(Ir)religiosity

At this point, I think it’s safe to say that the election is Obama’s to lose.  And I think the debate last night helped him in that regard.  I do agree with Dave, there wasn’t really anything new in terms of substance, but Obama came off as more relaxed, grounded, and in control whereas McCain — whose forte is supposed to be the town hall meeting — seemed annoyed, nervous, and anxious.  At times he just seemed to be trying too hard.  We get it John.  You want to connect with the average American.  But referring to us as “your friends” seems disingenuous and patronizing.

McCain barely made eye contact with Obama during the last debate.   While he did make and effort to actually look at him this time he still showed signs of disdain and even disgust.  At one point he referred to Sen. Obama as “that one,” a telling slip of the tongue methinks, and it looks like he even refused to shake his hand.

Though my mind has been made up for a while, I found an exchange between the two on health care to be very important.  If I was an undecided it would’ve been a game changer for me.

BROKAW: Quick discussion. Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?

Sen. McCain?

MCCAIN: I think it’s a responsibility, in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that — that I have, that will do that.

OBAMA: Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills — for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.

The difference there is huge.  In my opinion, every person has a right to quality health care solely on the basis of being a person regardless of the costs.  Period.  It’s not a responsibility we have if we can afford it, it is fundamental right that should be afforded to us all.

With that revealing point, McCain loses and Obama becomes President.

EDIT 4:51 PM EST: Here’s an even more interesting link to a visualization of the keywords dropped by both parties throughout the duration of the conventions. [Ht. Joe Kennedy]

I twittered this last night, but I think it’s worth posting.  Below are tag clouds of the words used most often my Barack Obama and John McCain in their acceptance speeches.  Very interesting.

Obama:

McCain:

I didn’t predict this one right the first time.  Or the second.  But I will take credit for placing Joe Biden on my list before a lot of people.  I’m not sure what to make of this.  Biden has more foreign policy and national security experience than McCain, but other than that I’m not sure how this helps Obama.

The tagline of my blog says, “theology, politics, and other musings.”  The ordering was intentional.  My own interests — to grossly understate — have to do with theology first and politics second, more specifically with the intersection of politics and theology/religion and how one effects (or dictates, however you choose to view it) the other.  When you get down to I believe that everything is inherently theological including our politics.

So I try to blog about one or the other — or both when I find a similarity or correlation.

The other day I was going through some old posts and I realized that back in the spring during primary season I blogged almost exclusively on politics and the primaries, which in itself isn’t too much of a bad thing, they were (and are) a big deal.  Most of my posts revealed my biases which aren’t necessarily bad either, we all have them.  But — and here’s the big thing — almost all of the posts revealed my political biases to the point of making me look very partisan. Read the rest of this entry »

Last week I posted my reasons why Barack Obama should not choose Hillary Clinton as his VP and I promised a list of my top picks.  Here they are.

The Big 3

1.) Jim Webb. Matt stole my thunder on this the other day.  After it’s all said and done I’m hoping this guy is still standing; I really think he would be the best not only as next in line to the presidency but also as someone who can balance the ticket.  First, to be frank, Read the rest of this entry »

It’s true.  Al Gore just sent me an email:

“A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges — including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.

I’ve never asked members of AlGore.com to contribute to a political campaign before, but this moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.

That’s why I am asking you to join me today in showing your support for Barack Obama by making a contribution to his campaign today.”

I guess this is great. BUT — it sure would’ve been better had it happened about 3 months ago.  Oh well.

Disclaimer: Anyone who knows me or has read this blog much knows that I am no fan of the Clintons.  This list reflects that and should be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore some of these are serious and some are probably just outrageous. I do think there are very serious reasons why Obama shouldn’t choose Clinton, but as long as this process has been I think we have to poke a little fun at it too.

Since at least January people have been talking up the so-called “dream ticket.” I don’t like it.  I thought it was a bad idea from the start regardless of who is on top.  But, now that all that is taken care of here are a few (or eight) reasons why I think Barack Obama shouldn’t pick Clinton has his VP.

The Serious Reasons

1. Unity won’t be a problem. The Democratic party will be as united as it’s going to be in November regardless of whether Hillary Clinton is on the ticket.  We see this all the time in elections.  Candidates fight tooth and nail during the primary season, they develop a cult-like following, and when it’s all said and down one is left standing.  The other endorses the winner, and while the loser’s supporters may seem bitter at first, they usually come around.¹  Now, I know there is a case to be made that this Read the rest of this entry »

1. Remember Howard Dean in 2004? Not as big of a deal, but still a good recent example. [↩]

This was a big weekend politically speaking.  At least two major things happened.

First, Barack Obama officially “resigned” (does anyone else find that to be weird terminology?) his membership at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.  To me, this is unfortunate.  From a political point of view, I completely understand why Obama did it and perhaps it is the best for Trinity as well since members have been badgered and the congregation has been put under the microscope the last several months. (An aside, this is really great article on the whole matter, spot on I think)

But, this is a bit troubling too.  I agree with Jeremy, have we really reached the point of driving our politicians away from their faith communities? As much as I’d like to disbelieve it, it seems that our poisonous, divisive, political arena has become so politicized and partisan that many our elected officials, and in this case even our viable candidates, cannot be involved in a faith community at all. Apparently, the president of the UCC agrees.   That’s sad.  

And on a certain level, I can’t help but wonder if all of this driving away is related to the bitter taste we have in our mouth from the past (and in some cases still present) dominance of the religious right and the “moral majority” in politics.  Hmmm.

Second, the Democratic National Committee did a good thing and a bad thing this weekend in their decision to retain all Florida and Michigan delegates from their primaries with the penalty of half a vote.  Ultimately all of this comes down to the rules and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “every person’s vote being counted” as the Clinton campaign keeps preaching.  I support voter’s rights just as much as the most stringent Clinton supporter, but the fact is both Florida and Michigan blatantly disregarded the rules the decided by the DNC.  And that’s all there is too it.  The broke the rules.  They have to be penalized.  It has nothing to do with voters being disenfranchised.  The states thought they were above the law and they have to answer for that.  Period.

So, the good thing.  The DNC allowed the Florida results to stand with all the delegates retain half a vote. That’s fair.  Both Clinton and Obama were on the ballot and neither actively campaign there.  So, the vote is acknowledged while allowing the penalty to take effect.  The result is Clinton gets 105 pledged delegates from Florida and Obama gets 67.  Like I said, pretty fair.

The bad thing.  Although I am a public Obama supporter, I disagree with the DNC’s decision concerning Michigan.  The decision is the same as Florida, but the circumstances a very different.  Clinton received the majority of the vote in Michigan and Obama didn’t even appear on the ballot.  Neither candidate actively campaigned in the state.  However, the DNC’s decision gave Clinton her recorded vote and then proceeded to give all the “uncommitted” vote to Obama.  Now, I know most of those uncommitted voters were likely for Obama, but not all of them were and at that point in time Clinton and Obama weren’t the only candidates in the race.  So I don’t think Obama deserves all the uncommitted vote because it never was completely his in the first place.  The result in Michigan is that Clinton received 69 pledged delegates to Obama’s 59.  Not very fair in my opinion.

The bottom line: none of this really matters anyway.  Before the DNC’s ruling, Obama led Clinton by 202.  His lead has been cut to 174, but it’s still enough.  The numbers simply aren’t there for Clinton.  Obama will be the Democratic nominee.  That will become overwhelmingly clear tomorrow night.  I doubt it will become official.  I hope it does, but the Clinton camp has vowed to take this all the way the the rules and credentials committee the end of this month.  

But, it won’t matter.  It’s over.  And I’m becoming more convinced the Hillary Clinton is hell bent on hurting Obama’s chances as much as she can by carrying this on so she might have a chance in 2012.