HEADLINE: Obama casts self as "historic, even DIVINE" civil rights successor

Holy moly, he is really going messianic on us.

=====

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) cast himself Sunday as a natural and necessary heir to the civil rights greats, appealing to black worshippers to show the courage of their forerunners and back his candidacy for president.

In an unannounced appearance that startled most in the African-American congregation, Obama cast his campaign in historic and even divine terms.

He said that, like Moses, the civil rights pioneers had been to the mountaintop but did not reach the promised land, leaving it to today’s generation to finish the job, much as Joshua succeeded Moses.

“We have inherited this opportunity from the Moses generation ... who have teed it up for us,” he said.

“I didn’t have to go to jail. I haven’t had my head beat in - haven’t had dogs and fire hoses set on me. So I’m benefiting from what the Moses generation did. ... The question is whether the Joshuas among us are willing to stand up, are willing to be counted, are willing to vote, are willing to organize, are willing to mobilize, are willing to get going.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/26/politics/politico/main3538762.shtml

The contrast between Clinton and Obama at church is striking.

Being spiritual and prayerful is one thing, but claiming the divine right is simply out of line.

BTW "Cloven Hoof"? :rofl:

even some Pagans believe in Pan which has Cloven Feet.... I hope you meant the X-tian form of Satan? :hippie:

Moses was our mythic leader, but never NEVER worshipped as a god.

But sometimes things like the truth are minor distractions. The "quoted" part in the OP's headline is also not accurate.

Just sayin'.

LOL,

He didn't claim to be "divine," that's the projection of a poorly written CBS News article. They didn't get it. There is an historic rhythm to this - Bill Clinton knew it well, and did it well. I am not an Obama supporter, but I have no problem with this. Others have reached out in this way, too, and touched all of us.

It's either a poorly written article, or people "bashing" him for his views on abortion and gay rights. And frankly, to cast Obama in Dr. King's shoes is preliminary and presumptious. Just my opinion.

Like I said, I'm not an Obama supporter, but this appeal is highly traditional, and Bill Clinton did it just as Obama has tried to do it. I'm not putting him in Dr. King's shoes, only saying that his visit to that particular church is a continuation of that tradition of reaching out to black churchgoers.

Geez, lighten up. He visited a church, and cut loose with some traditional rhetoric. It will happen again. There is no "fault" here to be assessed.

he says women need to be prayerful when considering abortions. I do not want a preacher as President.

I normally steer clear of the hatred here pitting one candidate against another, and like I said, I am not an Obama supporter. Just thought it was interesting that a black church visit would set things off like this.

Save at least a piece of your anger for the Republicans. And I didn't at all like Obama's affiliating himself with an anti-gay person, either. I just don't think you can extrapolate a whole lot from this church visit. Stick to the anti-gay concerns, and you have a stronger argument.

And the anti-gay concerns stem exactly from this holy evangelical bent that Obama has gotten on. Believe me, I have plenty of ire for Republicans, but I don't want to replace one phony religious administration with one that sounds potentially anti-gay and anti-choice.

and I'm thinking of his 2004 Democratic Convention speech, bothered me with his god language. He sounded like a liberal for a while (during that speech) but then I remember him talking religion. I came away not being as impressed as many people were with him. I had no idea he would go overboard like this though.

Were the original leftists.

(Of course, many secular so-called "liberals" are NOT leftists and will
only be satisfied if social issues (alien or irrelevant to working class)
concerns remain at the top of the agenda, with crucial civil liberties
and economic issues continue to get lip service while neolibs like
Clinton et al. are praised.

They are every bit as obsessed with sexual politics as the right wing
evangelicals, something that has little to do with the traditional
struggle of the religious left, including MLK and the black church
in the 60s. Moreover, like the radicals in Spain, they make the
fatal mistake of conceding an entire branch of human experience to
the fascists, allowing them to take it over and use it by driving
their fellow liberals from the ranks of the publically religious.)

Freaking uppity, over-reactive homos. :sarcasm:

Oops, sorry, Christianity (especially the black church) is inherently
homophobic and anyone who is a publically religious in a black church
should be shunned. My bad.

Shouldn't this apply to all references to practicing Muslims?
A practicing Muslim should not be allowed to discuss his religion
in public nor rouse a mosque with liberal interpretations of the Koran
while running for office.

Liberal interpretations of the Koran and the Bible are reserved for those
we are not expected to take seriously.

Just like black evangelicals.

It should be like polio.

Indeed, positive interpretations of the Koran (and the Bible) should
be dismissed and laughed at since those texts are overtly racist,
fascist and homophobic (according to many people here.)

That way, only interpretations that are racist, fascist and homophobic
will be commonly agreed upon and society will generally be accepted as
racist, fascist and homophobic (and resigned to said state) as long as
religion is openly professed by the majority.

Heighten the contradictions.

Don't co-opt terminology of meaning and belief if you can cede it to
your enemy instead, in fact, let's cede all discourse to the enemy
since human discourse is inherently tainted by evil motivations.

The secular upper middle class has already ceded the discourse of capitalist science, R/T and economics, the entire world view of how the secular machinery of our civilization works, to the fascists. Every time neo-liberal solutions are discussed by "enlightened, secular" voters who believe in "progress" as defined in the language of the post-war, post-Reagan era, this is true.

Having ceded the language of science to the technocrats, let's cede the language of religion to the gay-bashers.

Using Newspeak, let's create a new Eden of communications unsullied and unpopulated by our enemies (oops, there's an unwanted metaphor.)

Either as racist, a religion hater/atheist, a hysterical homo, or some other choice slur. It's never because Obama himself is doing something untoward. I myself am a member of the "religion-hating-atheist-hysterical-homo" faction, it seems. This because I don't like a presidential candidate who has his lips permanently affixed to the rear ends of evangelicals who happen to want gays to repress who they are at their very core--or else (among other things).

He's also reaching out to white Evangelicals like Rick Warren. He's treading a fine line between paying homage to the role of spirtuality in the Black Civil Rights tradition and straight-up pandering to the Holy Rollers.

It's exectly like "Gore claimed to invent the Internet." Deliberate distortion = a lie.

panderer, but his speech sounds too much like a poor imitation of Dr. MLK and it sickens me to read it.

He is appealing to a part of the population who's support he needs and what a wonderful thing it would be to have an african american as president and a role model. I think the metaphor he is going for as it being the next generation and next step up.

His "divine" campaign has had spokesmen speak out against gays and says women need to be prayerful beofre considering an abortion. I don't want a preacher as President.

They especially detest the black church.

although i still don't support his candidacy.

or Sen. Obama.

Edwards is looking like the best bet.

that one wonders if they even remember there are other people worth speaking to, as well. It seems that they're still stuck in '00 where the church vote was "big"

That includes many non-Christians.

Too many secular, upper middle class professionals, when they hear, say,
a Bedouin teacher say on the Discovery channel (in English) that the
Sahara is a "spiritual place... that makes you think about your place in
the universe" respond silently and condescendingly with baptist-mouth and
clenched teeth. They regard any discussion of spirituality as naive and
fit only to be tolerated from the mouths of their less educated allies.
At worst, they regard the entire zeitgeist of working class religious
belief as inherently inferior and hostile to civilized impulses, a force
to be overcome through education and retraining, much the same way as
more-sympathetic colonists viewed American Indians and their beliefs.

Be spiritual. Be religious. And I don't mind when they talk to the people with these approaches.

It's simply that every time I look, our candidates seem to be standing behind a podium at a church, or they're at a church picnic, or something like that. I wish they would realize two things.

1) There are plenty of other opportunities they can take to speak. I'm sure any number of colleges would love to have a presidential candidate come in, as would countless town halls.

and

2) The people who vote exclusively over how "religious" a candidate is are not going to be voting Democratic, period. We're not going to "catch" those votes and tell you the truth, I think it's better that way.

he's speaking in the plural, not singular. He's calling on the new generation to take up the job and get to it, not patting himself on the back here.

But reading the actual quotes, and after hearing the guest (an African American minister who had counseled Clinton through his second term, btw) I do believe the intent was universal not personal.

When he was on Tom Joyner's show recently, he said "this is a once in a lifetime opportunity." In other words, he seems to believe that there will never be another viable African-American candidate for President again, so we better go ahead and take this opportunity now and elect him. And I found that extremely arrogant of him.

What's more, when he talked to Tavis Smiley, he said that there was no doubt that if we "consolidate the Black vote" it would have a profound impact on the polls.

When Tom Joyner interviewed Michelle Obama, he said "what is up with Black women." Meaning, Tom Joyner believes there is something wrong with Black women (like myself) who are not supporting Obama's candidacy.

I'm tired of Tom Joyner, Michelle Obama and Barack Obama basically telling me I'm black so I need to vote for the Black candidate for President.

I suspect I'd feel the same way. I'm a woman who's not too thrilled with Hillary, for instance...

I'm not decided yet myself. But I don't like to see things run away with themselves and I do think this particular instance is an example.

There's plenty of substance to criticize on all counts, I suspect. We'd do better to stick to that, IMO.

I'm guessing he appointed himself. And note to Obama: you don't speak for me.

The even more important question I have, though is: who says we as African-Americans, need some heir apparent to the civil rights greats?

We ALL stand on the shoulders of the people who came before us. We ALL stand on the shoulders of people like Fannie Lou Hamer, Shirley Chislom, Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, and so, so many more. And I don't think it's up to one single African-American to continue the fight. It's up to ALL African-Americans. We are not a monolithic group, and we don't need a spokesperson. We ALL need to step up.

He is so fucking full of himself.

It's not even the religious shit that bothers me, because I know how the game is played. The problem is it's really fucking tacky to set yourself up as some kind of new messiah for civil rights, especially when you've gone on record sneering at the accomplishments of the previous generation.

You know at one point I was excited about Obama and now it's like every other day he is talking some bullshit. I am this close to actively hating the man.

We have inherited this opportunity from the Moses generation ... who have teed it up for us,” he said.

“I didn’t have to go to jail. I haven’t had my head beat in - haven’t had dogs and fire hoses set on me. So I’m benefiting from what the Moses generation did. ... The question is whether the Joshuas among us are willing to stand up, are willing to be counted, are willing to vote, are willing to organize, are willing to mobilize, are willing to get going.”

He's not Joshua. He's part of the Joshua generation.

I'm saddened by the McClurkin episode, and I'll be voting for Dodd in my primary because of it. But I'd be more that proud to pull the lever for Barack next November if he's the candidate.

Nobody, of course. Because you are not claiming to be the heir apparent. You are instead saying ... the exact same thing that Obama said. That this "generation" needs to take up where the previous left up.

So unless Obama considers himself an entire generation unto himself, then you and he would seem to agree.

To prevent a CNN--fixed, stage managed, Giuliani-Clinton race.

That is the only "race" that sets Obama apart since he is the most viable second-tier alternative to another PURE neoliberal/neocon presidency (in the face of constant, nonstop CNN references to Clinton as the heir apparent and Obama only in reference to Clinton, sort of "who does he think he is, thinking he can measure up to Clinton, whose values are the values of most liberals" rhetoric);

the fact that Obama is black is irrelevant.

If he were more obviously tied to the black community, thru culture and upbringing, as to make race an issue (enough of an issue for WHITE commentators to discuss why Obama was so popular in the Black community, why Obama "acts so black", etc.) he wouldn't have a shot in hell and someone else would be our only hedge against another neoliberal presidency.

America will never vote for an "ethnic" president of any sort. The melting pot is more of a washing machine, intended to whiten all boats.

On Edit: not to say Edwards isn't too, but he'll only succeed if Obama fails because he is well behind the other two in most states.

"We ALL need to step up."

That includes African-Americans and the rest of us, too.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

but will he be able to fulfill what he feels is his destiny? we will find out in the coming months.

<-----------used to be Obama

And it will be again if he's our nominee. There's no God complex in those words. He doesn't say he IS the Joshua of the civil rights movement. He's a member of the Joshua generation. It's an extraordinary paradigm and good on him for making it.

Gee ... thanks for passing on the corporatist lie of the week. :eyes:

And how is it twisted, did he not refer to Moses and Joshua etc?

Do your homework, please.

I need a lecture from you all of a sudden.

... just tell yourself it's in style. :eyes:
'faygokid' tried to give you a heads-up (or -out) and you blew him off. He's right. You're wrong.

And I am not wrong. Prayerful abortions. Gaybashing emceees. Kingdom on earth. Enough.

But by all means, if he floats you boat, go for it.

“We have inherited this opportunity from the Moses generation ... who have teed it up for us,” he said.

Fascinating.

I heard his extra wives had a red line to Vegas.

he parted the water hazard on the the 7th at St. Andrews. Heard he can turn his 9 iron into a serpent too.

Can we hold the election tomorrow, so that he can just lose and go away?

With a quote taken completely out of context, I might add. Read the damn article, people! He makes a few largely metaphoric biblical references to Joshua and Moses, and now he's been smeared as the heir apparent to Pat Robertson.

But who cares--those of you that hate him to an unreasonable degree aren't going to stop attacks like this anytime soon, even though working the church circuit is standard campaign territory for any presidential candidate.

I repeat, though few will listen--actually READ the goddamn article, people!

Hiring gay bashing emcees. Enough is enough. It's not one "goddamn" article, it's church after cxhurch after 700 club and CBN, and meanwhile MANY of us have lost confidence that he would represent us.

You posted this with a attention-grabbing as evidence that Obama is--what? Some kind of religous nutjob?--but the actual quotes in the article don't back it up.

“We have inherited this opportunity from the Moses generation ... who have teed it up for us,” he said. I didn’t have to go to jail. I haven’t had my head beat in - haven’t had dogs and fire hoses set on me. So I’m benefiting from what the Moses generation did. ... The question is whether the Joshuas among us are willing to stand up, are willing to be counted, are willing to vote, are willing to organize, are willing to mobilize, are willing to get going.”

Yep, that's REAL damning stuff.

If this is the best you can do to defend your views of him, you look pretty desperate in my opinion. 700 club? What the hell are you babbling about?

But, again, you weren't going to vote for him anyway, so who cares?

And actually I was going to vote for him before he started pandering to church groups at the expense of gays and women.

Apparently.

It's too bad that MLK couldn't be around to slap some common sense into the man.

Note to Obama: Golf and religious metaphors don't mix. Period.

It reads as anti-Civil Rights era, big-business, "if you are saved you'll
do well in life and get a big house and get to play golf and live in your
own neighborhoods like white suburbanites" Baptism.

Honestly this is a very typical analogy for Civil Rights leaders to make. Martin Luther King is considered the Moses with new leaders claiming the mantle of Joshua, who was the first leader of the Israelites in the promised land. This one doesn't bother me much.

warning women to be prayerful about abortion. You know, things that I "babble" about according to bicoastal.

I want a President, not a pope.

in Civil Rights lore. Here I really do think you are overreading.

Obama has a long way to go before he is in the ranks of Parks, Chisholm, King, Jordan, etc.

His contempt for the Peace and Love generation is well-documented. He's got some nerve declaring himself a civil rights leader when he routinely sneers at the very people who's marching made it possible for him to run for president.

and a leading Presidential candidate, I think he has some claim.

You're disrupting our smear party with facts!

Those other US Senators didn't deserve to be compared to Joshua either, so I don't see why Obama deserves the position. A big part of why MLK is considered Moses is because of the way he suffered for the cause. How has Obama's life, and the sacrifices he's made (if any), mirrored Joshua's life?

so I can't really answer that. I presumed it was more to do with leadership than suffering.

so I'm gonna reference my presidential campaign in biblical terms.

and I think I agree:

"It was one of the most compelling rationales Obama has articulated for a campaign that has been sidetracked by missteps and mudslinging but that now sees the possibility of upsetting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the make-or-break Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3."

...started this experiment in the first place.

I don't dislike Obama, but his political chops leave much to be desired.

You should be ashamed. There is a stark difference between declaring oneself divine and using religious language regarding the fight for civil rights.

Yes, he was being somewhat arrogant in his speech, assuming that no other candidate stands for civil rights as he does. But he was certainly not claiming divinity.

PS Who are you and where have you been when Obama hired ex-gay clowns to emcee his events?

There's plenty to take issue with regarding Obama without stretching. Being angry at him for the whole McClurkin fiasco? Justified.

This? Intellectually dishonest garbage at best.

Abridging for space considerations, no problem. Selectively quoting to change meaning. Big problem.

Reading the link, it's apparent he's trying to sound like the new Martin Luther King, Jr. It's so transparent, I'm embarrassed he's one of our candidates.

I remember when I listened to Obama's speech during the 2004 Democratic convention, I was turned off by his talking about God. Little did I know how holy-shmoley he would be.

Ugh.

It's quite deep and quite beautiful.

And this bit from that speech is right on the mark:

Obama said society’s disparities “between black and white remain as large as ever,” creating an atmosphere where “you are seeing people pay attention in this election in a way they haven’t paid attention in a long time.”

“I don’t want to get too political here, but obviously, they’re not real pleased about what George Bush has done,” Obama said. “We were promised compassionate conservatism but got Katrina and wiretaps instead. We were promised a uniter, and we got a president who couldn’t even lead the half of the country that voted for him.”

No, I am not pleased that he let Donnie McClurkin sing at one of his rallies. However, I very much agree with his philosophy of teaching by inclusion. Alienation and division teach nothing. You don't get people to change by shutting them out. Obama is not shutting the religious or the GLBT community. Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIQLwe-MmxY

You speak of the "religious" as though the anti-gay evangelicals to which he pandered to are solely what constitutes the "religious" in America.

He sold out gay America with the McClurkin stunt. He has been on 700 Club, Christian Broadcasting Network, etc., yet has ignored interview requests from major gay publications, and gave The Advocate a FIFTEEN MINUTE interview.

He pandered, and it backfired.

I have no problem condemning fundamental, dispensationalist types. Their leaders are con men and their followers are blind. Just the same, there are millions - billions of good people all over this world who do believe in some deity or follow some faith and to dismiss and insult them is in my view, shameful.

Do you really believe that the audience of that particular concert were all anti-gay? Did you even read what Mr. Obama said in response in the Advocate?

The Advocate: How did this happen? Was Mr. McClurkin vetted?

Senator Obama: Obviously, not vetted to the extent that people were aware of his attitudes with respect to gay and lesbians, LGBT issues -- at least not vetted as well as I would have liked to see.

Having said that, we viewed this simply as an opportunity to have a gospel concert as part of our overall outreach, and since he was singing at a concert along with a number of other artists, as opposed to being a spokesperson for us, probably it didn’t undergo the same kind of vet that someone who was serving as a surrogate for me might have.

One concert. One regrettable choice. As for your claim that he "has ignored interview requests from major gay publications"...name me one GLBT publication that is more major than the Advocate?

As for Mr. Obama's stance on equal rights for GLBT in the area of marriage, I believe he made it quite clear in the YouTube I provided. Did you watch it?

The "prayerful" thing I'll ignore because I assume you are collecting outrages and threw that one in so your list would appear larger.

One again, I ask, do you know what the term Kingdom on Earth means?

He did NOT just sing, he emceed, and he finished the concert with a half-hour anti-gay sermonette. i have seen the YouTube and unfortunately must tell you that I think talk is cheap and that he pandered away any faith the GLBT community can have in him.

As to the kingdom on earth definition, I just quote the Senator verbatim:

"We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

And again, I want a President, not a preacher.

And I see you have your mind made up and nothing I say will stop you from demonizing this man.

Just the same, I will explain what the term means with a personal story.

I almost married a man who is now dead. He at one time was heavily involved with the Jehovah's Witnesses. He was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and was on his way to becoming a (excuse my ignorance if this is incorrect) deacon. Then he had a revelation. He said he could no longer be part of an organization that tells people "Be good children and you will be rewarded...WHEN YOU'RE DEAD" He believed this philosophy to be both insulting and designed to keep people from demanding their right to a KINGDOM ON EARTH.

Sadly, that man was also gay. Sad, because he was terrorized by his male relatives and pacified by his religious mother. He was so confused and so torn that he lived a public life as a straight man while secretly meeting for unplanned, unprotected trysts with other men. He died of complications from AIDS in 1993. He was never allowed to experience his Kingdom on Earth because of the shame that both religion and homophobia instilled in him.

I believe that Barack Obama is sincere in his desire to teach through inclusion. I like him a lot. I am leaning towards him but I would also be happy to vote for pretty much any of the current candidates. The republicans have done nothing but divide us and cause us to hate each other instead of teaching us to accept each other.

I'm glad he said that. There are a few things that he's said or done that I thought were errors. But this is a positive point. I'm glad he said it.

Whatever. :eyes:

And you name yourself "Golden Rule". Whatever. :eyes:

a personal attack here.

Even though you were so ready to jump in at me because we had a go round a few weeks ago, which was also a misunderstanding, but try telling you that.

Why not start practicing the Golden Rule by not jumping down peoples throats every time they turn around why don't you?

It's not about you.

Jeez.

p.s. Why literally translate my user name? Are you actually a "Blue Bear"? FYI-I don't call myself "The Golden Rule". The name is intended to blast the holier than thou, lying, fake religious bastards in Washington D.C. and elsewhere like * & Co. Their FAKE religious b.s. is what made me sit up and take notice about what was happening to this country and is what brought me to DU. I guess I need to explain this in my signature since it seems fair game to attack me-the messenger-instead of the bastards in charge.

p.s.s. After reading the thread through, I can see we are on the same page with this. I don't want a preacher for President either. If you read any of my posts on this subject you will see that.

Forgive me?

It's all good. :hi:

we get it by now, we really do...

I don't read this as Obama claiming a divine right to be a leader. I read it as him stating that he recognizes a responsibility to continue the human rights struggle begun by others before him. Just as leaders in the past took up where others left off, we now have a responsibility to continue what others began.

I think that we ALL have that responsibility. African Americans are no more nor less obligated than everyone else to continue the human rights struggle.

Sounds to me like he is make sure the fight for racial inequality continues on under his watch if he becomes president.

in his J&J speech. It was kind of alarming to me, and I was surprised nobody else picked up on it.

If he keeps it up, I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose his next senate election.