What really puts me off Obama and what surprises me about his base

[snagglepuss]

is the acceptance of his preachifying rhetoric and religiosity. His sermonizing tones drives me up the proverbial wall. Haven't Americans got enough of that? Maybe its because I'm a Canuck and up here we are spared displays of religiosity in most political figures and thank God in heaven for that.

Everybody and their mother was shocked when a biography of Pierre Trudeau came out and it was revealed that Trudeau was a deeply devout Catholic. He absolutely never made it public. Trudeau brought in Canada's Human Rights Charter which has made gay marriage possible in Canada and he opened Canadian immigration to non-whites. Not too shabby especially since all this was done without any credit going to God.

Tommy Douglas, father of Canadian medicare was a Baptist minister but it was never in the foreground. He never waxed on about religion. He didn't talk the talk. He saw people who couldn't afford health care suffering and he made it his mission to change that and change it he did without moaning on about God.

As Charles Hanson Towne says in his poem,

I need not shout my faith. Thrice eloquent
Are quiet trees and the green listening sod;
Hushed are the stars, whose power is never spent;
the hills are mute: yet how they speak of God!

[Connie_Corleone]

1. Considering Obama has smears going around about him being a Muslim manchurian candidate...

he has to keep bringing it up for those people who don't know that he is not a Muslim in some sleeper cell.

[PurityOfEssence]

81. Just how much do we OWE this guy, and for what?

Please, someone answer me that.

Yes, he's in major compensation mode and has to out-god the god-crazed just to disprove the Muslim rumors. Great. Why's that my fault? The net outcome for this personal need to cover his tracks is that we have to risk the EXTREMELY DANGEROUS injection of more religion into our politics, and worse than that, accept the NEED for religion in politics. This is also not proof that he doesn't truly believe his tactics and won't shove more god down our throats and infuse it deeper into the body politic with the consequence of further disenfranchising those of us who don't agree.

Religion is dangerous and it has unintended consequences. The McClurkin affair is screaming proof of the ugliness organized religion compels one to ally oneself with.

Obama supporters piss and moan about how Clinton can't admit a mistake and has to be more stern in her foreign policy statements, but this is just her own personal compensation to forestall accusations of feminine weakness. Why are her compensations unholy and intolerable when his are easily as dangerous and much more prejudiced and intolerant, yet they're something we should be proud to bear because he's so much "better" a person? I, for one, don't buy the basic premise; a "nice" or "inclusive" person NEVER would have done anything like the race-baiting, religiously xenophobic vote-harvesting of the McClurkin affair. "Nice" people don't do that. It's easily a much worse thing than anyone in either party has done in this cycle, and much as I don't like Hillary Clinton, she's NEVER done anything as mean-spirited and calculated as that.

Just why do we OWE this man so much? What has he really done? He's been a community organizer and a legislator with a spotty record with more "presents" than there are under the biggest Christmas tree you ever did see. He makes expedient allegiances with questionable people, sloppy statements and grandiloquent emotion-laden conjurings of a rosy and vague future, all the while playing the field for position and glorying in the faddish cult of the personality to a degree that's dangerous for progressivism.

Why is this guy such a god-on-earth that we should be willing to risk so much just to help him compensate for VERY detrimental life-history issues? Why are so many so willing to risk everything for this guy when he can't even show up to vote against the Iran "Sense of the Senate" that he makes so much grandstanding hay out of by slagging Clinton with it? Why are his ties to medicine-for-money completely tolerated, especially when his health care plan plays more to their interests than to society's at large?

The very taste and feel of this movement is that of a faith-based campaign: just believe in him as a superlative organism, and he'll do the right thing, regardless of past actions or inactions.

These people are competing to be our employees; THEY OWE US, WE DON'T OWE THEM.

The very flavor of this campaign smacks of cocksure religion, and that's not pluralism by any stretch of the imagination.

Yet somehow it's our moral duty to risk everything on a risky candidate and "believe" that he won't do what it sounds like he's doing: enthrone religion as a necessary facet of society as it's never been done before. We're being asked to specifically believe that he WON'T do what he seems to be doing. That's the stuff of blind adulation, not rationality.

[chimpymustgo]

85. Purity, would you post this separately? It should be read and considered by all.

:hi:

[Abacus]

2. Does he shout his faith?

I heard him talk about it in South Carolina, but Hillary did at least as much. (I heard her on NPR addressing a crowd "This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it" Yes, she said "hath".) I've also heard him talk about it when defending accusations that he is Muslim, which I think is perfectly legitimate. Or do you mean more in regards to his speaking style? In that case, I've always thought preachers sounded like politicians. :shrug:

Edited for typo.

[snagglepuss]

12. " kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me.

I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."




http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.html

[Abacus]

19. That's from his book,

Audacity of Hope. If I were writing an autobiographical text, it would almost certainly contain my process of arriving at agnosticism.

[snagglepuss]

26. You take his assertion at face value. I am cynical. I think Obama

knew his political ambitions would be well served by such effusiveness.

[Abacus]

29. I think he'd have chosen

a more mainstream church if that were the case; but assuming you are correct for a moment, I honestly don't see anything different in Hillary, our only other alternative currently.

[snagglepuss]

33. I myself was routing for Edwards and still disappointed he dropped out

so my thoughts about Obama aren't meant as an endorsement of Hillary. What makes Hillary more tolerable to me in so far as her GodTalk goes is that it doesn't ooze so much Oprah. Her style is Episcopalian as opposed to Evangelical.

[Abacus]

35. Edwards was my integrity choice,

Barack is my leadership choice. I hope to see them on the same ticket.

[JoFerret]

59. Edwards fan here too

Hillary is the excellent back-up. Her expertise, competence and courage are outstanding.
Obama....well...a good vp choice for this season.

[JoFerret]

58. vomit

.

[jody]

3. Why resist, look into my eyes, you are getting sleepy . . . . . .

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. ...

:spray:

[enid602]

4. persona

Unfortuantely, charisma requires that you take on a persona; the last guy was a fake cowboy.

[snagglepuss]

36. That's very illuminating observation. Please expand.

What I'm understanding from this is that a persona gives others a handle, it makes people with a persona seem familiar.

[enid602]

46. persona

I can't really expand on it, but it just seems to me sort of a marketing gimmick. It sure was for Bush; however ridiculous the fake cowboy was, it was more palatable than his real personality, at least what we've seen of it.

[Taverner]

5. To win in US Politics, Jesus has to be your homeboy

McCain, who is an Atheist (read about some of his post-POW quotes. 'God is dead to me' is one of them.) even has to play Christian for the cameras.

It's a pain in the ass, and evidence of the lust for theocracy that has always been on the Christian's minds here.

[The Anti-Bush]

13. Like it or not, it is true. The VAST majority of this country is religious,

or at least spiritual. You aren't going anywhere without them.

[snagglepuss]

18. But to play the devils advocate. Isnt Obama promising change?

His assertion that "kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth." To me that seems like the same old same old.

[cliffordu]

82. Well, since He IS the antichrist, He has to look religious, doesn't he?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Auntie Bush]

83. I am always surprised when I see your name as I used to be Anti Bush

before we had a name change. I still use it on a lot of sites.

[RiverStone]

6. I'm not religious in any way...

And believe Obama inspires the best of what we can be, rather than the worst. Ye again here is another post critical of Obama's ability to inspire - by the hundreds of thousands - new voters, cross over voters, and on the fence voters - to GET INVOLVED.

And any preachy tone you hear is nothing compared to having another RW wacko appointed to SCOTUS. You want REAL religiosity infused in our homes and schools - a McCain win would do that!

Obama insures that would not happen.

[indimuse]

7. and HIS finger pointing!

..

[sandnsea]

8. Liberal Democrats have to take back religion

It's one of the reasons I support him. Somebody has got to start talking about the entirety of religion and stop letting one small faction of people define God for the entire world. You better be grateful he's doing it because it might well be the only thing that prevents a global religious war.

[theboss]

9. America loves black preachers.

From Martin Luther King to Malcolm X to James Brown in "The Blues Brothers."

Put a black man in the pulpit and Americans listen.

I honestly believe that if Obama stopped during a debate and played the opene versus of Hoochie Coochie Man on guitar, he would win a 49-state landslide.

[crispini]

23. SNORT.

And, yes, there is some truth to that.

[Bake]

43. I've seen him dance, so I don't think he's got enough rhythm to play guitar.

Just sayin'...

Bake

[CyberPieHole]

77. Yeah, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and mini~ster Farrakhan would win in land~slides too.

:rofl:

[The Anti-Bush]

10. Seeing as how you don't get a vote...

And don't live in our country, I don't really care about your opinions of our candidates. It is what it is, and I find it simply amazing that this is the stuff you guys have to use.

And that being said, I am so encouraged, because that just means he's got it all sewed up. Thanks.

[immoderate]

16. Ever heard of "Sphere of Influence?"

Canadians are affected by our decisions.

On Obama, hopefully this is a display that he needs to present to get elected. I don't care what his religious beliefs are, as long as he keeps them away from governing. I'd prefer an atheist, but that's not going to happen soon.

--IMM

[snagglepuss]

27. Non Americans would have to be related to idiotboy not to realize

America's role in the world which is why non-Americans follow US elections closely.

[snagglepuss]

24. That's sad because had Americans had paid heed to non-Americans

you guys wouldn't be saddled with the a trillion dollar Iraq war/ with Bush/ with a massive deficit. Need I go on?

[IsItJustMe]

67. The way I look at it, it's impossible to pick sides on a round planet. We are all in this together,...

like it or not, in one way or another. Your insight is most welcomed to this DU er.

[juajen]

28. Sorry, Canadian neighbor, glitterbabies got no couth!

Enough said.

[debbierlus]

11. His tone is self important & condescending....It drives me nuts as well

I never have understood this 'brilliant communicator' thing....he has a thumping, preaching tone. And, I have nothing but a negative association with that type of presentation.

I can't even watch him. I dislike watching him as much as Bush (but for very different reasons.

[The Anti-Bush]

15. Just because you dont understand doesn't make it condescending.

It just makes you uninformed.

[Omega3]

32. "condescending", yes just like his followers, your post says it all

[Political Heretic]

41. LOL ok, even though I support Obama, I LOL'ed at the irony of this post.

:rofl:

[JoFerret]

60. Just because you don't know how I feel

...is no excuse for dismissing what I know.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. I can't stand to watch him. Like you, I dislike watching him as much as bu$h, too.

Fake and phony all the way.

[Voice for Peace]

45. If you don't listen to him, you'll miss what he has to say. I did this for awhile with Bush.

I used to have an allergy to anything, even a photograph, of GWBush.
If I heard his voice on the radio, I would turn it off. If he came on tv,
change the channel as quickly as possible.

One day I decided to find out what my extreme allergy was about.

I concluded that it was coming from a fear I had. It was a fear that he
might actually make sense to intelligent people, which would prove that
the evil policies really were unstoppable. I didn't want to feel that hopeless
or victimized.

So I started listening to him as often as possible, and watching him closely
when he spoke, and generally trying to see & hear him without any bias.

It was a great shift. Seeing first hand how stupid he was, getting very clear
for myself about what it was I didn't like about him, and why he shouldn't
be president, and how bad he is for this country and the world. Also --
putting the sorrows and crises of humanity and the earth aside -- he is
hilarious. Like taking a strange voyage with or without hallucinogens.
The utter absurdity that this guy could be the leader of the free world.
Tuning into the Bizarro world, as many have said.

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. Obama is a liar and I don't like liars.

[Voice for Peace]

62. Are you a liar too?

[VotesForWomen]

14. yep; the preacher style is a big turn-off, and scary as well. nt

[JoFerret]

57. Creepy creepy

...reminds me of the office sex pest after diversity training.(still creepy but no longer out of bounds)

[AGirl]

17. I love my Tommy!

[Bluerthanblue]

20. the responses on this thread are sexist- but not to Hillary's favor-

If you are going to cry 'sexism' - then the "Preacher" threads here are sexist.

People who claim they can't listen to him???? His 'tone' turns them off-

Hmmmm...... "shrill" anyone????

:shrug:


we suck- on all sides.

[juajen]

31. Since almost all preachers are male, no sexism involved.

But, it was funny. I can't listen to him either. We could start a thread.

[NorthernSpy]

34. Hey -- male is a sex, too!

You don't think it's possible to be sexist against men?

[snagglepuss]

39. You have totally lost me. The only sexist comment is yours since you

are assuming all preachers are men. Turn on Christian broadcasting and female preachers are falling all over each other.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. there also many shrill men- male prostitutes- men who 'feel down'

but those have been labled 'sexist' comments when applied to Hillary.

Show me a well known woman preacher that the OP would liken to Obama-?


:shrug:

peace~

[LisaM]

21. Yes, I agree with you. I got a call from Obama's campaign months ago

And I said that very thing - I said, I don't like how he invokes religious, and talks in a kind of evangelical way (I can't remember exactly what I said, though I've posted it here before). I mentioned that I would like religion and politics to be kept separate.

The caller told me in all honesty, "But that's what people WANT".

I politely told him, "but you're asking for MY support". The conversation ended. But I stand by what I said.

[DemGa]

22. Yep, and it's the TWO FACES of Obama

The preachifying soaring platitudes Obama, and the debate/conference Obama -- two different people. Which is the facade?

[jpak]

25. And "Canucks" would prefer the speechifying style of That Asshole John McCain???

:rofl:

[Darth_Kitten]

48. No, we just don't fall for all the superficial rhetoric.....

from anybody really.

[blocker]

30. Heres what turns me off from clinton!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/What_is_it_about_3_am_.html#comments

[Reality Check]

37. I hear ya!

[NastyRiffraff]

42. I have no idea how genuinely religious Obama is

Nor do I care, about his religion or any other candidate's. I long for the day when someone running for political office doesn't feel the need to pander to religion. Most politicians do, to varying degrees. The trouble I have with Obama is he seems to have internalized the messiah complex, and it shows in some of his supporters. It allows for no dissent, no criticism, no questioning. It even spawns things like: A vote for (a political rival) is undemocratic, even unpatriotic. It encourages worship instead of respect, and fosters hatred of anyone not supporting the so-called messiah. It views Obama as a savior, not as a politician who hopefully can facilitate good policiy.

I want a president, not a preacher.

[snagglepuss]

68. On one hand its true that the genuineness of his belief is beside the point.

On the other hand it is not a moot point because it goes to the question of whether this view of him as a saviou has been projected onto him by his supporters or whether he Obama cynically adopted this pose consciously, with his eye on the prize. Personally, I think it is just way too convenient to discover God in a country where politians score major brownie points if they can share a personal religious awakening.

[MadHound]

44. He's a Unitarian, geez

Not some evangelical RW fundie. Yes, he has a manner of speaking reminescent of black preachers, but lots of people have the same style. It's no big deal.

And after all, at least we know where he's coming from, he's up front about this, unlike Hillary, who's been sneaking around Washington, a member of the Fellowship, a semi-secret Washington power prayer group, where she mixes and mingles with the likes of Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, those same fine folks who want to institute a theocracy. <http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html>

[JVS]

50. Taft was a Unitarian. Obama is UCC, which is slightly more doctrinally rigid

[Bluenorthwest]

76. UCC is not at all the same as Unitarian

Not at all. UCC is the United Chruch of Christ. Mainstream Christianity. Unitarians don't even mention God much less Jesus and the blood redemptions and all of that. Not the same at all.

UCC is not a bad denomintion as such things go, and Trinty is a very open minded chruch. But they are not at all like Unitarians. Not at all.

[JVS]

78. that's right. UCC is Christian.

[LaurenG]

49. Can you point me to a religiosity type thing so I can see what you mean

Religiosity sucks but I think this is a weird thing to attack him over. I thought the latest republican talking point - hate diatribe was that he wore traditional Muslim dress.

Was it, Muslim or Christian preaching?

[snagglepuss]

64. " kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit

" kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me.
I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."


http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.html

[Recursion]

51. The last President to actively talk about his faith was Carter

The Left is under this bizarre impression that Bush talks a lot about religion and faith. He doesn't. And he certainly doesn't preach.

* talked about Jesus in the 2000 GOP primaries. That was about it, really.

[applegrove]

52. I think Obama has a little PET in him. He talks of big truths and I hope, if he wins the nomination,

that he can deliver as well as he delivers his speeches.

[shayes51]

53. Amen!

[jeffrey_X]

54. Sounds like the problem is with you.

eom

[progressive_realist]

55. As an atheist Obama supporter

I actually think this is one of his strengths. First, because he would never overcome the attempts to smear him as a Muslim if he was not overtly Christian.

Second and more importantly, I think this is a large part of what is drawing independents and Republicans to him. Based on my own personal observations, the Republicans who are switching sides to support him don't know anything more about his policies than the average Democrat does. They're being drawn on emotional and spiritual levels, not the logical one. This is the same phenomenon that the anti-Obamites decry endlessly on this board, but that is because this board is a den of godlessness. :)

Lots of people here turned against religion for one reason or another, and we are awash in agnostics, atheists, and vague "spiritualists". That's not how it is in the rest of America. The preacher-speak that some of us hate so much is part of what is making him wildly popular.

He has clearly stated in speeches that he respects us atheists, so I'm fine with the displays of religiosity. Let's face it, getting a female or black President is going to be about ten times easier than getting an atheist one. One step at a time.

[JoFerret]

56. He is the original

empty suit. All preach and pander.

Too bad because he would make an excellent vp.

[JimGinPA]

63. See You Next Wednesday

:hi:

[dailykoff]

65. Have you been watching the debates?

He doesn't use that tone at all. I've only heard him use it in a few news clips of rallies held in the South.

[gulliver]

66. For every one intellectual he turns off with it, he picks up five...

..."gut feeling" type voters. Look at the "inspire-a-matic sermonizing" that way and it becomes acceptable to intellectuals and issue voters. We really need someone who can pull in the "gut feeling" types. I'm a Hillary supporter and I have been very disappointed in her sales team. Some people buy the engine and warranty; some people buy the cool wheel covers. The salesperson's job is to sell the car.

[snagglepuss]

71. You raise a good point however given the mess Shrub has made

I think most Americans would have been happy to support almost any Democrat running for prez. I think this election would have been a rare opportunity to elect someone like Edwards who threatened powerful interests. What I find really concerning is that Obama is not changing a tone that Repukes set in place, rather he is legitimizing the mixing of God and politics:(

[gulliver]

75. Obama's growing legions are turning him into what they want.

In the end, Obama could easily threaten the powerful interests far more than Edwards ever could have. I don't see Obama's appeal as religious in the sense of superstition, but I do see it as "extra-logical." The Republicans sell a malignant demagoguery based on superstition that pretends to be religion. The Obama/people movement is not that at all. It is authentic and moving, like the sixties "Age of Aquarius" thing: will to power combined with good music.

If the Obama movement is a sale, it is a good sale. The cynic in me will be happy to have the "suckers" on board. If they vote for the things that will get America and the planet on a decent track, I don't care why they do it. If the movement is not just a sale, we are in a new and good territory. That seems too much to hope for, but it's getting closer.

[snagglepuss]

80. Very interesting comments especially your point that supporters are turning him into what they want

I really value responses like yours that present an interesting prespective as opposed to responses that imply I'm a shill for Hillary or that I have some other unstated issue with Obama.

[sueragingroz]

69. good post! (from a fellow Canuck) /nt

[Spazito]

70. Hmmm, interesting....

Comparing how Canadians view the question of religion in political races versus those in the US is, imo, like comparing apples to carrots, one is a fruit, the other a vegetable. Religion plays a much greater role in the US than it does in Canada as has been shown in multiple polls so to have candidates, both Obama and Clinton, bring it into their campaigns makes sense and I haven't seen either do it to excess.

I do find it interesting, though, you only bring up Obama in your OP and not Clinton yet both have spoken about their religious beliefs. Interesting.

[snagglepuss]

72. What makes Hillary more tolerable to me in so far as her GodTalk

goes is that it doesn't ooze so much Oprah. Her style is Episcopalian as opposed to Evangelical. My thoughts about Obama aren't meant as an endorsement of Hillary.I myself was routing for Edwards and still disappointed he dropped out.

[Spazito]

73. Edwards, too, brought his beliefs into his campaign while

he was running but, I gather, you didn't find that unsettling so I still don't get the singling out of Obama. None of the candidates (democratic) come across as Evangelical, imo. I find it interesting you bring Oprah into the issue. I am not sure how that equates to Evangelical. I am not a fan of Oprah but it is not because I find her of an "Evangelical" bent.

I find both Clinton and Obama have different speaking styles, neither are "preachy", imo. I guess we hear different things while we listen to the candidates, not unlike the US public who are the ones to decide. The one thing I DO know is either candidate will do a hell of a lot better for the American public than ANY republican.

[Johnny__Motown]

74. He needs to counter the Muslim thing. chill

[Mezzo]

79. what really puts me off is that he wasn't against the war all along...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN30M6StFfk

[snagglepuss]

84. What is clear is that Obama never raised the roof about the war.

If he believed the war was wrong why did he not rally the nation against it? Why didn't he make noise? Is it that it was politically expedient to keep low to the ground and not make waves?

[Spazito]

87. It seems you ARE advocating against Obama specifically...

otherwise why no mention of Clinton's vote in favour of the IWR or Obama's speech against the war when it wasn't popular to do so? Your biases are coming to the fore, imo.

Why DO you prefer Clinton?

[snagglepuss]

89. That is such specious reasoning. I refer to Obama because my OP

is about him. If I wanted to draw a comparison with Hillary I would have done so. The yeah-but-what-about-Hillary retort is getting so tiresome. As stated above I support Edwards and I think it a damn shame he isn't running. The OP is about his sermonizing tone, it puts me off. And I think he is pandering when he describes being on his knees and finding God. And its not just irritating, its concerning because it legitimizes the blurring between Church and state and puts politicans above reproach: so-and-so must be good not only because he has found God but because he has bared his soul to the world. Frankly the world be a better if politians didn't use God to score Brownie points.

[Spazito]

90. LOL, my point is made by your response

You are, by way of innuendo and not subtle innuendo at that, slamming Obama for something most of the candidates, including Clinton, have done.

Why not just be honest and say you prefer Clinton over Obama and that is the reason for your OP. It would stand you in greater stead, imo.

[snagglepuss]

91. Show me where Hillary describes in purple prose finding God.

I frankly I do not like Hillary and I have always despised Bill. So much for your searing insight.

[Spazito]

92. I will take up your challenge...

snip

“It has certainly been a huge part of who I am, and how I have seen the world and what I believe in, and what I have tried to do in my life,” Mrs. Clinton said in the half-hour interview devoted to her religious convictions, which her campaign granted only after months of requests.

Ever the good student, Mrs. Clinton can speak knowledgeably about St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Wesley, the father of Methodism.

On the campaign trail or in other public appearances, she increasingly is speaking more personally about faith, sprinkling in references to inspiring biblical verses ( “faith without works is dead,” from James), Jesus’ injunction to care for the needy and even her daily prayer life, which she credits to being raised in a “praying family.”

In the interview and a subsequent telephone conversation, she described her spiritual habits — she carries a Bible on her campaign travels, reads commentaries on Scripture and on other people’s “faith journeys” and spoke of experiencing “the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions.”

end of snip

From an article in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/us/politics/07clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It is a fair article and quite extensive, imo, as it talks not only of Clinton but of other candidates as well.

[stillcool]

86. I think you must have posted the wrong clip...

that was Candy Crowley with a cut-off response from Obama. Surely that is not what you meant to back up your assertion?

Obama on Iraq: Then and Now

by dpg220, Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:12:09 PM EST

Recently, questions have been raised about whether Senator Obama has been consistent on his positions on the war. Below you will find some of the common critiques leveled at Senator Obama, the sources of those critiques, and the Senator's responses.

Although I am a supporter of Senator Obama's, I view this diary as an objective account of the Senator's statements.

Here are the major criticisms being leveled at Senator Obama over his Iraq position, notably by Mark Penn, a senior member of Senator Clinton's campaign. Enclosed are both the full quotes as well as a timeline of Obama statements on Iraq.

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Obama noted that once the war
began, "...There's not much of a difference between my position and George
Bush's position at this stage."

WHAT OBAMA SAID

"Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq.

On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.'

Stephanie Cutter, communications director for the Kerry campaign, did not dispute Obama's statement, but said the true comparison rests in the differences over the past two years. 'If you look on paper, has come our way, but he has come our way at a significant cost in terms of blood and treasure,' Cutter said Monday. 'Bush finally agreed to go to the
international community, but in voters' minds that doesn't change their opinion as to why we're at war or how the president mismanaged the war from day one.'

Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.

The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international community. 'How do you stabilize a country that is made up of three different religious and in some cases ethnic groups, with minimal loss of life and minimum burden to the taxpayers?' Obama said. 'I am skeptical that the Bush administration, given baggage from the past three years, not just on Iraq. . . . I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute. I mean, you have to have a new administration to execute what the Bush administration acknowledges has to happen.'"

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

BLITZER: "Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?"

OBAMA: "You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators."

WHAT OBAMA SAID

BLITZER: Had you been in the Senate when they had a vote on whether to give the president the authority to go to war, how would you have voted?

OBAMA: You know, I didn't have the information that was available to senators. I know that, as somebody who was thinking about a U.S. Senate race, I think it was a mistake, and I think I would have voted no.

BLITZER: You would have voted no at the time?

OBAMA: That's correct.

BLITZER: Kerry, of course, and Edwards both voted yes.

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I think this is a tough question and a tough call.
What I do think is that if you're going to make these tough calls, you have to do so in a transparent way, in an honest way, talk to the American people, trust their judgment.

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

WHAT OBAMA SAID

"He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between SaddamHussein and Al Qaeda.

"In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

"'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'

"But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. 'What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,' he said." 7/26/2004]

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

Asked by NPR about John Kerry and John Edwards voting for the war, Obama said: "I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision."

WHAT OBAMA SAID

BLOCK: I've read about a speech you gave in the fall of 2002. It had to dowith the looming war in Iraq.

Sen. OBAMA: Right.

BLOCK: It made quite a splash. Can you tell me about that?

Sen. OBAMA: I delivered a speech to a couple of thousand people at a anti-war rally in Chicago. And I said, `It's not that I'm opposed to all wars. It's just that I think this is not the right war to fight.' I don't consider that to have been an easy decision, and certainly, I wasn't in the
position to actually cast a vote on it. But what I do think is that we need a foreign policy that is less ideologically driven and pays more attention to facts on the ground.

BLOCK: This ticket, obviously, John Kerry and John Edwards, both senatorsvoted for the war.

Sen. OBAMA: Yeah. Well--and I think that there is room for disagreement in that initial decision. Where I think we have to be unified is to recognize that we've got an enormous task ahead in actually making Iraq work. And that is going to take the kind of international cooperation that I think the Bush
administration has shown difficulty pulling off, and I think that the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to be better prepared to do.

WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR

In "Audacity," Obama allowed that he was: "sympathetic to the pressures Democrats were under" (p. 293), adding: "I didn't consider the case againstwar to be cut-and- dried." (p. 294)

WHAT OBAMA SAID

"And on October 11, 2002, twenty-eight of the Senate's fifty Democrats joined all but one Republican in handing to Bush the power he wanted.

I was disappointed in that vote, although sympathetic to the pressuresDemocrats were under. I had felt some of those same pressures myself. By the fall of 2002, I had already decided to run for the U.S. Senate and knew that possible war with Iraq would loom large in any campaign. When a group of Chicago activists asked if I would speak at a large antiwar rally planned for October, a number of my friends warned me against taking so public a position on such a volatile issue. Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and-dried. Like most analysts, I assumed that Saddam had
chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear arms. I believed that he had repeatedly flouted UN resolutions and weapons inspectors and that such behavior had to have consequences. That Saddam butchered his own people was
undisputed; I had no doubt that the world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

What I sensed, though, was that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent, the Administration's rationales for war were flimsy and ideologically driven, and the war in Afghanistan was far from complete. And I was certain that by choosing precipitous, unilateral military action over the hard slog of diplomacy, coercive inspections, and smart sanctions, America was missing
an opportunity to build a broad base of support for its policies.

In addition, the Obama campaign has posted the jeff Berkowitz interview where he clearly states he would have voted no on the AWR.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/i raq/

[Not the Only One]

88. Obama doesn't speak of God much

The problem with religion is that it's based on a hierarchy who has access to divine information that everyone else doesn't have access to, so there's no way to verify any of it to see if it is true or if it's the "right" thing to do. It's blind faith. In fact, a theocrat can do some pretty evil things that normal people would say was an abomination, but the theocrat would believe it was right in the face of all the contrary evidence because God is on his side. It's a very dangerous thing, indeed.

Obama's about humanism, really. All of his catchphrases are about "We" and "Us" and not about some mythical deity. He's like a Secular humanist messiah, which isn't a bad thing at all. It's a great thing. Obama encourages us to not wait for supernatural intervention to make a better tomorrow. Stop praying, and start doing, so to speak. He tells us to get the job done ourselves. It's a message that should be spread far and wide.