable.
"Maybe she will surprise me, but I am betting her lack of experience will become frighteningly obvious during the VP debates."
Let's take it as a given that Biden knows more than Palin. How does he leverage his knowledge base? By going off script. Is the Obama campaign going to grant a long leash life long Democrat, who couldn't resist describing a black man as "articulate"? I doubt it.
Obama's campaign also made the brilliant decision to evoke Dan Quayle's name, which sets the bar pretty low. If the debate is a congenial exchange of talking points (and it will be) she will emerge the victor.
"I wonder if she really was his prefered choice, or if someone pressured him into it..."
Nah, you don't "wonder". You are convinced that it is so, and you are right, just as you would be about virtually every VP candidate in American history. So what?
Posted by: kevin s. | August 31, 2008 3:46 AM
Obama wants to kill babies,
His mentor Rev. Right is a sick man\
His 20 years with him mean alot
He has not disowned him, he says lies
Mathematical proof of the Divine origin of the Bible
isnt it amazing :
611=Secret of God secret of truth=Torah (Bible)=611
611=the Light =Torah=611
Add it up for your self !
And there is a lot more at
http://godssecret.wordpress.com/category/spiritual-proof/
Posted by: Jphn | August 31, 2008 4:09 AM
Mathematical proof of the Divine origin of the Bible
isnt it amazing :
In Hebrew original language of the Bible
611=Secret of God secret of truth=Torah (Bible)=611
611=the Light =Torah=611
Add it up for your self !
And there is a lot more at
http://godssecret.wordpress.com/category/spiritual-proof/
Posted by: John | August 31, 2008 4:12 AM
I don't know a lot about economics but at the least lets stop the games. Truly free markets (markets without regulations/rules) don't exist.
About that sin thing. When Obama talks about hiding taxable wealth off-shore, he's talking about greed. When McCain, in the face of homelessness has so many that he can't remember them all... who has enough money through his second wife's fortunes (the one he dumped his ill first wife for) yet votes against livable wages for those who need it most... Obama and the Democrats, Independents and many Republicans are talking about sin. When we Democrats, Independents and many Republicans talk about lowing the number of abortions by way of lowing the number of unwanted pregnancies AND funding after-birth life services while preserving the non-theocratic civil society right to choose, we are talking about SALVATION and REDEMPTION.
When we talk about recognizing consenting adult unions so that people aren't fired, kicked out of their homes, dropped from benefits, barred from visiting their ill loved one, lose custody of their children, have their living wills ignored by hostile "family" etc... We are talking about LOVE (which God is)
When we talk about real change, it's about confession, repentance... turning away from... the judgments that Jesus Christ has not called us to do and turning to letting the wheat and tares grow together for Love to do his loving judgment in his time.
Posted by: M | August 31, 2008 4:28 AM
Big Guy, Quote you: Obama trashed Rep. Challenger by getting his divorce unsealed, Nonsense! Divorce had nothing to do with Challenger removal. Take a look at McCain and his divorce Record, The Fact: he committed adultery with many women, married Cindy before he was divorced from Carol. If a divorce causes such problems, how is McCain able to run for President?
Posted by: Annette | August 31, 2008 8:41 AM
Kevin. you ask, why are the Republican's excited about McCain's choice? Didn't it work with Bush, who also used the Ace Card? Abortion! For 12 years with a Republican Congress, 6 years with George Bush, what did they do? NOTHING! All we have known in the past 8 years of Republicans is WAR! Double minded Republicans say they are for LIFE, if that's TRUE, how are they so Ready for WAR? Do they care about hundreds of thousands men, women and children killed in Iraq through the War created by their President? Does A unborn child mean more to Republicans, then hundreds of thousands men, women and children killed in Iraq? If people of America Want more of the Same, Vote for John McCain, he's the next Man of War!
Posted by: Annette | August 31, 2008 9:48 AM
DITE: Who loses in a free market?
Big Guy: Guess which candidate comfortably quoted Scripture at Saddleback?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 31, 2008 1:18 PM
DITE wrote:
It's not laughable. You are against agricultural innovation that saves billions of lives.
You misread me twice. I never said I was opposed to agricultural innovation. I am opposed to putting world food production in the hands of greedy corporations. Certainly, GM technology can be used for the world's benefit. But innovation doesn't have to come through for-profit entities.
Jeff wrote:
Don, Could you give us another example (since the GM crop thing seems to be going nowhere) of this administration trampling on the poor?
How about the Republicans' anti-regulatory mantra as a cause of their trampling on the poor? Do you think the mortgage crisis, which was partly caused by mortgage companies' preying on the poor, would have occurred had the Republicans not relaxed the regulatory standards?
Then when the lenders got themselves into trouble by lending money to people who shouldn't have qualified, they whine to Congress. So what does the Republican Congress do? Instead of tightening regulations to force the lenders to be more selective, they tighten the bankruptcy laws so it becomes much harder for families to qualify for debt relief.
I can't think of a better example of the Republicans' standing with their wealthy contributors by sticking it to the poor and working class.
Don: If I can't get into Carl Copas' heaven, can't I at least be on your team? Shalom; Pastor Jeff
Welcome aboard!
His mentor Rev. Right is a sick man
Freudian slip, eh? I actually think Rev Wright,/i> is right on at least a few things.
Peace,
Posted by: DOn | August 31, 2008 1:25 PM
One way the current administration specifically trampled on the poor only needs one word to identify: Katrina.
We all know the story. They sat on their hands while New Orleans drowned. (Gosh, I think Senator Obama used almost the same words Thursday night.) It was the poor who couldn't get out and it was the poor whose lives the storm took disproportionately. And they were the ones more permanently displaced.
I understand that the levees in New Orleans were rebuilt to withstand a Category 3 storm. Is that right? Well, right now a Category 4 storm is heading their way again. If Gustav doesn't spare New Orleans a direct hit this time, will the rebuilt levees hold? Or will the storm breach them as easily as Katrina did.
Whose idea was it to only rebuild them only to a Category 3 level?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 31, 2008 1:31 PM
kevin S--
"You are convinced that it is so, and you are right, just as you would be about virtually every VP candidate in American history. So what?"
What do you mean by the above comment?
Posted by: squeaky | August 31, 2008 1:41 PM
"About that sin thing. When Obama talks about hiding taxable wealth off-shore, he's talking about greed. "
When someone makes a quarter of a million dollars in a year and gives only a smidgen of it to charity, I am flatly uninterested in his lectures about greed.
"Do you think the mortgage crisis, which was partly caused by mortgage companies' preying on the poor, would have occurred had the Republicans not relaxed the regulatory standards?"
Neither would it have occurred without the relaxing of regulatory standards under Clinton. Either way, to the degree people were exploited, they were not exploited by the government, though Countrywide threw PLENTY of money and bribes at Democratic officials. Obama can't even raise the mortgage crisis issue because he has been compromised by his own shady dealings.
Your timeline is a bit confused on the bankruptcy standards thing. At any rate, how do you read a right to declare bankruptcy into the book of Amos? This is clearly not what he was talking about.
"We all know the story. "
Hurricane happened. Levees broke. Bush was blamed within seconds. The leadership of Louisiana and New Orleans, the most corrupt political machine outside of Chicago, and those responsible for building flimsy levees got a free pass. Yeah, I know that story.
Again, there is nothing in the book of Amos that suggests that God was upset about governmental mismanagement. This does not mean that we should actively seek governmental mismanagement, but it is insufficient to simply throw out passages from scripture and pretend you have made an argument about how God would conduct politics.
"Whose idea was it to only rebuild them only to a Category 3 level?"
The Army corps of engineers, which plans to be finished by 2011. Protecting a modern coast metropolis that is literally below sea level isn't quite so easy as you pretend. Two major hurricanes in 4 seasons is a profound coincidence, and a difficult eventuality to counteract.
To date, how much has been spent, per resident, protecting the city from another hurricane. $20,000? New Orleans is one of many, many cities in this country.
To compare a complicated logistical federal response with the intentional theft and oppression decribed by the OT prophets, while ignoring the literal theft and oppression that has taken place in Louisiana for decades, is ridiculous.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 31, 2008 2:05 PM
"What do you mean by the above comment?"
Two things. First, you couched an assertion as speculation (the "I wonder" dodge), which is a pet peeve of mine.
Second, it has happened very few times in American history that a president has had the most prominent voice in selecting his VP. Nearly each time, other forces have conspired to make the choice for him. You think Obama came out of the gate wanting Joe Biden on his team?
Posted by: kevin s. | August 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Ross Douthat had some thoughts similar to mine about the speech, and he says it much better than I did above:
He started this campaign with two promises: That he'd tell us what we needed to hear, rather than what we wanted to heart, and that he wouldn't be captive to the old left-right divide in American politics. But there were no tough choices presented in last night's speech, no hard truths told. There was just the promise that we can have it all: Energy independence (within ten years, no less!), universal health care, an army of new teachers, tax cuts for the middle class, the working class, and the upper-middle class, zero capital gains taxes on small business owners, a perpetually solvent safety net, plus a dose of protectionism - and all of it paid for by (unspecified) spending cuts, and tax hikes on just five percent of America. Meanwhile, the speech's concessions to conservatism were largely pro forma - an acknowledgment that fathers matter, that programs can't solve every problem, and that government "can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework" - and its proposals for common ground (reduce unwanted pregnancies, keep AK-47s out of the hands of gang members, etc.) were equally thin.
Again, if you're a liberal, none of this is going to sour you on Obama's speech, or on the candidate: Why should he concede anything to the Right, you might say, given the disasters of Bushism, and given that the political wind is finally blowing liberalism's way? Which is fair enough. But for those who aren't liberals, but who have been drawn, in varying ways, to Obama's transformational promise anyway, his claim to stand for "new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time" looks a lot more hollow today than it did a year ago.
Posted by: Eric | August 31, 2008 2:30 PM
David Broder says something similar in today’s Post:
People were talking about the 2004 speech -- with its powerful evocation of a national unity far beyond any partisan differences -- for weeks. I long ago lost count of the number of Obama volunteers who said they had signed up to support him after watching that address.
No one is likely to argue that the speech here "changed politics in America." His jibes at John McCain and George Bush were standard-issue Democratic fare, and his recital of a long list of domestic promises could have been delivered by any Democratic nominee from Walter Mondale to John Kerry.
Posted by: Eric | August 31, 2008 2:32 PM
Big Guy: Guess which candidate comfortably quoted Scripture at Saddleback?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples
Barak obvious has read the Bible quite often . I do also all the time. I believe most if us do .
One of the best sermons I hear given to the POW's was when John McCain was a POW . He said God was NOT going to not get them out of this mess, that it was Ceasars war , and Ceasar would have to free them . He then went on to speak to the importance of having a close Faith and Relationship with the Lord to help each of them to have the character to withstand what each was going through . I think regardless of denomination , if you know scripture backwards or forwards , you can respect that .
Posted by: Michael | August 31, 2008 3:18 PM
"For McCain to choose her, after spending most of the summer questioning Obama's experience, strikes me as a move of desperation."
I think McCain is hoping for that opinion . because the average voter is not saying that .
One thing as a past republican , unlike those past republicans here who appear to believe in the same views that liberal democrats embrace .
I was tired of the corruption , corporate control, not just influence . Using religious people as pawns to gain votes , as I see minorties are used on the other side at times .
Did not mean my views changed , just the political machine that supposedly use to embrace some of those views lost their way .
This VP choice took on the good old boys network and won in her own state , Took some her her own party corruption down. I admire that , I personally ignored it at times and eventually just put my tail between my legs and quit . She has a son going to Iraq , as my will in 7 weeks , She just had a baby she knew would have Downs syndrome , does not use it to gain pro life votes , but lives her faith , hopefully even those who are pro choice can respect that . Barak says he does .
Yep she gives us who actually do like the idea of integrity , honesty , and the belief that if you give everyone , especially the vast majority of Americans free everything and reduce their taxes , you will get something much more expensive in the long run and to the American spirit also . I like some of Barak's ideas , and taxing corporations who send jobs over seas .
But your not understanding having the VP as a candidate ? People have called her G Bush with breasts , just a women filling a quota , think about it , folks who support equal pay for the job saying she is just a women . Interesting how hypocracy is a political ailment that both parties embrace.
.
George Bush policies would always be thrown into the face of many people when that belief was given , rightfully so politically I guess, but from many of us going to the democrats , well with a conscience that would be hard for those of us with beliefs that are sincere.
People are different , this race just got tighter , looking forward to the debates , now even the VP debates .
Posted by: Michael | August 31, 2008 3:38 PM
I get sick and tired of all the "Christians" in name who make abortion their one issue in politics at the expense of everything else. Very few people, even those who do abortions like abortions. For all of you who want to make abortion illegal in the United States, please take some time to look at the epidemiological consequences of illegal abortions as occur in places like Africa, Latin America and when it was illegal in the United States. Despite many countries in Latin America being "Christian" countries with heavy Catholic church influence in their policies, the effect of making abortions illegal leads to huge other public health implications, including death, sepsis, disability, huge hospital costs, etc. Take some time to look at scientific journals on this issue, and you will find that making abortion illegal does nothing but create other public health and moral problems. We are also at a time in this world where people die everyday of starvation and lack of access to resources. What happens to our country if because of our ignorance and inability to take care of the earth, we create a situation where less people can live on this earth because we haven't been rightful stewards of the land and sea? Many scientists say we are using the resources of 2 earths currently and that our current situation is not sustainable in the long run. Global warming is not an illusion. The scientific consensus is pretty strong on this issue, and it will have huge implications for this world in this century, yet much of what I hear on the "Christian" sites is how someone can't vote for someone because they favor abortion. If we don't care for the Earth, in 50 years abortion is going to be the least of our concerns.
Posted by: Stephen | August 31, 2008 4:21 PM
Stephen said, "I get sick and tired of all the "Christians" in name who make abortion their one issue in politics at the expense of everything else."
That is an ignorant comment. Let me ask you this: If you found a candidate tomorrow, a third party candidate, who could end the war and have the troops home in a week, he could cut gas prices in half, guarantee 12% economic growth every year, eliminate the national debt, balance the budget, give huge budgets to education, and on and on and on.
But then you find out there is one little issue: He supports slavery. Would you vote for him? If not, I would ask, are you not making slavery your "one issue in politics at the expense of everything else?"
Some issues are big enough to be a deal-breaker, no matter what else the candidate brings to the table.
Posted by: Bradley | August 31, 2008 6:18 PM
"I get sick and tired of all the "Christians" in name who make abortion their one issue in politics at the expense of everything else."
Actually, I was once a pro-life Democrat. Public education was the issue that flipped me.
As for environmental policy, the science is settled on the question of whether the Earth is warming and whether man has is complicit to some degree. That is as far as science has gotten us.
The question that is relevant to policy is how or whether we can substantially reverse the damage. Obama did nothing to answer that question on Thursday night, and science has provided little guidance thus far.
That said, you could accuse Democrats of adhering to abortion orthodoxy at the expense of other issues as well. Obama would be much better positioned had he not taken the most extreme possible stance on the issue in an effort to cater to the abortion lobby.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 31, 2008 6:37 PM
The acceptance speech was the 1st time I had ever heard BO speak or any length of time. I was unimpressed. The Clintons, Kerry, Schweitzer, the Bidens- all did much better. I still think he's wayyyy overrated.
But John McCain helped out a little by picking Joanie form Happy Days as his running mate. That did make Obama look better. :)
Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 31, 2008 6:53 PM
If you're looking for a unifying theme to Obama's speech you could paraphrase JFK. "Ich bin ein Beginner."
Unfortunately, I believe that if Obama is elected foreign powers like North Korea, Russia, Iran and Chavez will test his resolve like the Russians did when they moved ballistic missiles into Cuba. Kennedy was able to confront the Russians in such a way that they backed down. Will Obama have that much resolve or will he hope to talk to them with no preconditions?
Posted by: Greenponder | August 31, 2008 7:00 PM
Unfortunately, I believe that if Obama is elected foreign powers like North Korea, Russia, Iran and Chavez will test his resolve like the Russians did ...
I think we can count on foreign leaders' testing the resolve of whichever candidate wins the election.
And I have no doubt that whichever it is will prove to be up to the challenge.
Posted by: Don | August 31, 2008 8:09 PM
Armed2Win wrote: So, are we supposed to be living according to Acts 2 (which was a form of communism) or live according to a democracy?
My answer: Acts 2, but NOT the idolatrous ideology known as communism.
Armed2Win characterized: You liberals (lumping me into the group)
My identity preference: Jesus follower
Armed2Win correctly notes: I, Duh-sciple, cherry pick from Leviticus. He accurately surmises that I advocate following some of the commands from the "third book of Moses" and not others.
What the Bible is for me: the scriptures point to the Living Word who is Jesus the Messiah. I interpret from Genesis to Revelation according to grace alone and Christ alone.
For example, in Deuteronomy 7, the Lord commands Israel to slaughter ALL the Canaanites (every man, woman, a child). Yet in Matthew 15, Jesus shows mercy to a Canaanite woman, healing her daughter. As I read the Bible, I give weight to the latter over against the former.
To summarize: the central question for me is, "What is the Crucified and Risen Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, calling me to do this situation?"
Treasured people, treasure other people,
Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | August 31, 2008 8:15 PM
Unfortunately, I believe that if Obama is elected foreign powers like North Korea, Russia, Iran and Chavez will test his resolve like the Russians did when they moved ballistic missiles into Cuba.
Like Bush/Cheney and McCain (90% supporter) possibly testing the Russian government right now?
CNN's English transcript of Putin interview
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/08/cnns-english-transcript-of-putin.html
Original CNN link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/29/putin.transcript/
Everyone always tries to see how much they can get out of a thing for themselves. That's why the respect of intense and good-faith diplomacy and cooperation first is so important.
Posted by: M | August 31, 2008 8:28 PM
Don,
"One way the current administration specifically trampled on the poor only needs one word to identify: Katrina."
So would you include Nagin and Blanco in this accusation?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | August 31, 2008 8:29 PM
Armed2Win and Duh-sciple - I think this disagreement stems from the fact that Duh-sciple didn't say whether or not he thinks an Acts 2 community would be organized by the central government or not, and A2W assumed he was.
There is nothing wrong with an Acts 2 community (as defined by Duh-sciple) if it's a voluntary association of individuals who choose to live this way. In fact, should it work, I think it would be an ideal way to live. You can call it communism all you want. If people were forced to live this way against their will by the government I think it would be one of the most awful places to live on earth.
Posted by: Eric | August 31, 2008 8:31 PM
Eric:There is nothing wrong with an Acts 2 community (as defined by Duh-sciple) if it's a voluntary association of individuals who choose to live this way. In fact, should it work, I think it would be an ideal way to live. You can call it communism all you want. If people were forced to live this way against their will by the government I think it would be one of the most awful places to live on earth.
Eric great point. Really highlights the BIG question. If it is the ideal why would a follower of Christ need to be forced to live that way by the government?
Posted by: M | August 31, 2008 8:39 PM
So would you include Nagin and Blanco in this accusation?
There's a big difference between simple incompetence and negligence.
Posted by: Don | August 31, 2008 9:12 PM
Big Guy: Guess which candidate referred unashamedly to the cross and blood of Christ at Saddleback? I thought you were itching to show the group here how McCain overwhelmed Obama at that debate. Your reach into the land of McCain anecdotes betrays your granting of my point.
Thank you, M, for bringing clarification to my disputes with A2W("If it is the ideal why would a follower of Christ need to be forced to live that way by the government?")
What kind of Supreme Court justice would Gov. (Ms.?) Palin appoint being a pro-life feminist when she becomes president? For that matter, what kind of Supreme Court appointment would we expect from a former "Gang of 14" member that filibustered a conservative Bush appointment? What will become of free speech restrictions can we expect from a supporter of the the Patriot Act and a co-sponsor of the "McCain-Feingold" bill? Why are evangelical christians, some of whom restrict women in their pulpits, so ready to hand the bully pulpit to a woman? Just some random thoughts.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 31, 2008 9:25 PM
Posted by: Bradley | August 31, 2008 6:18 PM
"But then you find out there is one little issue: He supports slavery. Would you vote for him?"
Yes. Absolutely. Our political system is set up so that even a president who supports slavery has no chance of turning that support into policy. The president is not a dictator, and if he really could accomplish all the other things you list - which would only be possible in any case with the support of Congress and the public - I would vote for him in a heartbeat. (Well, I'm actually not sure that cutting gas prices in half would be a good thing right now, but that's another discussion for another day...)
Posted by: Another nonymous | August 31, 2008 10:03 PM
"But then you find out there is one little issue: He supports slavery. Would you vote for him?"
We already voted for that guy. His name was A. Lincoln. "The heart of the king is in the hands of the Lord, as the rivers of water He turneth it wherever He wills." The question Christians might ask is who is more apt to resist that "turning"? One who speaks of humility or one who emanates having all the answers, sometimes even before the question is asked? (see Saddleback tapes)
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 31, 2008 10:59 PM
M,
Christians don't need to be forced to live this way, or any other way, by the government. I thought I was pretty clear. This ideal way of living that Dus-sciple brought up and that I was talking about doesn't involve the government. Once the government gets involved in forcing people to live this way it becomes something completely different than the "ideal".
Posted by: Eric | August 31, 2008 11:29 PM
Eric, you missed the point. Pastor Jeff, I'm glad you saw it. I hope others do as well.
Posted by: M | August 31, 2008 11:40 PM
M,
Then why don't you tell me what the point was?
Posted by: Eric | September 1, 2008 12:07 AM
Kevin S.
"First, you couched an assertion as speculation (the "I wonder" dodge), which is a pet peeve of mine. "
No, I did not. I really did wonder.
I try my best to say what I mean and mean what I say, and I see no reason for you to make unfounded assumptions about me.
Posted by: squeaky | September 1, 2008 12:10 AM
"I try my best to say what I mean and mean what I say, and I see no reason for you to make unfounded assumptions about me. "
Either way, prefacing an assertion by saying "I wonder", is a way of voicing it without defending it. I am not assuming anything.
Posted by: kevin s. | September 1, 2008 1:15 AM
Eric, you wrote:
Armed2Win and Duh-sciple - I think this disagreement stems from the fact that Duh-sciple didn't say whether or not he thinks an Acts 2 community would be organized by the central government or not, and A2W assumed he was.
There is nothing wrong with an Acts 2 community (as defined by Duh-sciple) if it's a voluntary association of individuals who choose to live this way. In fact, should it work, I think it would be an ideal way to live. You can call it communism all you want. If people were forced to live this way against their will by the government I think it would be one of the most awful places to live on earth.
I wrote: Eric great point. Really highlights the BIG question. If it is the ideal why would a follower of Christ need to be forced to live that way by the government?
Now I write: The point is that a follower of Christ already is trying to live like Acts 2 without government involvement. They are already living by example, teaching and encouragement the way of life that Christ already said is the way that will work (John 17). They are doing it voluntarily, enthusiastically, joyfully, gratefully. They are in unity. They are excited to share their love and passion for the way.
Posted by: M | September 1, 2008 4:54 AM
"I get sick and tired of all the "Christians" in name who make abortion their one issue in politics at the expense of everything else."
Thank you for that, Stephen. The Right has manipulated trusting souls with wrong teaching and outright lies, and have padded their own pockets and used tax exempt status for political organizing for the Republican party, giving themselves a safe platform to operate from, a safe platform for their sons to continue the very lucrative family business. They bilk faithfuls and have done nothing to reduce the number of unborn deaths. They do not represent me with their hateful attitudes toward homosexuals. The public face of Christianity has been disgraced by the ridiculous ramblings about their angry imaginary God who sends terrorists and storms. The Right conveniently ignores scripture for its heart for sinners, for the needy and for the suffering among us.
Kevin, I am excited about a more compassionate White House, a national healthcare plan, an end to this war and the pain, suffering and loss it has caused. I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life this year. I am sick of the hateful Right and I want nothing to do with their party.
Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | September 1, 2008 8:16 AM
Going back to the original topic, Barack Obama's acceptance speech, I think most of the comments that I have read have missed one of the most important features of this speech: Obama's speech was a declaration that this Democrat will not play defense.
Past Democratic candidates have acted almost apologetic and seemingly willing to let the opposition set the tone for the election debate. Not Barack Obama. He's taking the fight to the Republicans, and he will be forcing them to defend their policies and actions. Obama will make sure that John McCain has to explain why we shouldn't consider him to be a political clone of GW Bush. He will make sure McCain has to explain how refusing to talk to would-be enemies will make our nation more secure. He'll make sure McCain has to explain how non-military methods for solving the terrorism threat aren't viable. He will make sure McCain explains how we can continue to live with escalating health care costs and decreasing health care coverage. He will make sure McCain explains how drilling, drilling, and more drilling will be a viable, forward-looking option for achieving energy independence and addressing the climate change challenge at the same time. He'll make sure that the Republicans won't be able to rely on attack-dog, fearmongering, personal smear campaigns to win this election.
In short, Barack Obama is acting like a real opposition candidate. That's not a reason to vote for him, of course, but it's certainly a relief and something we've needed for a very long time, if for no other reason than to keep both sides tal