As I said some time ago- Barack Obama is going to beat Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination for president, I am more sure than ever. Granted, he could commit some huge gaff to lose it, but I doubt it. He's smooth, very smooth. On the other hand, watching Hillary speak is almost as boring as the women's NCAA basketball tournament, no offense. She comes off as rehearsed, stiff, and fake. She lacks all the "charms" her husband had on the campaign trail and doesn't seem to be able to discern what advice is bad from her advisers (take that awful accent she used to impress African Americans in Selma, Alabama-very uncomfortable). Bill Clinton would beat Obama for the nomination, but he is not running, Hillary is. She sounds more lame by the minute.
Oprah endorses Obama, which is huge, do you realize how many women (and a few weird men)watch her show daily? Turnout rates for women voters are usually lower then men, I will bet Oprah cancels her show on primary election dates so the ladies can get out and vote for Obama! Just today Jesse Jackson announced support for Obama. Despite his overall decline in popularity, Jackson still holds a certain amount of sway in the African American community. Jackson's voicing support for Obama in light of his long time friendship with the Clinton's might signal a belief that Hillary can't win the presidency. Add a few other celebrities to Obama's support list, like Stephen Spielberg, George Clooney, Eddie Murphy, and David Geffen, there's lots of fund-raising sources ready to open their wallets for Mr. Obama's cause. On top of all this, Obama has the ability to tout his "consistent" anti- Iraq War position. No other viable candidate can do that, in either party. Never mind that he was not in office when the vote to go to war happened. It's not that difficult, as a state senator back in Illinois, to speak out against something you have no influence over. Who really knows how he would have voted had he actually been in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote. Frankly, his timing was lucky (humanly speaking, of course) on the Iraq War issue, still, he's cashing in on his perceived "consistency"and "good" judgment because of it. His supposed clear plan to get us out also bolsters his stock.
Many of you have cautioned- "Do not count out the Clinton's", "Wait till the Clinton's turn their pit bulls loose on Obama", etc. I have to admit, I might be naive here regarding who will win, I'm not the smartest guy on such matters. I still remember being utterly shocked I was in a country that elected Bill Clinton to be president in 1992. Seriously, I was watching a T.V. monitor at Moody firmly believing I was witnessing the end of noble statesmen being elected to the most powerful office in the world. So, I suppose I could be totally misreading this developing campaign season and dramatically underestimating Hillary's chances.
Oprah endorses Obama, which is huge, do you realize how many women (and a few weird men)watch her show daily? Turnout rates for women voters are usually lower then men, I will bet Oprah cancels her show on primary election dates so the ladies can get out and vote for Obama! Just today Jesse Jackson announced support for Obama. Despite his overall decline in popularity, Jackson still holds a certain amount of sway in the African American community. Jackson's voicing support for Obama in light of his long time friendship with the Clinton's might signal a belief that Hillary can't win the presidency. Add a few other celebrities to Obama's support list, like Stephen Spielberg, George Clooney, Eddie Murphy, and David Geffen, there's lots of fund-raising sources ready to open their wallets for Mr. Obama's cause. On top of all this, Obama has the ability to tout his "consistent" anti- Iraq War position. No other viable candidate can do that, in either party. Never mind that he was not in office when the vote to go to war happened. It's not that difficult, as a state senator back in Illinois, to speak out against something you have no influence over. Who really knows how he would have voted had he actually been in the U.S. Senate at the time of the vote. Frankly, his timing was lucky (humanly speaking, of course) on the Iraq War issue, still, he's cashing in on his perceived "consistency"and "good" judgment because of it. His supposed clear plan to get us out also bolsters his stock.
Many of you have cautioned- "Do not count out the Clinton's", "Wait till the Clinton's turn their pit bulls loose on Obama", etc. I have to admit, I might be naive here regarding who will win, I'm not the smartest guy on such matters. I still remember being utterly shocked I was in a country that elected Bill Clinton to be president in 1992. Seriously, I was watching a T.V. monitor at Moody firmly believing I was witnessing the end of noble statesmen being elected to the most powerful office in the world. So, I suppose I could be totally misreading this developing campaign season and dramatically underestimating Hillary's chances.
On the Republican side, it looks like Giuliani and McCain will slug it out. Thankfully, Fred Thompson is seriously mulling a run. Neither Giuliani or McCain can beat Obama (they could possibly beat Hillary). Fred Thompson could beat Obama. From what I have seen and researched so far, Thompson could be a solid choice- certainly better than Obama or Clinton.
All this causes me to contemplate- more than an election or a particular person gaining a political office, I am hoping, praying, and preaching for revival and reformation to bust out in the evangelical church in the U.S. As the Church is spiritually revived and reformed it will become genuine, influential, salt and light. As the Church is used by God to transform the culture, godly candidates will be available to elect. There are few solid, Christian candidates because the church has lost much influence over shaping the culture. This trend must reverse.
The lack of righteousness exhibited by some of our laws are indicative of the Church's lack of righteous influence on the culture.
Well, that's another subject for a future post.
4 comments:
One other thing that is probably fodder for a future post is the idea that if a true revival and reformation were to break out then we may be given more than simply better people to vote into our current broken system - one which elevates the will of Demos to the position of ultimate authority. As Christendom arises from the ashes and our Democracy (and our socialism)is revealed to be a god that failed, I think that we'll end up with an entirely different system, not just better people to put in the one we have.
Thinking ahead to the 2008 election makes me shutter and wonder. I know and confess that God is always in total control and only “HE controls power and might and it is at HIS discretion that men are made great and given strength.” But as Tony suggested, I must continually stand for righteousness, pray for revival to break forth, and a new reformation… to bring change. Not a change that conforms to the worlds standards but a change that truly transforms us into His likeness. But only when “die to self,” abide in Him and stay the course, standing on HIS word can this reformation-transformation save our nation. I struggle to die daily.
What does it matter anyway? Afterall, we ARE living in the "end times." Tim LaHaye et al say so (apparently many evangelical Christians hold this view). I thought the trend might be reversing, but who knows. As for me, I'll probably disengage from society, lock myself in my basement on election day, watch the Russian invasion of Israel, and pray for Jesus to rapture us out of this mess....just kidding, although I eagerly await for Christ's return, I'll most likely continue to engage the church (Jude 3) and society; I'll venture out and probably vote for the candidate that holds my views on abortion and immigration. Ask me later about the war.
I am waiting for Mr. Obama to redefine his statement "Don’t think that fatherhood ends at conception." with a caveat about abortion.
Would it read something like:
"Don't think that fatherhood ends at conception when abortion is not an option."
or did I already miss his restatement?
Post a Comment