UPDATE: Obama calls McCain campaign cynical, not racist. This seems to sum up rather accurately the amateurism McCain exhibits on a national campaigning scale. In times when half your base is in a panic and you don’t really know what you stand for, having to read prepared speeches every campaign stop and giving answers tomorrow to the media’s questions today, cynicism is just a later chapter in the book of desperation politics. It’s third party for me this time.
Seen the new McCain ad that’s been circulated among his supporters?
I think only a campaign that does not care much for the importance and value of religious symbolism could craft such a thing. When you have the party of the so-called “Religious Right” willingly conflating sacred messianic truth with the staggering phenomenon of a politician’s hyper-popularity, you know that religion itself has become a thing of little importance, employed in a campaign only to attack and satirize a political opponent. Just when I was beginning to view McCain a bit more positively, he resorts to this low. “Country first”–even if it means exploiting religious imagery for gain. Sad thing is, I do not doubt that McCain would relish in the excitement and media indulgence engendered by the Obama campaign if it were his own:
But apparently falsely accusing your opponent of being a racist is perfectly acceptable.
It is a good ad and a fun ad. I suspect it will mainly be a net thing. It has humor plus tweaks a little of Obama Messiah like statements and some of his more Religious like devotees (see the lightworker article from the San Fran Chronicle) and is not really mean at all.
It works I think and I suspect the Obama (and more importantly its supporters) camp knows it better not overreact on this one like it did yesterday
Freddie,
THe Obama folks should thank the McCain people for putting this out and moving away or perhap giving people something more light to talk about thas yesterday disaster where even the New York Times joined in.
But apparently falsely accusing your opponent of being a racist is perfectly acceptable.
How you got from premise to conclusion there escapes me. Putatively, can’t one condemn both?
You McCain supporters show your true colors when you actually defend this sort of behavior.
You McCain haters show your true colors when you pretend there’s nothing worth joking about in a politician’s claim that the mere fact of his candidacy marks the moment that the “earth began to heal.”
MZ-
One could. But once again, the focus here at Vox Nova is on how “pathetic” the McCain campaign is. Any mention of Obama playing the race card? Not that I’ve seen. Indeed, MM went so far (in the comments to another post) as to parrot the talking points from various and sundry left-wing blogs about McCain’s “racist” ad (featuring Brtiney Spears and Paris Hilton).
This ad is, obviously, poking fun at the silly hype surrounding Obama. Heck, even David Letterman (hardly a conservative) is taking shots at Obama for buying into his own hype. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to the “Obama is arrogant” meme.
One other point: Even the MSM talking heads agree that Obama is playing the race card in response to McCain’s ads. So, where’s the condemnation here at Vox Nova? Is it o.k. to falsely accuse someone of being a racist? Is that acceptable? In my view, Obama’s reaction to these ads is far worse than their taunting/mocking nature.
Michael ,
This behavior?
Psst don’t tell anyone but we McCain supporters really know that Saint Heston was not Moses
Funny thing is — Michael I recently posted a critical piece on Obama, and Policraticus has also had several critical posts on Obama (as have others of us here).
By what conceivable standard is it the case that Politician B isn’t allowed to point out that Politician A is using religious symbolism to describe himself, because that would be an improper use of religious symbolism on the part of . . . Politician B?? You guys are awfully selective in your outrage
Any mention of Obama playing the race card?
You referring to the dollar bill comment? I quite liked it. I’m in favor of “playing the race card.” Obama is not “injecting race” into the campaign. Race is already part of the campaign.
Right on Freddie,
THe fact that so many people think and in fact parroted that insanity (AND WE KNOW WHO THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT) that millions of americans would think “Good Gracious Obama is going ot be President and our White Women willno tbe safe” is outrageous and truly shows they do not exactly have the pulse of the nation
I suspect the Obama campaign is figuring that out today that some of their supporters hurt them with that
Henry-
Fair enough. But there is a perception (fair or not), that the vast majority of Vox Nova’s contributors either support or are laregly sympathetic to Obama’s candidacy.
And here, Poli’s outrage over McCain’s ad strikes me as playing into that perception, especially in light of Obama’s decision to play the race card in response to a similar McCain ad. Which is worse? McCain’s mocking ads or Obama’s race baiting? For me, it’s clearly the latter.
Michael I recently posted a critical piece on Obama…
I sure did. And none of the usual suspects said a damn word about it.
“You referring to the dollar bill comment? I quite liked it. I’m in favor of “playing the race card.” Obama is not “injecting race” into the campaign. Race is already part of the campaign.”
The Obama folks said that was not about race but referencing Washington Insiders. WHich is strange since only one person (Jefferson) is the only one that could be a Washington Insider
This ad is, obviously, poking fun at the silly hype surrounding Obama.
It is a good ad and a fun ad.
The fact that you guys are not insulted by how low the bar has been set for politics in the past month concerns me. Unemployment rose to 5.7% this past month, homeowners who are losing their homes are committing suicide, we are hitting record deficit numbers and somehow we have to laugh about how one of the campaigns spends money on (crap) ads like this? Amazing. I am insulted as a voter and concerned citizen by these kind of ads and I will not excuse politicians for underestimating us and thinking that we would fall for this. Don’t pass the buck. Don’t say “but Obama did this!” That’s childish. Let’s take things for what they are and recognize crap when we see it.
By what conceivable standard is it the case that Politician B isn’t allowed to point out that Politician A is using religious symbolism to describe himself…
Obama does NOT use religious language to describe himself.
But there is a perception (fair or not), that the vast majority of Vox Nova’s contributors either support or are laregly sympathetic to Obama’s candidacy.
SO WHAT? The majority of Americans are in favor of Obama.
And here, Poli’s outrage over McCain’s ad strikes me as playing into that perception,
I don’t get this talk of “perceptions.” Has any Vox Nova contributor not been up front about his or her feelings about the election? No one is being secretive, Fedderie. If there is any confusion in reference to me, of course I am more in favor of an Obama presidency.
MI-
You need to watch the ad again.
MI-
You also might want to check out the latest polls. Obama may be ahead, but it ain’t by much.
Feddie
Obviously the perception only comes by people with blinders, who ignore everything which is said. And yes, I think mocking Moses (is that anti-semitic?), mocking the messiah (anti-Christian and anti-semitic in one?), and all for a political ploy by people who pretend to care for religion and often criticize such mockery in all other instances (Catholic League) is far worse — since it includes racism with its bigotry.
I don’t need to point to what Obama does wrong in order to show what McCain does wrong. That’s a rather silly suggestion.
McCain supporters who are not very religious can embrace this stuff. But those McCain supporters who claim to be religious have dashingly exhibited to all of us the art of compartmentalizing and quarantining one’s life–faith over there, political allegiance over here.
And yes, I think mocking Moses (is that anti-semitic?), mocking the messiah (anti-Christian and anti-semitic in one?),
That’s silly. Mocking Obama for thinking he’s Moses (or akin to Moses) isn’t even remotely the same thing as “mocking Moses.” It just isn’t.
I think the word to describe some of the responses here is humorless.
What SB said.
And do note that there is still no condemnation of Obama’s race baiting. Instead, MI has joined MM in endorsing it. No surprise there. Henry also appears to be heading down that road.
MI-
You need to watch the ad again.
So we should watch McCain’s, which pokes fun with his perception of messianism in the Obama campaign, in order to see that Obama portrays himself as messianic? Anyone with half a brain knows that the interspersed words of Obama were stripped on context in order to play into the model McCain builds. In fact, the bit about the light descending was actually a joke Obama was telling at a rally about how conservative dogmatists paint him.
Seriously, I have seen plenty of religious fundamentalism outside the Catholic Church, but I have rarely seen such political fundamentalism inside it.
You guys do occasionally criticize Obama, but the reason you’re McCain-haters is that you seize on the silliest little excuse to criticize McCain, and even play stupid in the process. Like when Obama says that a “light will shine down from someone [!], and it will light upon you, and you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack.” How uneducated does someone have to be to miss that this is an allusion to what happened to Saul in the book of Acts? And yet it’s McCain who is misusing religion merely by pointing out that Obama made that allusion? Unbelievable.
Katerina
“The fact that you guys are not insulted by how low the bar has been set for politics in the past month concerns me.”
As to the Litany of woe you have prescibed I have not seen a election cycle yet where one could not put up “Woe The End is near List”
Humor and especially light humor like this is part of politcs. As I started out this thread saying Obama should be thanking his stars because this focused some very real anger away on what people might think many of fellow countrymen are like. Most of that was not Obama fault but he is getting associated with it.
This will not be a major ad buy and its viral. Stuff the Obama people have been doing since the beginning.
It is a cheap interent thing that gets a litte free media. That is all plus it does sort of hit a point that bothers people
FedWetter – I watched the ad again. Nowhere does Obama use religious language to describe himself. You are like a child with absolutely no ability to interpret what you see on the television.
And do note that there is still no condemnation of Obama’s race baiting. Instead, MI has joined MM in endorsing it.
Obama is right to shine a light on the problem of racism in America. Period.
And do note that there is still no condemnation of Obama’s race baiting. Instead, MI has joined MM in endorsing it. No surprise there. Henry also appears to be heading down that road.
Obfuscation from the real issue seems to be the fad this Friday afternoon. Like I said, if the best you can do to defend McCain is criticize Obama, then you have conceded your case for McCain and court is adjourned.
From a purely philosophical (and logical) standpoint, the two matters (i.e. race baiting and using religion to attack) are hardly commensurate issues. Why is it that our two lawyer commentators are showing no ability to logically argue in this post? Perhaps it’s the triumph of dogmatism over reason once more.
MI-
I see that you’re incapable of engaging in a debate without engaging in name calling.
Unfortunately, as SB has already pointed out, you’re elevating form over substance (as usual).
You really ought to read the comments Poli in this thread and your ESCR post, Poli. Unprovked name calling. That’s classy stuff, I tell ya.
What a stupid response. I’m not defending McCain by criticizing Obama for some unrelated issue. I’m saying that Obama’s statements definitely do have a messianic or religious tone to them, and it’s silly beyond belief to pretend that McCain is the one misusing religion by merely quoting Obama.
Please, SB, you very well could be the most dogmatic commentator we have here at Vox Nova. You are ignoring the several posts I and Michael I. have done on Obama’s major policy positions in order to bolster your castle in the air. Ignoring the negative evidence may win cases in your line of work, but it won’t get you anywhere in logic and real thought.
The moment you start using your real name on the internet, Steve, is the moment I will take your accusation of “name calling” seriously.
“McCain supporters who are not very religious can embrace this stuff. But those McCain supporters who claim to be religious have dashingly exhibited to all of us the art of compartmentalizing and quarantining one’s life–faith over there, political allegiance over here.”
”
So we should watch McCain’s, which pokes fun with his perception of messianism in the Obama campaign, in order to see that Obama portrays himself as messianic? Anyone with half a brain knows that the interspersed words of Obama were stripped on context in order to play into the model McCain builds. In fact, the bit about the light descending was actually a joke Obama was telling at a rally about how conservative dogmatists paint him.
Seriously, I have seen plenty of religious fundamentalism outside the Catholic Church, but I have rarely seen such political fundamentalism inside it.”
So right Policraticus , I need to be reminded that I should stay away from that and watch more posts and comments galore tearing down Catholics and their alligance to Christ that belong to the Action Inst, THe Catholic League, or have a “R” by their name.
You are right people with half a brain know that a lot of what Obama says is rethoric. We know he does not really see himself as the Messiah.
It is humor and quite frankly his words at time open himself up for this.
THere is a tad too much by of all of questioning each others Catholic Faith around here. I am not sure if one finds this humorous or not should be yet another dividing line if we get the Secret Vatican Decoder ring
Poli-
I’ve addressed both the substance of your post, and pointed out that your outrage here strikes me as being selective. Perhaps you should reread my comments.
Parenthetically, I think the vigor displayed by SB, JH, Feddie validate most of our points here.
MI-
Whatever gets you through the night, MI.
My identity is hardly a secret.
The only Obama quote that could be construed as “religious” language about himself is the “light coming from somewhere” quote which Poli already debunked:
In fact, the bit about the light descending was actually a joke Obama was telling at a rally about how conservative dogmatists paint him.
The ad is a lie. The more you defend it, the more you are complicit in that lie.
I believe if it was the Obama campaign that created the faux presidential seal saying “Vero Possumus” (Truly, we are possums)
Making fun of the hype is great. This ad gets watched by millions, no one cares about a serious ad. Obama is just another celebrity. That’s how they built him up, so that’s how gets ridiculed. Other than being half-black and sucking up to Chicago’s lunatics, he’s never done a thing. If he weren’t half-black, no one would give a damn about him. And, you know that’s the truth.
In fact, the bit about the light descending was actually a joke Obama was telling at a rally about how conservative dogmatists paint him.
Evidence please? That’s not how anyone has ever portrayed that comment. See, e.g., http://clintondems.com/2008/07/flip-flopping-obama-and-the-epiphany-speech-108/
Granted, it did seem to be a joke. But it was clearly a religious allusion.
Poli.-
And I think your unwillingness to publicly rebuke MI’s name calling lessens your ability to take the “high road” in this post.
My identity is hardly a secret.
Right. But only after we figured out you used several different aliases which had conversations with each other. More lies. A common theme in this thread, and in your chosen political party.
<iPlease, SB, you very well could be the most dogmatic commentator we have here at Vox Nova. You are ignoring the several posts I and Michael I. have done on Obama’s major policy positions in order to bolster your castle in the air.
So what? As I’ve said, you guys do criticize Obama occasionally for major faults. The problem is when you criticize McCain for imaginary faults, or for minor faults that are never mentioned w/r/t Obama.
But only after we figured out you used several different aliases which had conversations with each other. More lies.
Unless you prove otherwise, I think that’s a lie. I’ve only seen him use one alias at a time.
The ad is satirical, it’s Colbert-style, and it works – because obviously people are talking about it. Elections are a popularity contest, when it comes down to it. It was the Obama campaign that drilled their campaign workers to not talk about issues but rather to, and I quote, “tell how they came to Obama”. He established a cult, and it’s mocked as such. It’s the perfect way to fight him.
SB – Why should any of us feel that we have to balance out our criticisms of the two candidates??
Jh,
That’s fine if you think this kind of “humor” is OK. But I don’t like to be disrespected as a voter and as a citizen. Sorry.
Watching this ad again, I think it is going to help Obama, ha.
Playing the race card? For those of you who haven’t gotten the memo yet: Obama is an AFRICAN AMERICAN. I don’t feel disrespected as a citizen if he wants to emphasize he’s black. In the same way I am not insulted if McCain wants to play the “vet” and POW card. They can both play whatever cards they want, actually, just not this crap. I’m sorry, I just recognize BS when I see it.
MI-
Sigh. We’re going down that road again I see. Whatever.
You’re not interested in honestly debating anyone who doesn’t share your world view. You condemn yourself with your own words.
I’ve tried to reach out to you, MI. To find common ground where possible. I’ve even defended you on SA when I thought you were being unfairly attacked. And this is how you respond. If you think that you’re being a good witness of Christ, then you are sadly mistaken.
Haha! Now THERE’s a great defense of a lie-filled political campaign ad! “It’s Colbert-style!” Hahaha!!!!
Katerina,
Playing the race card? For those of you who haven’t gotten the memo yet: Obama is an AFRICAN AMERICAN.
Obama can proclaim he is black all he wants. However it gets tiresome of being accused of the sin of racism where it does not exist and I suspect McCain feels the same way.
Obama’s continued reference of how mainstream Republicans and McCain will make people afraid of him because he is black should be called out.
You’re not interested in honestly debating anyone who doesn’t share your world view.
Sure I am. Omit whatever “name calling” you want and look at what I wrote. I’m debating you, along with Poli and the rest. And you’re losing. So you “play the ‘witness of Christ’” card. So many cards being played, I can’t keep ‘em straight, Fed!
SB – Why should any of us feel that we have to balance out our criticisms of the two candidates??
Depends on your goal. If your goal is to have a Catholic blog that engages in fair-minded criticism based on Catholic teaching, great. If your goal is to have a partisan blog that engages in frantic criticisms about one side for every conceivable fault (including imaginary faults based on false charges), while only occasionally mentioning that the other side isn’t perfect either, then that’s fine as well. Not nearly as interesting, however. And I say this across the board — I’m not interested by Republican blogs that put Obama under a microscope and are full of breathless criticisms about every misstatement, every minor switch in position, etc.
It’s not ‘lie-filled’, it’s satirical. It features “Moses”, for crying out loud. Well, you guys being dead-serious isn’t exactly news. And, admittedly, of course I don’t care by what means that bastard is kept out of the White House. And, Colbert is great. It’s esp. funny when conservative Catholics think he’s one of them.
“It was the Obama campaign that drilled their campaign workers to not talk about issues but rather to, and I quote, “tell how they came to Obama”. He established a cult, and it’s mocked as such. It’s the perfect way to fight him.”
Gerald you are right on that. Obama benefits greatly by that in some ways. Now he gets a little blowback that is playful and one would think that McCain tore up the Declarationof Independce and melted down the liberty bell
THe Ad also must working because it generates 57 comments in a hour.
Over or under this hits 150 tonight :)
Evidence please? That’s not how anyone has ever portrayed that comment
Once more, you say, let’s look at “portrayals” of Obama’s words by his past and present opponents rather than the actual context and intent. You continue to wow me, SB, with your ability to penetrate reality. I think debating you in person would be a riot.
And I think your unwillingness to publicly rebuke MI’s name calling lessens your ability to take the “high road” in this post.
Let’s not deflect from your unsubstantiated claims in this post. Instead of pointing to what Obama said or what MI said or to my alleged desire to take the “high road,” let’s think about the subject of the post.
As I’ve said, you guys do criticize Obama occasionally for major faults.
And I’ve criticized and praised McCain for his major faults (ESCR, abortion) and his good work (positive statements about Obama, immigration), respectively. Can you find anywhere where I have praised Obama? Once more, SB, you fail to present anything resembling a cogent argument or reliable recollection.
The ad is satirical, it’s Colbert-style, and it works – because obviously people are talking about it.
Which is why it belongs among comedians, pundits, and playwrights, and not politicians.
I think at this point, where we have yet to see anything logical or responsible from our McCain dogmatists, I am going to do more constructive things than contribute their reveling in their own political indignation. I’m off to enjoy life a bit more with Katerina and some friends for the evening. I suggest my fellow Vox Nova contributors do likewise.
I am a Hillary-turned-Obama supporter, and want nothing more than to see John McCain lose – bigtime – come November. But still, I have a sense of humor, and this ad is kind of funny. It’s no secret that Obama seems to say things that are a bit over the top, and this ad is poking some fun. Loosen up people!
Poli.-
I spoken to the subject of this post. The ad is satire. Plain and simple. Humor can be used, and often is, in a political campaign.
Evidence please? That’s not how anyone has ever portrayed that comment.
Once more, you say, let’s look at “portrayals” of Obama’s words by his past and present opponents rather than the actual context and intent. You continue to wow me, SB, with your ability to penetrate reality. I think debating you in person would be a riot.
Let’s try again: Poli said that when Obama alluded to people having a religious epiphany to vote for him, he was just talking about “how conservative dogmatists paint him.” I asked for evidence of Poli’s startling claim. Thus, an appropriate response would have been for Poli to supply the context of that speech, for example, or point me to anyone else who had that interpretation of what Obama said. He can’t do so. All he can do is engage in personal insults instead. What a hack.
It’s a YouTube ad, given to journalists. It’s pure genius to get this kind of free airtime. And for the sticklers – one quote is taken out of context, the other stuff is pure Obama madness. “We are the ones we have been waiting for”, the oceans slowing to rise, the earth healing, that’s all him. Why anyone would vote for a lunatic like that beats me.
I think the next ad should feature the journalist (!) who yelled ecstatically, “HE TOUCHED ME !” at an Obama event.
Since I don’t have tv I miss a lot (thank God) of the political ads. My first reaction after seeing this ad is not laughter but rather I conclude that McCain is pretty desperate. I will be shocked if he wins this election.
RCM-
Prepare to be shocked. :)
Prepare to be shocked. :)
Yes, RCM, let’s not forget Fedster was in on a top-secret McCain supporter conference call this week. He must know something we don’t about election rigging, assassination, something like that. I wonder what name he used for the phone call?
MI-
If you want me to stop commenting at Vox Nova, MI, just say the word.
If this is how you’re going to behave every time I comment here, then I have better things to do.
Although I strongly suspect an echo chamber is more to your liking.
Radical Catholic Mom
Like I said this “ad” will not be really on tv. Its to get a little buzz take up a news cycle and jazz his supporters a tad.
ALso lees face it. THere is a big chance both Obama and McCain will be off the news for a day or two when the MSM finally talks about the story that can’t be talked about except on the net.
THe McCain folks know this
I hear McCain’s handlers are placing free samples of ‘Maximum Strength NoDoz’ at the complimentary espresso bar for those attending his speeches. Nice gesture of hospitality.
Obamamessiah?
Let me know when someone is refused communion for voting AGAINST Obama, and I’ll worry.
I hope archbishop Burke can still deny communion from his new post in Rome. I would love it if Obama picks Biden for VP so we can try to get him excommunicated. I love stuff like that.
I don’t know what you’re complaining about. The ad made me want to vote for Obama.
Again, Poli said that when Obama alluded to people having a religious epiphany to vote for him, he was just talking about “how conservative dogmatists paint him.”
Poli is clearly incapable of backing up his assertion with any reason or evidence or context. Michael Iafrate — since you agreed with Poli, do you have any reason or evidence or context to supply? I’ve googled the phrase that Obama used, and everything I find (including many websites from Clinton supporters) has the “epiphany” quote by itself, with no hint of any context in which Obama was just speaking with the words of “conservative dogmatists.” I think you guys are just making it up as you go along.
And Michael? I still think you’re lying about Feddie with this: “But only after we figured out you used several different aliases which had conversations with each other.”
SB-
Thanks for the support, but don’t sweat it. It’s not worth rehashing. MI would love nothing more than to rehash past foolishness. When you can’t debate on the merits, you have nothing left but to take cheap shots.
MI and others here want an echo chamber, and quite frankly I am fully prepared to let them have it. Life is too short to deal with MI’s childish behavior.
If you provide links that prove me wrong, however, I’ll gladly admit it; I won’t dig in and dissemble and continue to hurl insults (as did many of you when you didn’t want to admit that Gerald Campbell had said, in plain English, that the pro-choice view was justified by Catholic doctrine).
SB – A quick Google search revealed a wider quote, the gist of which was that Obama was describing “what his job is” during a campaign speech. When giving a speech, he said his task is to appeal to undecided voters, making them feel as though a light were coming down from somewhere telling them to vote for Obama. It was obviously a joke. This does not say much about the even wider context, which I would like to see, but even this little bit of widening shows that the quote we get in the ad is not reality. But dopes who are already convinced that Obama speaks of himself in messianic terms (like people in this thread) will fall for mash-ups like this because 1) their loyalties are firm and 2) they have no sense of media awareness.
As for the Feddie alias thing, I was not the one to make the discovery so I cannot point to evidence. If the VN contributor who found it wants to come forward, by all means, but I don’t expect he or she will in this case. I think it was argued over both in public and in private a while back.
If you want me to stop commenting at Vox Nova, MI, just say the word.
What I’d like is for you to stop with the arrogance and admit that a vote for McCain is a compromise when it comes to fidelity to the tradition of Catholic social thought.
You’ve answered my question. Thanks.
It was obviously a joke. This does not say much about the even wider context, which I would like to see, but even this little bit of widening shows that the quote we get in the ad is not reality.
It was also obviously a joke with heavy religious overtones. Guess what: politics ain’t beanbag. If you want to joke about religious epiphanies, someone might quote your own words. And then it’s your fault, not the other guy’s fault, for having referred to yourself as a religious experience. I continue to be surprised that people are too dense to grasp that point.
Also, you don’t have any evidence whatsoever to support Poli’s suggestion that Obama was just referring to how conservatives view him. So I was right . . . you guyswere just making that up.
Moreover, it was a joke in the same sense that Rush Limbaugh used to joke that he could outargue liberals with half his brain tied behind his back. Yeah, it’s a laugh line, but it clearly has an undercurrent of egotism to it.
That was a dumb commercial.
SB – We made nothing up but refer to the obvious. You admit that it was a joke. If so, what the hell makes it funny? Obviously, because it refers to the “Obamessiah” BS that the McCain camp dreamed up. “I continue to be surprised that people (YOU) are too dense to grasp that point.”
Wow Michael J. You have to be the most politically impartial person on the planet! You’re getting worse than MM. A true anarchist!
Anarchists are “politically impartial”? That’s news to me.
Exactly!
Refusing to take a position is not a virtue. Pretensions at being above the fray are silly.
A good Catholic blog should be critical of both candidates, but should be intensely critical of the repulsive, hypocritical, idiotic cretin McCain.
We made nothing up but refer to the obvious.
What you guys are making up was the claim that when Obama referred to the epiphany, he was merely talking “about how conservative dogmatists paint him.” That claim is not only NOT obvious, it’s something that neither you nor Poli can explain or demonstrate in any way whatsoever, not by referring to any context nor by pointing to anyone on the entire Internet who interpreted Obama in that way.
It’s BS concocted entirely for this thread, simply so as to maintain the lie that Obama didn’t say something with a religious connotation.
How, apart from being black and acknowledging it, and noting that some people don’t like blacks, did Obama play the “race card”?
Should he paint himself with “white-face”?
On the one hand we have McCain supporters like Gerald who insist that the ad was intentionally filled with quotes out of context in “Colbert-like” manner in order to be satirical. On the other end we have SB who takes the ad with such seriousness that he actually believes the “light coming down from somewhere” line was not used out of context, and that the ad portrays accurately Obama’s supposed sense of messianic mission. Somewhere in the middle we have the Fedderizer who has articulated both viewpoints, depending on who he is fighting with at the time.
Which is it, staunch McCain defenders? Can’t you get your s–t together??
Why can’t it be both? Obama is serious (why else would he say those things?), and McCain is poking fun at Obama’s sense of self-importance.
There you have it. Are these things really that difficult for you Michael J.?
TIMMY – Because they are either taken out of context, or they are not.
Poli keeps saying commentators are not engaging his argument. As far as I can tell, his ‘argument’ amounts to a question of taste. I don’t find the ad remotely offensive; tweaking a political candidate for indulging in hyperbolic rhetoric is hardly the same thing as ridiculing legitimate religious expression. Yet Poli somehow believies the ad shows ‘that religion itself has become a thing of little importance’. Well, if you say so.
Certainly the ad is silly, and it’s really not very funny, but worthy of such solemn expressions of disappointment…”[j]ust when I was beginning to view McCain a bit more positively, he resorts to this low..” Putting aside for the moment the brevity of the instant when Poli apparently felt differently about McCain than all of his comments have indicated, is such a silly ad worth changing your opinion of a candidate over? Really? That trumps the fact that McCain’s run a terrible campaign, doesn’t seem to understand his own policies (cap and trade anyone), and could care less about the issues that most concern religious conservatives?
Look, there are any number of reasonable grounds to critique McCain (or Obama!), but these outrage of the day posts about subtly racist symbolism or czechoslovakia or insert next issue are a bit much.
I found the ad underwhelming. I grant that Obama uses high rhetoric and hype, etc. But really, if that’s the core of the criticism, like RCM, I see only desperation. It’s rather like criticizing Bush for his absolutely abysmal oratorical skills: if that is the focus, and not his policies, than certainly that is a telling sign of weakness. The “shining light” part was intentionally deceptive, as the original context is easily gleaned even when they tried to edit it out.
Overall: Obama uses the high rhetoric. Personally, I rather welcome it after 8 years of butchering the English language. Who cares? That being said, I don’t much mind the comedic jesting of that high rhetoric and hype. But its not “Colbert-like” if its coming from a campaign. And, as I said, why focus on that?!!?!?! Let’s take Obama to task on the horrifying things that he should be criticized for!!!
Pax Christi,
Michael, any vote would be a compromise with personal beliefs, faith etc. I’m no fan of the GOP, eg it’s against gay marriage (as is Obama), I just really dislike Obama and am ok with McCain. I can understand the reverse situation, but being smitten with Obama, that’s just embarrassing. I see that the religious right has less influence in the GOP, which is a great thing, the Robertsons of the world really piss me off. I’m rooting for cohabitation, as the French call it, so no one can push their agenda through.
People are more susceptible to a derisive ad than to political analysis, so that’s what they get.
More importantly: I’d like to declare a time-out and comment on the overall tone of this thread. It is terrible and childish. Charity is nowhere to be found. I’m rather dissappointed in particular in Michael I. While I am sympathetic to your overall point, Michael, I completely agree with Feddie. He said nothing to deserve the name-calling and belittling. The overall tone of your comments is simply devoid of charity. I mean, honestly, is this what virtuous, civilized discussion is supposed to look like? I’m pretty embarassed. Feddie’s complaint deserves to be acknowledged, and to not recognize the name-calling as crossing the line takes away from the strength of anyone arguing against Feddie, in my opinion.
To balance that out, many of the conservative leaning commentators have exhibited comparable childishness.
Everyone is so concerned with everyone else’s orthodoxy around here: how about we start proving we are Catholics by acting like it in the comboxes?
Pax Christi,
SB who takes the ad with such seriousness that he actually believes the “light coming down from somewhere” line was not used out of context, and that the ad portrays accurately Obama’s supposed sense of messianic mission.
The only context was that the line was a joke. That’s all you’ve been able to claim with any intelligibility. But such a joke can be funny for two reasons. First, it could be funny because it’s so completely and ludicrously inapt. Second, it could be funny because it has an element of truth to it, and the audience recognized their own semi-religious fervor for Obama, and laughed not just at Obama but also at themselves.
I think the latter reason is what applies here. As I said, just as it’s telling that braggarts like Rush Limbaugh tell “jokes” that always revolve around how they so much smarter than everyone else, it’s telling that Obama tells a “joke” that revolves around the notion that when people vote for him, it’s like an epiphany from God and a religious conversion, which just so happens to resemble the way many of Obama’s fans have behaved (don’t pretend unfamiliarity with Gerald Campbell’s swooning right here on Vox Nova).
Now, when a politician tells a joke like that about himself, it’s fair game for the other side to put out an ad gently ridiculing him for doing so. The ad is clearly not the originator of the religious reference; Obama is. And you guys still can’t come up with one non-hackish reason to care so much that McCain made light of Obama’s religious allusion while not caring that Obama is the one making religious allusions in the first place.
Just back from a great night with some good friends, and I find the same visitors commenting since I left five hours ago.
SB – It does not follow that my not supplying the context (I was gone for five hours, remember?) means that I cannot do so or that I lack the ability. If you want to try employing simple logical rules to arguments in our threads, I suggest you practice in private until you actually know how to do so. Like I said, I would love to debate you in public sometime when describing my comments as “stupid” or concluding triumphantly that I “can’t” back up my claims doesn’t work. As Michael noted (and as I alluded), the context of the Obama quote was a joke (you admitted that it was likely) in which he was describing his job as a campaigner. Sorry that a YouTube clip doesn’t exist. Take it up with them.
Winston – If it is merely a matter of taste, then I suppose you may be willing to make a general principle that all satirical material, irrespective of who offers it (e.g., politician, comedian) and what its content may be (e.g., religion, politics), never finds itself offending decency or values. Is that fair? If not, then under what conditions would satire be objectively wrong? Presumably, you hold that a fusion of religious and political satire is only subjectively evaluated according to taste and so would never be held against an objective principle.
You Americans get the politicians you deserve: they mirror back to you your own fixations–with race, with aggressive prowess (called “national defense”), with sexual “identity,” with mindless combativeness (called “character”)–and then, when those polticians give you what most concerns and impresses you, you complain about it.
McCain’s ad shows that his camp know that he’s losing this election. Obama may be a bit of a prig, but his priggishness is what the Americans need and want, after eight years of anti-intellectual bombast.
Also, if you want to watch the gradual implosion of the McCain campaign, you can go here and watch it self-destruct on a daily basis:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
McCain doesn’t do so well as Obama under pressure; I’m predicting a vitriolic spluttering eruption from him that will just leave Obama smiling knowingly at the camera, and then a Democratic landslide.
SB – It does not follow that my not supplying the context (I was gone for five hours, remember?) means that I cannot do so or that I lack the ability. If you want to try employing simple logical rules to arguments in our threads, I suggest you practice in private until you actually know how to do so.
Being gone for five hours is irrelevant. I asked you to support your (surprising) claim that Obama’s epiphany comment was merely talking about “how conservative dogmatists paint him.” Before you left, you responded to my query . . . but only with personal insults, nothing else. And that’s all you continue to do, even after I’ve directly accused you of making up this supposed context.
So yes, it’s logically possible that you actually do have some evidence for your claim, and that you’re merely feigning not to have such evidence. For what reason, I’m not sure . . . maybe sheer spite, or maybe the desire to look like a fabulist, or something else. But in the real world, the natural assumption is that if you had any evidence for your claim, you’d have mentioned it by now.
Again, I look forward to the posts in which you invent convenient but unprovable stories for the sake of attacking Obama over an ad that does little more than quote McCain’s own words. But I’m a dogmatic guy — I’ll oppose dishonesty in that context too.
X Cathedra
I guess I am not seeing desperation epecially since in most polls and in fact in Gallup yesterday McCain has caught back up or has tied Obama
THe “ad” that I doubt will even be a traditonal ad buy is aimed toward
(Core hard core politicos that are in weeds constantly especially his base)
and
Putting some buzz out there so people will go check it out and perhaps his other ads
McCain cannot outspend Obama. McCain does not have the resources Obama does which means free media and robbing him of the news cycle or disminishing it is crucial.
It is also August 2nd and not many people are paying attention. Spending a couple of million on the serious issue of lets say the Columbia Free Trade Accord would be foolish. Most epople are concerned about getting their kids back in school and weighty matters like if Brett Farve will return to the Packers.
McCain is simply going viral here and found a clever way to do it.
jh,
News Alert: Every Monday lately Obama bounces up to between 6-9 points and by Friday the lead narrows.
Obama has roughly 322 electoral votes on a sate-by-state basis.
All of you McCainites,
PLEASE, PLEASE KEEP IT UP; SUPPORT THESE DESPERATE TACTICS & OBAMA WILL WIN BY A LANDSLIDE.
Mark,
Id not understand why Obama folks love to live in the Concoon despite all evidence that this will be a very close race. To say the least Electoral trends the last few weeks have not been great for Obama
To say the least Electoral trends the last few weeks have not been great for Obama
But, but…. he went to Germany!!!!
Michael I: We made nothing up but refer to the obvious. You admit that it was a joke. If so, what the hell makes it funny? Obviously, because it refers to the “Obamessiah” BS that the McCain camp dreamed up.
More invention on Michael I’s part. I really doubt that Obama was referring to anything out of the McCain camp. Guess how I can tell? The “epiphany” statement was from a speech back on January 8, when Obama’s opponent was Clinton and when Romney was in the lead (not McCain).
Ah, SB, you resort to the last gasp of argumentation by claiming that your opponent said absolutely nothing, made everything up, and then personally insulted you. How can anyone defeat such a rigorous case? As always, thank you for the entertainment.
How about providing one shred of evidence for your interpretation of the epiphany speech? That would be a start. If I point out that you have no evidence, and you answer by insults rather than evidence, I’m not the one playing a fool.
I’m just ticked they put the real “messiah”, the wonderful Charlton Heston (may his name be ever blessed) in the same video with B. Hussein Obama.
SB,
The only evidence that I can furnish is my experience having heard the full speech given some time ago. There seems to be no video clip or transcript available for us at hand, so you can either trust me or not trust me.
Circumstantially, given that one line of that speech has been extracted and used in various modalities of criticism of Obama should be a sign that it is removed from context in order to give it a life of its own. That Clinton and McCain, especially, seized upon it in order to combat the Obama campaign ought to, minimally, give us pause.
But if you do not trust my experience (obviously, you do not), then, at best, you can either remain neutral with respect to Obama’s intention with that line on account of the heretofore absent context (the more respectable thing to do) or you can cling to what are obviously partisan portrayals of Obama’s line and allow others to do the thinking for you.
Now, what’s it going to be, SB? You can pretend all you like that you have got the answer, but, turning the tables a bit, you yourself have yet to provide a shred of evidence that Obama’s actual intent with his line was quasi-religious. You obviously have neither heard the original speech nor read a transcript of it, which places you in a position of reliability secondary to my own first-hand account. If you insist on living on the second-hand, derivative accounts of pundits and political opponents, then be my guest. But don’t then pretend that, somehow, you are not “playing a fool.” Think for yourself sometime.
How did you manage to hear the entire speech, might I ask, when there is no full video available? Did you attend in person? Even if you did, I don’t see I should trust your memory as to a speech that occurred in early January. Moreover, people who DID attend the speech didn’t give any sign that Obama was using the “epiphany” language to refer to what conservatives think. See http://galbeckerman.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/seeing-the-light-in-south-carolina/ And finally, I find it hard to imagine any “context” in which it would have even made sense for Obama to say such a thing but to attribute it to conservatives.
you yourself have yet to provide a shred of evidence that Obama’s actual intent with his line was quasi-religious.
Who cares? His actual words indisputably have a religious connotation. And the religious connotation was not something invented by McCain — it’s something that anyone familiar with the Book of Acts would immediately recognize. Regardless of Obama’s supposed “intent,” it’s fair game for an opponent to poke a little fun. The fact that you’re criticizing McCain here — rather than Obama — shows that you can’t possibly be driven by concern over the invocation of religious language.
Pathetic, desperate, out of touch and fearful old white men…Key word in last sentence is fearful–”fear of the unknown”, ready for the chance to converse with intelligence and not fear tactics…I am an old white woman who is not afraid and looking forward to change and creativity not the same old, same old that has kept us back.
I’d also ask you, Poli, to examine your memory more closely before claiming that we all have to respect your “first-hand” account. I’m not accusing you of a bald-faced lie, but it seems intuitive that if you had really seen the Obama speech in its entirety, you would have remembered that fact before the third occasion on which you purported to respond to my request for evidence. Perhaps your suddenly-restored memory is accurate, but perhaps not. We all forget things that happened 6 or 7 months ago.
Since you can’t come up with any checkable quotations (or any quotations at all) whereby Obama was attributing the “ephiphany” remark to conservatives, your “first hand account” doesn’t seem reliable at all.
SB – I’m not convinced that the image of “light” is particularly religious. Obama’s not necessarily invoking religious language. Unlike McCain who is explicitly doing so.
In fact, “light” is often used as an alternative to religious language, such as when a Jesuit institution decided one year to replace the phrase “Finding God in all things” to “Finding light in all things,” precisely to make it sound less religious.
It’s also worth asking whether or not you were offended by Bush’s repeated religious references, including his explicit use of the first chapter of John’s gospel, replacing the eternal Word of God with “America.” Did you, for example, denounce Bush’s idolatrous misuse of scripture online somewhere that you can point to?
Obama Lacks Sense of Humor – Some Suggested Comeback Lines.
No, I didn’t, and I’m not denouncing Obama either. What I’m saying is that anytime a politician does this sort of thing, it’s fair game for a little fun. If you wanted to produce an ad saying that Bush misused religion, and that was full of quotations from Bush himself, I certainly wouldn’t claim that it’s a “new low,” much less that YOU were the one misusing religion.
If you wanted to produce an ad saying that Bush misused religion, and that was full of quotations from Bush himself, I certainly wouldn’t claim that it’s a “new low,” much less that YOU were the one misusing religion.
Of course, in reality Bush has clearly misused religious language (including Catholic language), thus such a hypothetical ad might be justified, whereas it is far from clear that Obama has done so.
I agree: the chides about the religious language strike me as selective, when the religious references associated with Bush were somehow not worthy of the same treatment. Bush’s language regarding the war on terrorism and the like has struck me as no less excessive, exceedingly dualistic (darkness and light), and simplistic as Obama’s. Not to mention the degree to which many American Christians looked upon Bush as God’s only choice for the presidency created, in my mind, a comparable following of worshipping “nuts.” Again: substance, people!
Pax Christi,
We never get any decent presidents anymore. Heck, Jefferson with his dislike for organized religion would have no chance today.
(In the USA, that is. In Western Europe, Bush’s Jesus-talk would render him unelectable)
I agree: the chides about the religious language strike me as selective, when the religious references associated with Bush were somehow not worthy of the same treatment.
What’s this even supposed to mean? Do you expect McCain, in a campaign against Obama, to produce campaign ads about how Bush used religious language up to 9 years ago? What reason should anyone have to expect that?
i wish the blogs i regularly visit would quit linking to the tripe found here. I find myself drawn into reading the stupidity put forward by the authors and Obama’s defenders, and again wasting my time and sanity.
How did you manage to hear the entire speech, might I ask, when there is no full video available? Did you attend in person?
Katerina and I watched it live on one of the cable news channels a little while back. Believe it or not, television broadcasting is a bit more extensive and long ranging than what is available on YouTube. I’m sure if you do a little homework you can find which channel broadcasted the speech. Then you can write to them and request a copy of it from their archives. Let me know how that goes.
Who cares? His actual words indisputably have a religious connotation.
Of course they do. As I’ve said a few times now, Obama was joking about the perception propagated by Republicans framed as a response to the question of what an effective campaigner does. Who cares, you ask? Obviously you do. You won’t let it go. Tell me, what’s the quid pro quo that I’m missing?
The fact that you’re criticizing McCain here — rather than Obama — shows that you can’t possibly be driven by concern over the invocation of religious language.
Not necessarily. Once more, you draw a false analogy (a fallacy in logic). The problem as I clearly stated is not in using religious symbolism, but in its modes. You see, the object is not the problem. The modalities are. I can’t keep steering you back on course here with rational discussion if you’re not going to try to drive yourself. Is this too complex for you?
Since you can’t come up with any checkable quotations (or any quotations at all) whereby Obama was attributing the “ephiphany” remark to conservatives, your “first hand account” doesn’t seem reliable at all.
So all first-hand accounts must entail corollary evidence apart from the account? Not only does that seem to be counter-intuitive, but also it would render not a few witnesses in court incredible. If I saw the speech, I saw the speech. Take my word or don’t take my word (as I ordered above). Remember your options? Here they are:
“But if you do not trust my experience (obviously, you do not), then, at best, you can either remain neutral with respect to Obama’s intention with that line on account of the heretofore absent context (the more respectable thing to do) or you can cling to what are obviously partisan portrayals of Obama’s line and allow others to do the thinking for you.”
I’m afraid your tantrum throughout this thread is nothing more than a display of will to power. You want to be right, so you assert that you are right. Like I said, take my word or leave my word. But why pretend like you have any better knowledge than I when all you can do is operate by gut reaction and live on a derivative plane of reason?
This is actually almost perfect satire. It takes something that everyone sees, and blows it up ad-infinitum (I especially liked Moses parting the Red Sea, though what would have been more appropriate would have been Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a jackass to the cheering throngs throwing palms at his feet).
This guy and his followers have set himself up as some sort of secular messiah. And because he’s a secular messiah, come to deliver us from our gun-toting, God-fearing bitterness, he can’t use specifically religious terminology, so he uses “religious code”, such as “light-worker” come to “heal our souls”.
But whenever Obama tries to be even quasi religious (we’ve seen his real religiosity in the “First Church of God damn America”) it is as ill fitting and as ludicrous as a 5 year old boy trying to wear his dad’s suit, hat and shoes.
And Obama has said he will debate McCain “anywhere, anytime”, but so far has not. It seems that his speeches to foreign crowds in Europe take precedence to explaining his positions to the American people. Since Obama doesn’t want to fight fair (the last thing in the world he wants is people to have a single, coherent idea of what his positions actually are), McCain has every right to continue to kick him in the balls. This one was a nice boot. Not as effective as showing another few clips of cheering German throngs (with the other politician who was delivering them hope and change).
I think Obama is respecting his elders by not debating the Mr. McCain.
I would not want to embarass the man myself.
In his hey-day, McCain was a C-student at best, and going against the ex-head of the Harvrad Law Review at this time of his life may give the poor man a coronary, especially in the light of what we know of his temper problems.
In his hey-day, McCain was a C-student at best, and going against the ex-head of the Harvrad Law Review at this time of his life may give the poor man a coronary
Obama previous debate performances haven’t been all that spectacular. He also has more to lose from a bad debate performance than does McCain. That, and not some misplaced “concern” about McCain’s health, is why he is trying to limit the debates as much as possible.
Everything I’ve heard before — the candidate who is on top doesn’t want to do too many debates, since there is always a chance he will come out on the bottom in one, while the candidate who is on the bottom wants as many debates to take out the competition.
Like I said, take my word or leave my word. But why pretend like you have any better knowledge than I when all you can do is operate by gut reaction and live on a derivative plane of reason?
Exactly: I don’t take your word for it. Again, I’m not accusing you of lying here. But I don’t trust a 1) vague and un-detailed memory, 2) of something that happened several months ago, 3) that isn’t confirmed by anyone else who saw the speech, 4) that doesn’t even make sense as something Obama would have said, and 5) that wasn’t mentioned as soon as you were asked for evidence (but rather appeared much later in the thread, after you already passed by several opportunities to mention this supposed memory).
Memory is a very fallible thing — there are all kinds of psychological studies wherein people honestly think that they remember something that didn’t actually happen. I don’t trust your memory in any way. I think that this quote from Obama is just as it has been universally portrayed — it was a joke, yes, but a joke that alluded to the truth as to how many of Obama’s supporters have acted. I think this sort of joke is fair game for McCain to joke about, and that people who are upset about the ad ought to grow up.
Memory is a very fallible thing
And GOP propagandistic campaign ads aren’t?!
There’s no question that Obama uttered the religious allusion that is attributed to him; there’s a video, and you can watch it for yourself. For the many reasons I’ve already given, I have no grounds for thinking that Poli’s convenient memory is true.
I fail to see how “light” is a particularly “religious allusion.”
Read the book of Acts, and then ponder Obama’s words that a “light will come down from . . . someone.” He didn’t refer to God expressly, probably because too many Democrats don’t like any mention of God, but that’s clearly the allusion. You can’t deny that, not in good faith.
1) I think he said “somewhere,” not “someone.”
2) What part of Acts are you referring to?
3) Even if he made a “religious” allusion, does the context not matter at all to you? You have made it clear that you don’t trust Poli’s memory of the speech and the context he provided you with. Are you also completely discounting the context that I provided you with less than 48 hrs ago? My memory of what I read is still vivid. Don’t trust that either?
1) Fair point. Doesn’t change my point, though.
2) As soon as you tell me where in the Gospels I should be reading (given that I don’t think the Gospels address governmental politics), I’ll give you a hint as to who had a epiphany and religious conversion in the book of Acts. (One little clue: His name rhymes with “tall.”)
3) You didn’t provide any relevant context, other than to point out Obama was making a “joke” about his “job” in running a campaign. Guess what? I’ve already said too many times to count that Obama was making a joke. The point is, it was a joke with religious overtones, and it was funny only because it had the ring of truth as to how many Obama supporters really do act (e.g., Gerald “tame our souls” Campbell).
Poli,
Apologies for the delayed response; I was taking your advice and taking a break from commenting. I think you raise an interesting question about what constitutes offensive satire. At the outset, I would say that, yes, I think what is offensive is almost entirely a matter of context. A confederate flag is offensive to many because of its association with the confederacy. A noose is offensive because of the violent history of racial relations in the South. There’s a passage in Chesterton’s Heretics, I believe, in which he talks about the symbolism of the swastika; suffice to say, the swastika had taken on an entirely different symbolic meaning thirty years later. These images are not, per se, ‘objectively’ offensive to use your term, but rather are offensive because of what they symbolize in context.
It is the antecedent beliefs and experiences of the creator and interpreter of the symbol that determines how offensive the symbol is. For example, discussions about symbols such as the confederate flag generally revolve around debates about the intention of the people displaying the flag, and about what the flag ‘objectively’ symbolizes. Some people insist it’s about southern heritage which may naturally be a source of pride to them based on their experiences, and others correctly point out that a large part of Southern history involved racism and bigotry, and so see little to celebrate.
To bring this back to the post, it seemed to me that your post was about little more than antecedent dislike of McCain. In reviewing the original, it is a conclusion more than an argument. Even the title of the post, ‘pathetic low’ displays antipathy more than disapproval. The offensiveness of the ad is taken for granted rather than argued in the post, but as a crude proxy, it certainly does not seem like any of your fellow McCain sympathizers in the comments were offended by the ad. I was simply suggesting that straightforward posts about the antecedent reasons for your dislike of McCain would be more helpful than the ‘outrage of the day’ style posts, which do little but stir up flame wars.
As soon as you tell me where in the Gospels I should be reading (given that I don’t think the Gospels address governmental politics)
I don’t think the Gospels address governmental politics either. You clearly lack reading comprehension.
What I encouraged you to do was to re-read the Gospels with an eye (and heart, if you have one) open to God’s preferential option for the poor.
I’ll give you a hint as to who had a epiphany and religious conversion in the book of Acts
You are connecting Obama’s reference to “light coming down from somewhere telling you to vote for Barack” with Paul’s conversion? That’s quite a stretch.
The point is, it was a joke with religious overtones…
Yeah, “religious.” Like “light.”
I don’t think the Gospels address governmental politics either. You clearly lack reading comprehension
I never denied the notion of a “preferential option for the poor.” All I did was say that the Gospels don’t speak to governmental policies. That’s it. That was the only post to which you responded that I should read the Gospels again with open eyes. If your post was merely intended to address the preferential option for the poor, it was incompetently written (because it implied that it was about governmental policies) and illiterate (because I had never said one word to deny the preferential option for the poor in the first place).
By the way, given that you didn’t even didn’t even know that I was referring to St. Paul, it’s no wonder that you can’t recognize religious allusions.
If your post was merely intended to address the preferential option for the poor, it was incompetently written (because it implied that it was about governmental policies)
It certainly didn’t. It was written in direct response to a question asked about why I found the Brazilian bishops particularly trustworthy. I replied saying that they had generally speaking opted for the poor. The reader replied, implying that the teaching on the option for the poor is not infallible teaching, to which I replied that it need not be declared infallibly because it is more basic than that, as it is the core of the Gospel. You butted into that conversation saying that the Gospels do not address “government policies,” but I never said that it did.
If you would not have butted in with ridiculous assumptions and accusations, you would not have had the need to continually defend your original, erroneous assertion (even now, in this thread!), and to do so through dishonest means (claiming that I had originally said the option for the poor is a teaching about “government policies”).
By the way, given that you didn’t even didn’t even know that I was referring to St. Paul, it’s no wonder that you can’t recognize religious allusions.
Of course I didn’t know you were referring to St Paul, because the supposed “allusion” you see is completely absurd.
SB, I think it’s time for you to sit down.
It was written in direct response to a question asked about why I found the Brazilian bishops particularly trustworthy. I replied saying that they had generally speaking opted for the poor. The reader replied, implying that the teaching on the option for the poor is not infallible teaching, to which I replied that it need not be declared infallibly because it is more basic than that, as it is the core of the Gospel. You butted into that conversation saying that the Gospels do not address “government policies,” but I never said that it did.
That’s wrong: You praised the bishops in Brazil for being “liberationists,” and then said that liberation theology was “quite a bit more” authoritative than other infallible teachings. Since I’m aware that liberation theology (at least in part) speaks of liberation from bad government policies (even if that’s supposedly not its central claim), I made the obvious point that the “Lord Jesus Christ” (contrary to your implication) had not infallibly set in place a set of preferred government policies.
Since you purport to AGREE with that claim (at least now), it’s not clear why you disagreed with me, rather than taking a welcome opportunity to clarify your sloppy language. In other words, you could have said, “Oh, of course, I don’t mean to imply that the Lord Jesus Christ directly approved of the governmental policies preferred by liberationists.”
Anyway, I think we’re ultimately in agreement — the Gospels do contain language blessing the poor and saying that rich people have a hard time getting to heaven, but not a word praising specific government policies, and therefore, to the extent that liberationists claim that specific government policies are a good idea, they’re not speaking with the direct authority of the “Lord Jesus Christ.” (They might have the correct moral and logical conclusion in one or more instances, but they can’t claim to be at a level above infallibility.)
As for the religious allusion in Obama’s speech, I’m not sure why you keep digging in and saying indefensible things:
Acts 9:3: “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.”
Obama: “A light will shine down from somewhere, and it will light upon you, and you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack.”
If you don’t recognize this allusion even when it’s staring you straight in the face, well, I’m not sure what to say.
That’s wrong: You praised the bishops in Brazil for being “liberationists,” and then said that liberation theology was “quite a bit more” authoritative than other infallible teachings. Since I’m aware that liberation theology (at least in part) speaks of liberation from bad government policies (even if that’s supposedly not its central claim), I made the obvious point that the “Lord Jesus Christ” (contrary to your implication) had not infallibly set in place a set of preferred government policies.
What was that you were saying to Poli about relying on memory? Your memory appears to be faulty. I said that they were trustworthy because they had opted for the poor. And your ability to comprehend what I wrote is obviously lacking as well, at least without reading into it with your own biases.
I made the obvious point that the “Lord Jesus Christ” (contrary to your implication) had not infallibly set in place a set of preferred government policies
I “implied” no such thing. If you read that idea into what I said, that is no problem of mine.
In other words, you could have said, “Oh, of course, I don’t mean to imply that the Lord Jesus Christ directly approved of the governmental policies preferred by liberationists.”
Such was obvious, and did not need to be “clarified.”
Acts 9:3: “As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.”
Obama: “A light will shine down from somewhere, and it will light upon you, and you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack.”
As for your ridiculous claim of a “religious allusion,” all I see in common between these two quotes is that fact that “light” is involved.
At this point I will invite you to stop making yourself look foolish by pressing the issue to such absurd extremes.
If you don’t perceive the biblical allusion, it’s only because you don’t want to admit it. Ideology takes precedence over honesty.
As for the TFP thread, you did not merely say that the Brazil bishops “were trustworthy because they had opted for the poor.” When a commenter specifically questioned whether they were trustworthy, you immediately responded, “There are liberationists among them, and that fact is encouraging.” It was this response (and a further one that repeated the same language) that made me think that you were claiming some authoritative stance on behalf of liberation theology. Given that you weren’t claiming such a thing, we’re agreed then.
I found the “epiphany” transcript. I think this definitively puts to rest the misleading claim (put forth by Poli) that Obama was merely talking about of how conservatives portray him. That theme isn’t in the transcript AT ALL.
It should also put to rest your insistence that Obama used religious language.
Nonsense. You’re so eager to defend Obama, at all costs, that you’ve been claiming both that 1) it was a joke, and 2) it wasn’t a religious allusion. I don’t think those can both be true. The only humor in the remark came precisely from the fact that it was an allusion to a religious epiphany (a light coming “down from somewhere”). If it hadn’t been a religious allusion — if it had been a normal non-religious remark akin to saying, “A light went off in my head, and I knew how to fix the toilet” — then it wouldn’t have been a joke at all.
By the way, no apologies for so strenuously insisting that Obama made this statement so as to respond to McCain? You (and I guess Poli) were just making up a story that you hoped would be true, which tends to be rather risky.
SB,
Whenever I get in the ‘dynamic’ you seem to be in, I make it a point of considering to my OCD medication. Trust me; it helps.
“The good news this morning? God Bless David Gergen! Really–he was on This Week and said (check the video or transcript for exact wording), “When McCain’s camp calls Obama “The Messiah” and “The One”, he’s really calling him “upitty.” I’m from the South, and we understand what that means. That’s code.” Jake Tapper looked like he had been pole axed. Donna Brazille knew what he was talking about, of course. But GS, George Will, and Tapper had to be bluntly told the the way the world works by Mr. Blandly Bi-partisan….”
Josh Marshall, TPM
ABC link:
Despite his moderate “conservatism,” I think “Mr. Blandly Bi-Partisan” is one of the best and most objective political commentators on the scene, and if HE says McCain is pulling the race card on Obama, and insinuating that he’s one “uppity nigger,” then I don’t see how one can conceivably argue the point.
McCain is going into the gutter, just like Bush did, to beat him in 2000.
Except that, this time, in a period of economic melt-down, these “wedge issues” are not welcomed by the masses.
McCain is desperate, and is looking more and more desperate every day. Obama is being merciful to him, by not allowing him to disgrace himself in any more than three debates.
Someone who ascribes to open and blatant racism, Che Guevara, and Louis Farrakhan doesn’t have any business running for dog catcher let alone president… UGH!
Mark D — grow up.
sb,
I am giving you heart to heart advise.
Take it how you may….
Sure you are. What’s your real objective, Mark? You haven’t had anything intelligent to contribute to the discussion up to this point. After I’ve won a substantive argument (i.e., by proving via the transcript that Michael I. and Poli were wrong about the “context”), what’s the rationale behind jumping in only for the sake of a juvenile sneer at me? Why don’t you instead sneer at the folks who have been just as “obsessive-compulsive” as I have, but who were also, you know, wrong?
SB,
You think you have “won” a “substantive argument” here? Really? I have followed as an outside observer and I think you have merely exhausted your main interlocutor.
Revisit the thread and map out in general outline how you think you have succeeded. I surmise that you may not be as satisfied after a second look….
How do you respond to David Gergen’s more substantive point as to what is actually going on here–in all of your buddies calling Obama the “One” and “Messiah”?
David — you obviously haven’t followed very closely. 1) Poli and Michael I. claimed that Obama’s “epiphany” comment — considered in context — was made just to respond to McCain, and that Obama was merely talking about how his conservative critics portray him. Poli even insisted that he had seen the speech, and that I should trust his “first-hand account.” 2) I found the transcript of the speech (pasted above), and it turns out that Poli and Michael I. were simply and indisputably wrong. There was no such “context” in which Obama was talking about how his conservative critics portray him.
There’s no reason for you to parachute into the debate just to make juvenile remarks. Do you ever have second thoughts about being so snotty?
I think David Gergen is being a bit hysterical. Obama’s egotistical remarks can’t be put beyond criticism just because several decades ago, a black guy in the South who wanted a decent job would be called “uppity.”
SB,
Dig deeper.
People hyperventilating over the “racism” in McCain’s ads should be even more worried about the same racist techniques in Obama’s own ads: http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2008/08/politics_racist.php
It would be nice if, in light of the actual transcript, Poli would retract the snarky, self-righteous accusing me of throwing a “tantrum” and “playing a fool” simply because I didn’t trust Poli’s memory. It was a wise choice on my part not to trust his convenient claim to have seen the entire speech.
snarky, self-righteous comments, that it.
Luvox is generally agreeable….
SB,
Not to diminish the work you’ve done (I too tried to dig unsuccessfully for that transcript), but I fail to see the transcript itself as enough context to be a definitive refutation of the notion that Obama was joking. While it provides a great deal of context that was not there before (i.e. what was said before and after), I don’t think the absence of any explicit reference to what the conservatives were saying proves your point. The context needs to be broadened: to include the inflections, the response of the audience, what was said by other candidates at the time, etc. For instance, it would be unlikely in my mind that this had anything much to do with how the conservatives would depict him because, if I am not mistaken, this was during the primary. In other words, the ones most likely to depict him in any negative way would have been the Clinton camp. That makes more sense in context.
I read that at the time Hilary had referred to Obama’s policy positions with strikingly similar language, in an effort to convince voters that he is being unrealistic and expects things to just “come down from the sky,” whereas she has experience and can get concrete results. Also, Obama had addressed in dismissive ways such characterizations to his audiences. This doesn’t seem at all a stretch to me. In this broader context, isn’t it likely that this is a joke? This seems to me far more reasonable than to believe that Obama would be quite literally serious. What was the reaction of the crowd? Were they laughing? Doesn’t this matter?
There is little question that Obama has a reputation for over-the-top language, even of a kind of “preacherly” vibe. That is in fact what would ground Hilary’s or anyone’s criticism in the first place. What I disagree with is the deception inherent to removing a quote from context. Especially when there is likely ample evidence of speeches where one would not need to cut and paste to get a sense of the excessiveness of the jargon. That is why I will harp on anyone who thinks that intentional deception is fine for the political process.
I only think of those speeches in which Obama refers to Cheney as his cousin (very distantly related). If we had a transcript that did not contain the report about those results in the media, the intonations in Obama’s voice and presentation, or the reaction of the crowd, how would we take it?
Pax Christi,
but I fail to see the transcript itself as enough context to be a definitive refutation of the notion that Obama was joking.
It’s not a refutation of the notion that Obama was joking, and for the 4th or 5th time, I’ve never denied that Obama was making a joke . . . one with clear religious allusions. Instead, the transcript is a refutation of Poli’s claim (echoed by Michael I in more than one comment) that Obama was referring to “how conservative dogmatists paint him.” That claim is just sheer invention — Obama didn’t say or imply anything of the sort.
Moreover, the ad itself is not misleading as to the fact that Obama’s ephiphany comment was a joke. You can clearly see the reactions of the people standing to Obama’s left, and they’re all grinning and laughing. If the ad-makers had wanted to imply that Obama meant that comment in complete seriousness, they would have just had the audio, not the video.
That doesn’t sound right at all. What possible value does it have for a negative campaign ad if they fully intend the footage to suggest he was in fact joking about his whole “messianic” image and not actually believing it??? If Obama was joking about being portrayed as a kind of messiah who will just make great things “happen,” it suggests he doesn’t take the whole messiah thing seriously. But the whole point of the ad is that he does take it seriously and pompously thinks himself to be “the One.” That’s the whole criticism. Footage that honestly gets the message across that he was joking doesn’t serve the purpose of the ad and the portrayal of Obama they were going for. That’s exactly the kind of footage they don’t want.
The ad only makes sense if the footage can be bent to make it look as though he is being serious. That is deception.
Pax Christi,
Well, all you have to do is watch the footage for yourself in the ad, and it’s clear that he was joking, or at least that everyone around him was laughing. In any event, all I’m saying is that, contrary to the misrepresentations made by Poli and Michael I, there was no missing “context” that would have changed or altered the meaning of the Obama speech as portrayed in the ad. All of the evidence that he was joking — 100% of it — is visible right there in the ad.
SB’s still going! Check it out!
With choices like these two for president, we should be trying to quarantine democracy.
So are you, Michael, except that your response to being wrong is to sneer at the guy who was right (about the context of Obama’s ephiphany speech).
Being wrong: Happens to us all. Being too obnoxious to admit it: Sinful and stupid.
“SB’s still going!”
Unlike a couple of frackin cowards who fled the scene as soon as they realized they had been caught misrepresenting the “context” of Obama’s speech.
SB,
I am willing to grant you that most likely the context does not have to do with the way conservatives were depicting him. I also agree that it is clear in the ad that it is a joke, and people are laughing. What I am not willing to grant is that conveying that fact is precisely the intention of the ad makers. That simply doesn’t make sense to me. It suggests either 1) they intended to depict Obama NOT taking the messiah thing seriously, in a video designed to suggest he DOES take it seriously, therefore making them rather bad admakers; or 2) you are giving the admakers way too much credit for being honest, and they attempted to take the joke out of context to suggest Obama does take the messiah thing seriously; in which case still they are bad admakers. This is why I said it smacks of desperation: if they have to rely on attempting to distort a clip that clearly still suggests the context, that he is in fact joking about his hype, then wow, it seems they are making the case for his hype rather weaker.
Further, it seems to me that Poli’s suggestion about the context of conservative portrayals of Obama’s hype isn’t quite so off the mark as you suggest. Depending on when it was made, it may not refer to them at all. But it certainly seems to be something that Obama’s primary-democratic and republican critics would have in common: they would both suggest he’s making himself a messiah. Makes sense. He may even believe his own hype, and it may be worth critiquing! The point is, in this clip, if he’s joking about it, this is evidence to the contrary. And though his joking about the messiah thing may not be explicitly referring to republican portrayals at the time, it is obviously the kind of thing they accuse him of now. Heck: LOOK AT THE AD ITSELF: IT IS AN EXAMPLE of precisely THAT! In other words, the ad is relying on a clip that, most likely, in context, depicts Obama joking about those who portray him as believing himself to be the messiah…in order to make it look like he does in fact believe himself to be the messiah!
That is deception.
Pax Christi,
You may be right.
But I think you’re overthinking the ad. It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t literally believe himself to be the Messiah, and of course the ad doesn’t literally accuse him of that; if anyone really thought that of Obama, they would be trying to have him committed to an insane asylum, not making jokes about it. So the ad to me is very simple: Obama sometimes speaks of himself in overwrought and hyperbolic language, sometimes using religious overtones. Sometimes he uses a joking air, sometimes he doesn’t. His supporters swoon over him as if he were a fifth Beatle. Thus, regardless of whether he was joking in any particular instance, it’s fun to needle Obama over this.
That’s all. It’s not complicated. It’s not sinister. It’s just a joke. And it was pretty darn funny (the Moses bit was classic), not to mention effective (in getting the partisans to moan and whine).
…not to mention effective (in getting the partisans to moan and whine)
Yeah, good job staying “unpartisan” yourself. And not moaning or whining.
(Is defending a candidate from blatant lies “partisan?”)
The only “blatant lies” in this thread have been from you and Poli.
Not that either of you would have the balls to admit even one little error.
To be fair, Poli’s strenuous insistence that he had seen the original speech, and that he knew the context involved Obama referring to how conservatives view him, and that I was throwing a “tantrum” for not taking his word — that looks a lot more like a “blatant lie” than your mere agreement with Poli. I guess you could have been more fooled than actually lying. And even what Poli said could be just the vagaries of memory.
So maybe it wasn’t a blatant lie after all. Sorry, that was too hasty of me. Instead of a “blatant lie,” it could have merely been intellectual error (mixed with self-righteousness and contempt, as always is the case with you guys).
In any event, if it were me caught putting forth what looked like a lie, I hope I’d have the ability to say, “Gee, I was wrong, I guess I was remembering a different speech.” Refusing to do so would indicate a serious lack of courage and honesty, far more humiliating (if one is thinking clearly) than the original error.
SB,
Granted: I’m not trying to say that this ad was meant to be “complicated,” as if there were layers of coded message and intricate symbols etc. It is quite simple and the message is simple. But I think rather you are tending to make it more complicated by trying to explain away what is at least in one clip a blatant attempt to misrepresent what was said.
First: It seems apparent that Obama uses hyperbolic language and sometimes religious overtones. I grant that this is perhaps a legitimate point to poke fun at, that’s fine. But the sense of the word “literal” you are using here is something of a red herring. It is simply stating the obvious that this never entered the minds of either the admakers or those making a fuss about the ad. Obviously, they did not intend to depict Obama as though he claimed to “literally” be the messiah; and obviously, he would be in a straitjacket if he made such claims. You are missing the point that language like this is never used literally in politics, but metaphorical use is always presupposed. Your point is entirely unrelated and does nothing for your claims.
What is at issue is how the metaphorical language was being employed. It is possible that Obama could use metaphorical language like this in seriousness, which would suggest that he believes he is of some great importance, and can do things analogous to a messianic figure. It is using the metaphors SERIOUSLY that is the object of criticism, the object of fun. The primary-democratic opponents and conservatives, if they take this line, could only sensibly be criticizing him for using this language in a SERIOUS manner (i.e. to project some analogous connotations upon himself).
However, the metaphorical language can be used JOKINGLY (i.e. not seriously): If I say “I will change the world like a messiah!” It is obvious I am not using the word literally, but metaphorically and seriously. If people have referred to me negatively as a messiah and I joke to my friends saying “oh yeah, that’s me, a big messiah!” It is clear I am using the language metaphorically but not seriously. I am here in fact taking issue with the portrayal that I am a messiah-figure.
This isn’t that hard. It’s not complicated. This is something anyone who watches the ad and doesn’t seek immediately to find an ideologically sound “interpretation” of it sees. Your summary of their intentions is at odds with the common sense grasp of what is in the ad: it simply makes no sense to claim that part of what the admakers are criticizing is Obama’s use of the language “sometimes using a joking air.” That’s completely inconsistent with the intention of the ad and your explanation simply makes the admakers out to look like horrible admakers. Why would anyone employ footage that clearly depicts the person NOT taking the language seriously in order to make fun of him FOR taking the language seriously? And if it is as you put it: why on earth would anyone want to critique a candidate for using hyperbolic language, BUT SOMETIMES JOKINGLY? Talk about cutting the knees out from under your intended claim about his reputation.
An ad like that would only reinforce in my mind how lightly i should take any claim that Obama buys his own hype: why waste time targeting “his joking air?” That to me looks like you are going to some extreme lengths to vindicate the admakers from, well, flat-out lying.
It may be fun and legitimate to needle Obama over his hype. But THIS instance is clearly attempting to do so through intentional deception. It’s blatant. Why not, as I keep suggesting, stick to the NON-deceptive criticisms???? Those are fun too (especially if they are true).
Pax Christi,
Why would anyone employ footage that clearly depicts the person NOT taking the language seriously in order to make fun of him FOR taking the language seriously?
Well, since you put it that way, the one thing we know for sure that the ad did — because it’s visible whenever you watch the ad — is that it depicts Obama saying the epiphany language in a joking manner, to an audience that was laughing. So if, by your question, it’s impossible to do so “in order to make fun of him FOR taking the language seriously,” then the ad isn’t making “fun of him FOR taking the language seriously.”
My opinion, however, is just as I’ve said more than once above. Obama is admittedly joking, but just as it is telling that Rush Limbaugh “jokes” about how far superior his intelligence is to that of liberals, it’s telling that Obama “jokes” about epiphanies from heaven. In each case, the joke (arguably) derives at least part of its humor from the fact that there’s an undercurrent of “geez, I know, I do act as if this is true.”
As I said here, the joke could have been funny for two reasons, that are far different in their implications. For example, if Steve Forbes (in his past campaigns) had told a joke like Obama’s, it would be funny precisely because it would have been so ludicrously unlikely. I don’t think, however, that Obama was telling that joke because he thought it ludicrously unlikely that anyone would swoon in his presence; he’s surely all too aware that the opposite is the case, and the joke was funny precisely because it described how many of Obama’s supporters have acted.
[...] The thing is, he’s got a point. [...]