Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Why Barak Obama is a "Rock Star"

Senator Barak Obama is the hottest name in the Democratic Party. No one else generates the excitement of the junior senator from Illinois. This status has Democrats around the country wondering if he may run for president as soon as 2008 and if he could win. But why the excitement?

His national voice was first heard at the 2004 Democratic convention. In one of the few brilliant moves of that campaign on the Democratic side, Obama gave the keynote address and made himself an instant celebrity. At the time, he was an Illinois legislator trying to win the Senate seat. He had no great constituency from years of political activity. He was in his words a "skinny kid with big ears and a funny name." But his speech electrified Democrats because he spoke of their most central themes with a passion and conviction that had not been heard for a long time. Once he won the Senate seat the presidential speculation began. It has not stopped.

Obama gave another speech recently on AIDs in a conservative evangelical church. The speech got national notice because the minister of the church was criticized by other conservative evangelicals for daring to allow a pro-choice liberal Democrat a chance to speak at a conference on AIDs that the church was sponsoring. The minister wisely ignored them and Obama gave another example of why he is a rock star. I suggest you read the entire speech.

For me his words truly touch the nexus between Christian faith and public policy that lead me to be a liberal Democrat. Let me site two examples from the speech.

He gives an example of the connection I see between faith in God and strength through a reason...

"We should never forget that God granted us the power to reason so that we would do His work here on Earth - so that we would use science to cure disease, and heal the sick, and save lives. And one of the miracles to come out of the AIDS pandemic is that scientists have discovered medicine that can give people with HIV a new chance at life.

We are called to give them that chance."


The last sentence is an example of using the language of religion to include people of faith in a liberal policy viewpoint. He continues this language and uses it relate to an audience made up of those unlikely to ever share his political views, but may share some of his political goals.

"But the reason for us to step up our efforts can't simply be instrumental. There are more fundamental reasons to care. Reasons related to our own humanity. Reasons of the soul.

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes - to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned."

I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.

My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness.

Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans."


I have no special insight on the political prospects for Obama in 2008 or what kind of president he would make. I don't know much about what kind of person Obama is away from the public eye. All I know is that the power of his words as they capture the ideal of how the messages of liberalism and Christianity could change things. A "better politics" would make a better world as would a better faith in Christ's message of love for all of us.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what I think about Obama yet. He is clearly a gifted speaker, and it is surely beneficial to remind a "Christian nation" that Christ stood for more than just keeping taxes low and preventing gays and lesbians from buying wedding cakes. Still, I find his ceaseless and, frankly, ostentatious expressions of faith a little unsettling. I would like a clearer statement from Obama about where he would draw the lines between religion and government.

On a more practical level, I sense a certain irrational exuberance about Obama at the moment. He is at that special moment in a politician's life when, having just burst upon the scene, his press coverage is universally positive. We'll see what a rock star he is next year when he's no longer the flavor of the month and the opposition research folks rev up their investigations. (I think any successful politician from Illinois better be fully vetted before the party invests their hopes in him.)

As a Democrat, my other worry is that the party will catch the fever and nominate this guy without regard to the fact that he's never had to face an electoral challenge stronger than that of Alan Keyes. Say what you want about Hillary (and I've said plenty), but at least you know she won't wilt over the course of a nasty campaign. Plus, as long as she doesn't write an "If I did it..." book about killing Vince Foster, then we also already know 100% of the possible dirt on her.

I'm not suggesting that Hillary is necessarily the best choice (I don't think she is), but I do see Obama right now as a more charismatic version of Gary Hart in 1984.

7:15 AM  
Blogger redbarb said...

I repeat my comment that I have no real insight on Obama as candidate in 2008 or as a president. However, I disagree that he is Gary Hart and just has no "dirt" out on him yet.

He has admitted to marijuana and cocaine use in his first book. He's got to be the first person to openly admit cocaine use and still be considered a possible serious candidate. He may pave the way for so many, many more. Also, I assume anyone who comes out of Illinois politics has a tough hide. In Illinois if you can't fight or won't fight, you don't get elected. Remember that he wasn't the desired candidate of the Illinois Democratic Party for the US Senate and do you think they played nice during the primary? Me neither.

Obama can't be Gary Hart or he would have changed his name already and done something about those silly ears. Hart managed himself to the point of seeming unreal. The man changed his signature to make it more stylish. He also seemed to specialize in not being clear on what he stood for until he was no longer a viable candidate. We'll see if Obama goes for that route over the next year or so.

Obama already seems to have his bumper sticker -- "the American people want something new." We await to see what that might mean beyond having a black guy with an African name.

As for Hillary, I read all sorts of analysis on her chances for the nomination and the general. It's all based on assumptions that probably won't hold in 2008. I do suspect that voters will have trouble seeing another Clinton as the answer to the latest Bush. She also has the problem that Bill still sucks all the oxygen out of any room into which he walks. I still think it is possible that she will not run at all, but that's based on nothing just like everything else out there right now.

11:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, fair enough, I didn't mean to draw the Gary Hart analogy too directly (though "The American People Want Something New" does sound a little like "New Ideas"; I suspect Obama is in line for his own "Where's the Beef" moment).

And as you correctly suggest, it's way too early to start handicapping the 2008 race. When I hear the talking cable heads discuss the presidential race, I'm always tempted to say something like this:

"OK, all of you who predicted back in December, 2004, that the Democrats would take back both houses of Congress in '08, please keep talking. The rest of you please shut the ---- up."

If memory serves, the post-midterm prognosticators of the past gave us Presidents Ed Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, and Ted Kennedy, not to mention failed one-term President Bill Clinton. It wouldn't shock me if one or two of the sure-to-run 2008 candidate end up folding the tent before New Hampshire.

As for Obama, as nasty as Illinois politics can be, it's nothing like the full body cavity search that is a national presidential election campaign. I still strongly doubt that Obama is prepared for this, coke confession notwithstanding. But I guess we'll find out. Or we won't.

7:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home