The Messianic Democrats

Let's get this out of the way: Barack Obama is not my political savior. And he's not yours either. He's nobody's savior. He's a talented freshman Senator out of the Illinois Democratic establishment. He looks good, sounds better, and writes really well. But the messianic tone of his corner of this Democratic race is disturbing.

It's the kind of talk we're used to hearing from the Republican side of the national scene, with politicians seeking office as the Lord's bidding, as a manifestation of divine will. But there was billionaire media mogul Oprah Winfrey last week invoking Miss Jane Pittman and the Bible in describing the tall, skinny pol from Chicago.

In Oprah's story-telling, an old woman who had survived slavery and the Civil War would ask every child, "Are you the one? Are you the one?"

"I do believe I do today we have the answer to Miss Pittman's question – it's a question that the entire nation is asking – is he the one?" Winfrey told the kind of stadium-filled religious gathering we used to associate with the Rev. Moon.

"South Carolina – I do believe he's the one."

"The One." The chosen man. The Messiah.

Even Mike Huckabee, an ordained minister and outspoken evangelical Christian, wouldn't go that far. I dislike the kind of language intensely. Does anyone else find this strange? Here's Frank Rich abandoning his secular view for the Church of Obama (you can almost see him make the Sign of the Cross in his column today), another gauzy-eyed, faith-drunk columnist, powerless before the Illinois Elmer Gantry:

For those Americans looking for the most unambiguous way to repudiate politicians who are trying to divide the country by faith, ethnicity, sexuality and race, Mr. Obama is nothing if not the most direct shot. After hearing someone like Mitt Romney preach his narrow, exclusionist idea of “Faith in America,” some Americans may simply see a vote for Mr. Obama as a vote for faith in America itself.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman, attacked by the Obama campaign, explains why the "audacity of hope" won't exactly get you too far with the Mitch McConnells of the world. From Krugman:

So what happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee?

He will probably win -- but not as big as a candidate who ran on a more populist platform. Let's be blunt: pundits who say that what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public.

And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.

 

Comments

[LauraJMixon]

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I don't read all that much into this. I think it's just Oprah bringing her storytelling gifts to the fore -- the natural excitement of a major supporter telling others about her own personal experience of discovering Obama as a potential president.

[Tom K]

I'm not inclined to make much of what Oprah has to say on politics. But I find the extent of the Hillary camp's fear of Obama, and their willingness to bare their teeth against him in ways that will make post-primary alliances more difficult, surprising.

[Tom W.]

TK, why?

First off, Obama attacked first. Secondly, there are some weaknesses. Third, if he's the frontrunner, shouldn't he have to fend off challenges to his candidacy, the way you argued Clinton had to?

[Tom K]

I's surprised she's not able to make her points less ham-handedly, with less offense to voters.

Maybe I recalled the Clinton tactics of the 90's as showing more finesse than perhaps they did. The more I recall of that era, the more likely that seems. Maybe this sort of thing is what I should have expected.

[Tom W.]

I dunno - it's just politics. The "the Clinton tactics of the 90's" weren't very revolutionary.

[Eric]

The juxtaposition of the Krugman column with the NYT front-page article on 'The Other Clinton Steps Up Publicly' makes for some inadvertent humor. Krugman's finishing-kick claim that Obama "has in effect become the anti-change candidate" would've been note-perfect if Bill Clinton had dictated it to some campaign PR flack; and is of a piece with the strategy of transferring Hillary Clinton's liability as the candidate with the best surface claim to be "anti-change" to her opponent whose very campaign calls the most attention to this particular piece of baggage.

[Tom K]

"The 'Clinton tactics of the 90's' weren't very revolutionary."

No, not revolutionary; just revolting, another of many steps down the road toward a worse world.

[Tom W.]

TK - that's just ludicrous, unless you consider the totality of national American electoral politics "revolting." Clinton-Gore raised the quality of national debate, and changed the country for the better. Not in as many of the ways I might have preferred, but compared to what went before, a markedly better period - and to what came after, a veritable golden age.

Eric, I noticed the same thing - fascinating, but in no way could you say that Krugman's in league with the Clinton campaign. Obama shouln't have gone negative on him.

[Tom K]

*Clinton-Gore raised the quality of national debate, and changed the country for the better.*

As to your implied premise, Gore had nothing to do with what I am talking about: the "nuts-and-slutsing" of persons who claim to have been victims, attacking prosecuters as sexually obsessed for following their assignments, attributing it to vast conspiricies when one's own actions come back to bite, as happens with virtually all public people.

That was all Clinton; strange that you would seek to drag Gore into it.

As to your stated premise, we will have to simply agree to disagree.

[Slappy]

"...following their assignments..." I dont think so. Nobody was assigned to investigate Clintons sex life.

[Tom K]

I am not eager to return to those tawdry times . . . this sort of thing reminds me why. And I think most people recognize that HRC's response to this was one of the most popular things she did as First Lady (though I think it does neither her, nor anyone else, much good to be rehashing these events now.)

But since you questioned my characiterization of Starr's assignment, I went back to see what it was. I don't have the time or stomach to re-reread very much of the Starr report, but it reads in part as follows:

" . . . Attorney General Reno petitioned the Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on an expedited basis, to expand the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr. On January 16, 1998, in response to the Attorney General's request, the Special Division issued an order that provides in pertinent part:

The Independent Counsel shall have jurisdiction and authority to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case Jones v. Clinton"

It's hard to see how you can do that without determining whether WJC's denial of a sexual relationship with ML was true or false.

[Slappy]

To a degree I stand corrected. The original intent was not to investigate Clintons sex life. It is however what it turned into. Why the Clintons seem to get the blame for these tawdry times is beyond me. But this goes back to the previous discussion about politicians investigating opponents personal lives. To HRC's credit, she is the only one who seemed to walk away from the situation with any dignity.

I cant wait for you to refer to Hillary Clinton as President Hillary Clinton. I hope it makes you squirm as much as Pres. Bush makes me.

All the best.

[Mike P]

I like Krugman and Obama, but this whole spat is becoming a bit tiresome. Krugman doesn't like Obama's health plan as much as he likes Edwards and Hillary's and he doesn't think Obama will hit back (which is kind of ridiculous...on what is he basing this?). But Krugman is doing some projecting with his calls for a more populist message (if that message had the traction Krugman thinks it does, why is Edwards, the most populist Dem in the field, running third?).

In re: Obama/Oprah and Hillary...I find this bit kinda funny considering Hillary was basically running her campaign as a coronation until the wheels started to come off. And "the one" while possibly religions in this context, could simply be "the one", as in a black politician who can realistically contend for the holy grail of American politics, the presidency. I certainly don't think most people in the electorate (black or white) considering any of these politicians to be their "savior".

[tina oiticica harris]

I have been reading about Barack Obama for quite a while now. I cannot recall any action he took to prevent the dumping of polluted waste into Lake Michigan by BP, which is in Whiting, Indiana. Actually I do recall the madrassa story in the very beginning of his campaign and it is no big deal to me.

The theocratic status of the USA is quite bothersome. I believe in total separation of State and Religion, even if as extremist as in France.
To put a millionaire entertainer on the political stage is further sign of feebleness of the candidate to me.

The Clinton days were great for us teachers, when Clinton-Gore and wives went across the country plugging in schools to the Internet. California had a friend and not a foe, proclaiming our problems with electricity were ours to solve.

Up to this day, I can't understand the fascination or loathing of a man over a tryst with a young woman. Frankly, Bill's affairs are Hillary's to deal with.

1992- Jan 2000 was a period of growth, prosperity, necessary changes in AFDC and education. I hope these naysayers will have to say President Hillary Clinton soon. I'm with you, Tom.

[amparker]

I really like what you write - you're really intelligent. There are so few intelligent media/blogger type people around -- I truly believe that! People see conspiracies and cruelty and nastiness everywhere they look -- we're becoming an incredibly paranoid culture ( maybe because our country elected the nightmare named W. Bush). The talking heads are literally screamingly sexist, gay-hating racists, and constantly make fun of people with disabilities. I feel the Hillary hating is part of that machine - people literally forget that we were better off with Bill Clinton and that she helped make those years good all over the world. Obama as the great savior - a little scary!

[Tom K]

As a non-Democrat, I find it funny to see Hillary supporters saying Obama is "scary".

Really? Would that be more like Willy-Horton-scary, or Ricky-Ray-Rector scary?

Next time y'all want to jump all over a Rep. for an unfortunate word choice touching on (or cast as touching upon) race, I think your "progressive" community first should self administer some optical motectomies.

[Tom K]

. . . or maybe beamectomies.

[bruce b.]

TK, I am not sure if I qualify as a Hillary supporter, but I do NOT find Obama "scary." I missed the reference in the thread. For the record, I think he would make an excellent candidate and President. What I am trying to decide is which of the three major Democrats would make the BEST President and candidate (in that order).

As we suspected, the brilliant, talented, and Machievellian Mr. Watson has destroyed our "Popular Front." He has subtly but forcefully reminded me why I should be in HIS camp on most issues. The man is a force of nature.

And, since I have been hard on him lately, some much deserved Watson-toadying: I DO agree with his insightful post on Oprah. I think I made a similar point in a comment a few postings back. TW made it much more elegantly, as did the commenter above who said:

To put a millionaire entertainer on the political stage is further sign of feebleness of the candidate

Especially when said BILLIONAIRE entertainer first BOASTS about how she has voted for more Republicans than Democrats (Bill Moyers picked up on this in a brilliant interview with African-American Political Scientist Ron Walters on his "Bill Moyers Journal") in her speech, and then comes out with this trashy messianic crap. For the record, Martin Luther King Jr. NEVER used that type of language. His metaphors had an entirely different character to them.

i don't trust ANYONE who thinks that god is whispering in their ears. But I don't go so far as to say that my distrust of Oprah extends to Obama.

[Tom K]

Bruce:

It was AM Parker who used the word "scary", and I stand by the point that any Rep. who used that word about Obama would get ripped a new one, especially here.

But it is not the word "scary" alone, but the . . . hostility toward Obama that recent HRC-camp rhetoric has shown, even where other words are used, that I find most significant. (Though that word makes a good example of it.) Or maybe "harshness" is the word, rather than "hostility".

I certainly agree you and Tom W are far better aligned that you and I on most issues, and perhaps even on this one, but it is the ferocity of the internecine struggle that I am struck by. So, the fact that you occupy broad swaths of common ground doesn't necessarily mean you shan't be beating each other over the head while standing on it. Or, if you and he are not, some Obama supporter and he, otherwise aligned with the two of you far better than with me, will be. All very interesting.

Maybe Rep. primaries are historically more polite and have distorted my perspective, but I really don't recall even D primaries being quite so hostile. That this is largely between the first serious black and woman candidates probably adds to my surprise, though I suppose it shouldn't.

[Tom W.]

It was pretty harsh in '04 too - when the party establishment did to Dean what the GOP is doing to Huckabee now. The difference is you're paying attention because Hillary Clinton is involved - everybody is. The race is about her.

And I will say this - a lot of anti-Clinton stuff is sexist, overtly and otherwise, especially among the mainstream media. Almost none of the anti-Obama stuff is racist (anti-Muslim, perhaps, I'll grant you).

[Tom K]

Whether or not it is racist -- and I see no evidence in the substance or in HRC's past to suggest that it is -- the Clinton camp must be aware that they are running the risk of appearing racist to some (and possibly a significant number of) black potential HRC voters.

If they see it that way, a clean bill of health from a white conservative like me, or a white liberal like you, probably isn't gonna do her a lot of good.

I am not sure how reliable a firewall WJC is for her against this consideration. He himself, I think, wouldn't have to worry, but she has only derivative immunity, and should be careful not to overestimate its effect or underestimate the consequences of her campaign's tactics.

If you ask me. Not that anybody did.

[Tom W.]

Wait, what's racist?

[Tom K]

If you are not aware that there are black potential HRC voters who think that her campaign's tactics against Obama are racist, I suggest your broaden your circle of acquaintance to strengthen your political punditry.

[Tom W.]

Name one. Point me to some quotes. Gimme anything. I have not heard this, and I betcha my network of "black potential HRC voters" is larger than yours....

I have not seen any racist attacks on Obama from Democrats - there's been some anti-Muslim stuff, no question. And the campaign has dealt with that swiftly (gaining absolutely no credit from the media in the process). But no racism at all.

Indeed, the Obama as black man theme has been 99.99% positive. As well it should be.

[Tom K]

Tom, I'll stipulate that you have more friends than I do, of any and all colors. But if you're not listening to them, they're irrelevant for current purposes. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, then you're not listening to them.

I'll go back and cite specifics to you as soon as you go back and do the same on say half of the dozen or so posts where you have ignored my requests that you do the same. But I'm telling you -- as you might put it -- "it's out there".

[Tom K]

Unfortunately, other demands upon my time beckon, but let me ask you this, in partial response to your request for examples.

If it is sexist (as you have claimed) to comment on the laugh of a woman candidate, are you really quite sure there are no black D voters who see a racist angle in talking about a black candidate (and Harvard Law Grad/U.S. Senator) as a drug dealer?

[Tom W.]

The sexism against Senator Clinton includes the bit about her laugh, but is in no way limited to that. She's had a year of cracks about her looks, her laugh, her voice, her attire, her marriage, her sexuality, her psychology - much of it in blatant misogynist language, even in mainstream media. I've documented some of it here, but many others have done a better job.

Nobody that I'm aware of called Obama a drug dealer. Shaheen said this:

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

He was suggesting the Republicans might do this - admittedly, he shouldn't have done this, and left the campaign. There's no way it was racist, and I haven't seen anyone seriously raise the possibility - except on the right.

[bruce b.]

Tom, with all due respect, I have to agree with TK on this one again. A very short search was able to find an African-American progressive Blog that thinks the Clinton campaign has been playing the "race" card. From this blogger:

Honestly though, I have a soft spot for the Clintons. And this just makes me ashamed of them. That they would stoop so low as to send out a surrogate to say such things. It's also a risky and desperate strategy that they have to know will alienate black votes which they must hope to compensate for with a higher number of scared white votes. They should know better.

I also heard this around the "drug dealer" comment. The argument was, when W. was accused of doing coke, noone assumed he was a DEALER.

[bruce b.]

Tom, with all due respect, I have to agree with TK on this one again. A very short search was able to find an African-American progressive Blog that thinks the Clinton campaign has been playing the "race" card. From this blogger:

Honestly though, I have a soft spot for the Clintons. And this just makes me ashamed of them. That they would stoop so low as to send out a surrogate to say such things. It's also a risky and desperate strategy that they have to know will alienate black votes which they must hope to compensate for with a higher number of scared white votes. They should know better.

I also heard this around the "drug dealer" comment. The argument was, when W. was accused of doing coke, noone assumed he was a DEALER.

[Tom W.]

Bruce, to quote your favorite President - "there you go again."

The campaign rid itself of Shaheen, who apologized, and then Clinton herself apologized - for wording that never used the phrase "drug dealer."

That blog says this - "That they would stoop so low as to send out a surrogate to say such things."

That is a pernicious lie. And yet you repeat it here.

[Tom K]

Bruce:

The Popular Front reunites!

Tom W:

Bruce cited the blogger to show that the notion that the Clinton campaign's tactics are perceived by some as racist is "out there". Even if those beliefs are wrong -- or even if they're immoral -- they're still out there (kinda like you argued with the Obama drug thing to get this rolling.)

So blaming him for repeating the "pernicious lie" (which is more like reasonable but unproven speculation) is, at best silly. In lawyer speak, he's not offering the statement to prove the matter asserted, but only to prove the speaker's state of mind.

[Canaan]

"Would that be more like Willy-Horton-scary, or Ricky-Ray-Rector scary?"

More like George-Bush-scary. Media-creation-show candidate scary.

The first time I ever heard of Secretary Powell was when I learned a black man was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The first time I heard of Secretary Rice was when I learned a black woman was sitting in Henry Kissinger's old chair.

The first time I heard of Obama, he was making a speech. A beautiful speech, true. Not as good as Morpheus in Matrix Reloaded, but still very inspiring.

As for Repubs playing the race card, the easily proven media double-standard for Obama plays into a campaign theme that targets the racial uncounscious without appearing racist. I'd much rather see Obama be Governor of Illinois, come back in 8 years, and win the nom on his own, without 'scary' celebrity hoopla and a 'scary' media ezy-pass.

[bruce b.]

Thanks TK for clarifying my statements above very articulately.

I think what I was arguing was pretty clear from the get-go.

[Tom W.]

TK-Bruce - if you guys unite in anything, it's a love for falsehoods. TK repeats the lie of "the Clinton campaign's tactics" and Bruce just goes along with it.

What campaign tactics? It's just pernicious - part of the irrational Clinton hatred.

[Tom K]

Tom:

I fear you're coming unhinged here. You lose all credibililty if you charge Bruce with irrational Clinton hatred; for Pete's sake, he seems inclined to vote for her despite his objections or reservations on this point. (I will defend myself from this charge on the far narrower grounds that some of my objections to them are rational, and the remainder are within the realm of normal irrational reactions that people have to successful politicians).

But the clearest sign of your detachment from reality lies in your refusal to ingest what we are saying. One more time: I OFFER NO OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN HAS ORCHESTRATED ONE OR MORE OF THE STATEMENTS UNDER DISCUSSION. Read that again, slowly, and see if the works, and the way in which they relate to each other, convey a meaning to you.

Now, I have my private suspicions that some of this is orchestrated, but I'm pretty sure all of it isn't, and I'm perfectly open to (though skeptical of) the possibility that none of it is. My essential point has been, even if none of it is, the HRC campaign has been ham-nanded in letting its people, or even its supporters outside the campaign, create a significant risk of ill will with voters who may blame them for some or all of these tactics. I couldn't have been plainer that this concern exists whether or not that blame is warranted (as is often the case in politics).

Now, I have referred to tactics of the HRC "campaign". Maybe I've been unclear in what I mean by that -- ie, not only her campaign's actions (to the extent they are at issue), but also her campaign's omissions and/or the tactics of people formerly with the campaign, since resigned. (The actions of such persons while with the campaign, technically, were indeed actions OF the campaign, but I will not argue the sematics).

End of day, calling me and Bruce liars is irrelevant, apart from demonstrating a rather unseemly personal nastiness. It's comes across like a silly-clever debating trick, without the clever part (since it ultimately fails even at the technical level). In fact, it comes across as something very much in the spirit of what the HRC campaign is accused of doing re: Obama (in that it is counterproductive, and pointlessly mean.) Funny, that.

It still seems incredible to me that you claim not to believe that there are significant numbers of HRC votes who may be offended by what is going on, and may attribute it to HRC. At your suggestion, I've stipulated that you have more black friends than I do (and I hereby nominate you for the Stephen Colbert "I have a black friend award"), but I'm telling you, Tom, you are way out of touch on this point. Not only with opinion in portions of the black community, but with human nature.

[Ralph]

Tom: I cant wait for you to refer to Hillary Clinton as President Hillary Clinton. I hope it makes you squirm as much as Pres. Bush makes me.

Huh? I don't understand this attitude. Why do you want to elect someone with such high negatives? Someone who will fire-up the depressed conservatives and give them raw meat to chew for four years? This is nuts to me.

[bruce b.]

TK is right, I am "leaning" toward voting for Hillary but am still undecided. I have stated my feelings many, many times on this blog, but I will state them again: I trust Hillary more on domestic issues and Obama more on foreign policy. And, I have not yet ruled out voting for Edwards, who I think is making some excellent points in attempting to bring the working class to the fore, politically.

Overall, though, I will vote for the person who I believe has the leadership characteristics most needed to get us out of what I believe is a very bad downward spiral. At THIS POINT, I am leaning towards Senator Clinton, but she has not yes closed the sale with me. There are three strong candidates on the Democratic side, all with their own flaws.

I believe that a plurality or perhaps even a majority of Democratic voters have similar feelings.

Further, I was AGREEING with TK earlier regarding the argument as to how the Black community perceived some of the comments made by people associated with the Clinton campaign, particularly the Shaheen comment. TW said:

Name one. Point me to some quotes. Gimme anything. I have not heard this, and I betcha my network of "black potential HRC voters" is larger than yours....

I "named one" and "pointed you to some quotes." If that means "spreading pernicious lies..." ...geez. I honestly don't know what to say. It is a little hard for me to understand where you are coming from on this.

[Tom W.]

TK wrote: "...you claim not to believe that there are significant numbers of HRC votes who may be offended by what is going on, and may attribute it to HRC."

Quite correct. The anti-Clinton talking heads are offended. The Democratic voting public is not, in my view. It's not an incredible claim actually - many, many Democrats want to nominate a fighter after the Kerry debacle. They saw Clinton attacked by Obama and Edwards in October, in very personal ways accusing her of being dishonest, untrustworthy, etc. Fighting back is helping her. It's a preview. And I think her campaign's methods are almost all pretty good (the stupid-ass kindergarten thing aside) - health care coverage, votes in the Illinois legislature, experience, shifting positions etc. all seem fair ground to me. Goose-gander yadda-yadda.

Bruce, I'll admit your one quote, one blogger - fair enough. And no, I don't think it's a plant from the Obama crowd, and I won't suggest it's a centrally-organized plot by Obama to play the race card.

But it's unrelated to you repeating the spurious charges that the off-the-cuff ramblings of Shaheen and Kerrey were part of a Clinton strategy.

[Tom K]

Tom W:

Here's where it seems to end up.

You do not believe that there are a significant number of potential HRC voters who both: (i) perceive a racist angle to the suggestion that Obama should not be nominated because he will have to deal with allegations that he waswas a drug dealer, and (ii) attribute that suggestion to the HRC campaign (rightly or wrongly).

Well, by now that may be so -- HRC had a great deal of goodwill from her husband in the community where this concern was most likely to be found (black voters), and she has fired the person directly responsible and otherwise acted in a way that shows . . . that, unlike you, she was concerned that there are a significant number of potential HRC voters who both: (i) perceive a racist angle to the suggestion that Obama was a drug dealer, and (ii) attribute that suggestion to the HRC campaign (rightly or wrongly).