I’ve noticed a lot of Obama endorsements in the UU blogosphere these past few days. Why so many?
Because Obama speaks our language: aspirational humanism. We believe that words of hope change things; similar words are spoken from UU pulpits each Sunday.
But it’s more than his rhetoric. It’s his argument that the rhetoric of hope gets more done than self-righteous ideologuery or cynical wedge issue triangulation. UUs believe that and live it every day. Voting for Obama is a no brainer.
This comment isn’t going to win me any friends.
The enthusiasm of my fellow UUs for Obama is one of the things pushing me toward Clinton. The fact that he _speaks_ (and perhaps believes) our language is attractive, but not enough.
I fear that voting for Obama could be a no brainer, but not in the sense you mean it.
I love UUs, but have not spent my life being impressed with their political thinking. Impressed by their passions, yes. Impressed by their shrewd assessments of how the world works and what it takes to make it work, not so much. I feel like a lot of UUs live in a bubble that is not so realistic.
Don’t take this as an anti-Obama statement–he seems genuine enough, I’ll vote for him if he’s the Democratic candidate, and I’ll hardly be upset if he wins the presidency.
Do UUs really love Obama, or is it a function of the youthful skew that bloggers bring? I ask because I did a search of Unitarian Universalist ministers who gave more than $250 to presidential campaigns — and the money seems headed for Clinton.
So here’s one for Jeff: I support Obama because he’s got the character to do good for the country and I oppose Clinton because I think she and her husband are keen to take power.
I agree, Clinton is keen to take power. That doesn’t bother me all that much–I expect politicians to want power, that’s why they aren’t social workers or nuns or something. As for Obama’s character, I won’t fault you for believing in him. I just don’t happen to believe in him. As a species, I don’t believe in politicians’ “character,” whether or not they come off nicely on camera. If Obama wins it and manages to prove me wrong, I’ll only be happy.
[…] at Making Chutney, Chance asks the question: why are so many UU bloggers for Obama? I have another question about Obama supporters, prompted by my (now third) viewing of the […]
There’s a difference between governing and taking power.
I don’t think I’ve suggested otherwise, Scott. But neither are these mutually exclusive. Obama wants power too, that’s why he’s willing to go to the lengths of running for president. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. This doesn’t mean he isn’t also interested in governing as well as he thinks he can, something that I believe both Clinton and Obama wish to do. My impression is that Clinton would be overall better at governing than Obama (at this point in time). It’s just my opinion. Nobody’s knocked on my door for Obama, since I live in Canada.
[…] Making Chutney on support for Sen. Barack Obama among Unitarian Universalist […]
As one of those who has only been lumped into the “younger” crowd by those in their 80s and 90s, I’ll toss in a few thoughts.
I’m old enough to remember Bobby Kennedy–though not to have been able to vote for him. I’m struck by the fact that both I and my father (who campaigned for RFK) find a similarity between the two men. So did RFK’s widow, Ethel, when she endorsed Obama.
I’m not supporting Obama because of that–it’s an observation about him that for me came after I decided to support him.
He’s offered a governing vision rooted in actually being inclusive, not just talking about being a unificator and asserting that he is. Can he do that? There’s really only one way to find out. But a range of Republicans have reacted to him very positively–to him, not to specific policy proposals–and independents do as well. Remember their reactions to his speech at the 2004 convention? They wanted to adopt him. Yet he had not come out supporting neocon policy, greed, or theocratic values. He’s presented himself (legitimately, I think) as a leader of or for the people-powered political movement that woke up with Howard Dean. But Obama never allowed himself to be framed as angry.
Hillary, like it or not, comes with political baggage of the 90s. The simple fact is that the GOP will see a Hillary administration through the lens of fighting the 90s all over again. They’ll lose and lose badly if they do so, I think. Public views on equal rights for BGLT have changed a great deal, and people really do want a health care system that works and includes everyone. But the battle will be sharp and polarized, and the GOP machine created to spew hatred of Clintons will be dragged out and revived.
Which isn’t to say that they’ll go along like lambs with Obama. But I think that his personality and their being unwillingly charmed–but charmed nonetheless–will be a huge aid in making major social changes with less tumult and turmoil.
Neither candidate is perfect (none ever are). Neither has the wealth of experience one might really want–an objective that I think is akin to the first trap our UU search committees can find they’ve fallen into, wanting someone who for starters has all the virtues of, say, Jesus.
Both will do fine, I think. Both are capable of performing the job.
The question then is more one of style and how they will be perceived and experienced at home and abroad.
There, I think, there’s a vast difference.
I’m probably the only one here who has voted for Obama. He’ll wear out. There is the Obama you read, the Obama you hear, and the Obama who votes (often just present).
Rezko is cutting a deal with Fitzgerald as we speak and Rezko will talk to avoid life imprisonment. That means talk about the deals in Iraq.
Once that gets out into sound bites, I think Democrats will walk from Obama fast, just as Obama walked away from reform in Illinois with his Todd Stroger endorsement.
We just didn’t realize Auchi was involved with that one too…
Cheak Nibras Kazimi in Talisman’s Gate. What a mess Democrats have brought upon themselves for 2008.
Bill, I’m putting the crap about an Obama-Saddam connection in the same file I put gun show fliers about the lesbian orgies Hillary threw in the Lincoln bedroom back in the 90s. Don’t troll here.
This is a conversation about why so many UU bloggers are pro-Obama. Stay on topic.
It’s a strange world Chutney. We’ve got pictures of our Gov and Emil Jones, Obama’s mentor in the Illinois GA, sitting with Auchi and Alsammarae at a dinner in Springfield.
UU bloggers need to take a hard look a the fellow there for… if maybe that’s trolling but I think it’s open your eyes a bit before you get excited about a man with some very murky friends.
Here is a really great article from the Group News Blog on why Obama is so inspiring.
http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2008/01/declaration-request-promiselead-lobby.html
When I think of the Clintons and Teh Gays, I think of DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Not a happy thought, and those bus tire prints don’t rub off easily.