Foot in Mouth

Hillary Clinton obviously does not want to be Vice President.

If she did, she would not make comments about Barack Obama's impending assasination.

Appalachian Surprise

I find it interesting that some people are looking to take the Democratic nomination away from Barack Obama because he cannot carry the Appalachian white vote.

For real? Do people know this area has many of the struggles in being open to racial equality as the deep south, but without the racial diversity that might offset this part of the electorate? Crazy!

These are probably the same people that believe simultaneously that Barack Obama is a Muslim and that his Christian pastor should be renounced.

John McCain for President?

I loved this cute little political blog. Check it out! (ht Sue S)

I thought this was funny

This is a commentary on Hillary Clinton's apparent racist comments about hard-working white americans.

Potential Cabinets of Candidates

I have decided to share a little bit about who I think each candidate should put in their cabinet. Here it goes.

Obama

VP--Bill Richardson
Secretary of State--Joe Biden
Secretary of Defense-Collin Powell
Attorney General--Bill Clinton or John Edwards
Chief of Staff--Tom Daschle
Press Secretary--Euigene Robertson

McCain

VP--Mike Bloomberg
Secretary of State--Joe Leiberman
Secretary of Defense--General Petraeus
Attorney General--Rudy Guilliani
Chief of Staff--Mike Huckabee
Press Secretary--????

Clinton

VP--Barack Obama
Secretary of State--Al Gore
Secretary of Defense--Joe Biden
Attorney General--John Edwards
Chief of Staff--???
Press Secretary--Donna Brazile

Racism, King Kong, and Lebron

Jamele Hill wrote about racist stereotypes in relationship to Lebron James been on the cover of Vogue. Do you agree with her?

Here is an article further detailing the King Kong as drama about race and sex

Barack Obama's speech, spoken in the same place as the Gettysburg Address, and the same zipcode as the Constitutional Convention, gives a rousing speech that was both intelligent and beautiful.

The Best of.....

Professional Writers

David Kuo's reflection on suffering (David authored "Tempting Faith" about his experiences in the Bush White House)

Lauren Winner's disussion on the emergence and transformation of "Christian Fiction"

Greg Boyd's review of Colson's God and Government and then his follow up disclaimer.

Time Magazine's Q and A with N.T. Wright

Albert Hsu writes about the often complicated relationship between role playing games and Christian belief

Mike Devries' book club. (Mike is a youth ministry author, formerly with Youthbuilders)

Tony Jones on his boredom with liberal Christianity. (Tony is coordinator of Emergent Village)


Bloggers

Robin Chapman's Meditation on Isaiah 53

Becca on Moving Into Spring

Steve Buie using irony to share why he won't vote for Obama

One of Stephen's heartwreching poems

Non-Prophet's discovery of interesting technological uses for fish sperm

Amy finds inspiration in the midst of strife as a missionary during violent conflict in Kenya

Robin Chapman's reflection on Groaning.

Michele's dream post

Mike Huckabee and Jim Wallis heading in the same direction?

God's Politics and Soujourners leader Jim Wallis, a noted progressive who is also the author of God's Politics, wrote a very positive goodbye to Mike Huckabee as he concedes the Republican nomination for president to John McCain. His support of Huckabee speaks of Huckabee's nuanced message of social conservatism, and the growth of the evangelical vote away from the religious right.

I would have been a big fan of Huckabee, except that he had to make that comment in favor of the South Carolina state flag. Well, that and I am not sure about the flat tax.

Here is a quote:

In the Republican YouTube debate, the candidates were asked if they believed every word of the Bible. Huckabee said that while some of the Bible was allegorical, we needed to take much of it much more seriously than we do - like the words of Jesus which say, "As you have done to the least of these you have done to me." This is not the text that most conservatives quote when asked about the authority of the Bible. In an interview with Reuters in January, Huckabee spoke about the broadening evangelical agenda:


Unquestionably there is a maturing that is going on within the evangelical movement. It doesn't mean that evangelicals are any less concerned about traditional families and the sanctity of life. It just means that they also realize that we have real responsibility in areas like disease and hunger and poverty and that these are issues that people of faith have to address.

And when conservative columnists like Robert Novak attacked Huckabee for not being a "real conservative," this is precisely what they meant. When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he advocated spending money on poor people - behavior which is offensive to the economically conservative wing of the Republican Party. While Huckabee is a consistent social conservative, he is suspect by the party's economic conservatives who, of course, don't support spending any money on overcoming poverty. Huckabee disagrees with them.



Read more HERE.

Contrarian viewpoint from Iraq

Here is a link to an article about the anti-cleric sentiment in Iraq

Some good articles on politics

Why Hillary will not win

Obama casts his spell

McCain spoils Dems Western Strategy

A Choose Your Own Adventure Election

I do not write a lot about politics, so many of you that read this may not know that I am a little bit of a politics junkie. I try to watch at least one politically oriented show an evening. Hardball is my favorite of these shows. Chris Matthews, during Super Tuesday, said something I have been thinking for a long time. People today are not so much about voting with constituencies, loyalties, and issues as they are voting for what kind of story they want their country to have at this point in history. The 2008 election is a choose your own adventure election, and the majority of electoral college delegates will decide which page we turn to next.

Several candidates who are now out of the presidential election process are out because they did not have compelling enough stories. On the Republican side, Guiliani and Romney both tried to sell themselves as problem solvers. Romney tried to run for President on a list of problem solving credentials in business and government. He came to Republicans with a resume, and tried to sell them on his skills as an efficient manager (which he is). The problem is that Americans do not want their story to be about being efficiently managed by an extremely wealthy benefactor. In fact many of them find that a little condescending. Guiliani tried to run on a history of solving problems. He talks about leading through 9-11 and turning New York around. He did a great job leading New York City through difficult times, but most Americans do not want our nation to be just like New York. Nor do they want their narrative to be about continuing to harken back to one of the darker days in American History.

Furthermore, you see a lot of conservatives pandering back to the years of Reagan. A narrative that attempts to follow the agenda of a politician that is dead and has been out of politics for 20 years is a recipe for failure as a narrative with younger voters and even middle aged forward thinking persons.

On the Democrat side, John Edwards had a very compelling narrative of the "two Americas", and he offered himself as an American Robin Hood. I know that John Edwards' conviction come from a place of deep conviction about Jesus' ethic of social justice, but he shared his message as a prophet and not a president. Prophets get shunned or killed most of the time. They do not win elections. Edwards' narrative was also contentious, and this contentious narrative has become more and more difficult for Americans to elect.

Of the people left in the race, each is telling a story. And we as Americans are listening and trying to choose between 3 1/2 of them (Huckabee only counts as 1/2 right now).

Hillary Clinton is telling several stories (which is one of the reasons she is slipping in the primaries). Several of her stories are similar to Romney. She is trying to impress us with her resume and her credentials, and her skills as a manager. Probably Clinton's most compelling narrative is essentially conservative in nature, by the literal meaning of the word "conservative". Hillary wants us to "go back to the future" by electing her to return us to the agenda and prosperity of the 1990s. She calls us to look back, notice where Bush got off track from the Clinton agenda, and emplores us to get back on the track that her husband started us on. The problem is, our collective memories of the Clinton's is not entirely positive, and there are emerging generations that want to look forward and not back.

Huckabee is also attempting to share a compelling narrative. His agenda is many ways is politically conservative, but it is also practically progressive. What I mean by Huckabee being progressive is that his campaign is future-oriented. He has new ideas about the tax code. He is fairly moderate on issues of immigration and the war, although he has been pushed in a more conservative direction. The problem with Huckabee's campaign is that while many people find the idea of a forward-thinking, guitar playing, conservative Christian interesting, Huckabee has yet to find a compelling narrative that draws people to him and his movement.

Of the candidates left, McCain and Obama have the most compelling narratives, which is why each of them has some sense of momentum in gaining their party's support. McCain embodies benevolent strength. This is shown through his personal experience as a prisoner of war. This is also shown by his political life. He has the courage to speak his convictions, even when it costs him dearly (such as the 2000 primary). He had the strength to admit his negligence in being involved with the Keating 5. He stands for a strong military, but is outspoken against torture. He isn't afraid to work across the aisle. He has an image as a maverick, which is especially attractive to people who are conservative but not slavishly devoted to conservative evangelical dogma. Most American's are fairly conservative in their financial and social beliefs, they just are not religious power monger, big business and oil conservatives. For these people, an independent minded, somewhat progressive, tough, ornery and generally on the right side of important issues McCain sounds good.

Obama's narrative is by far the most dreamy and forward-looking. He calls us to a future of unity where we do not "have red states and blue states but the united states of america." He is progressive on solving the health care problem. He is idealistic on oppotunities to solve foriegn relations problems. His slogans "Change you can believe in" and "Yes we can" look toward the future and optimism. They also allow people to believe the best about themselves, their neighbors, and the country.

The challenge that awaits Obama as he moves forward in the election is that his personal narrative and the narritive he is sharing lacks foundation for many. Even my more liberal friends tend to tilt there heads and wonder a little bit about whether he has enough of a personal foundation and track record to be trusted. The Obama campaign narrative seems a lot like a movie trailer to those that are skeptical of him. Lots of fun and cool highlights, but you wonder if the show will be as good as adverstised, or whether you have seen all the good parts of the movie in the preview.

Let the Conversation Begin

I have a friend named Shawn. He is a married man with 4 kids, and a pastor in Iowa. And he says the worst 5 words he can ever hear is "Honey, we have to talk." We laugh afterward, but we both know there is a certain truth to the whole thing.

I recently had a gal I was dating say that we needed to "have a talk" as well. I started getting panicky. I stuttered. I stalled. I got agitated. And, although I eventually caved into having "the talk", I avoided "the talk" like the plague.

Neither my friend Shawn and I are unique. I think a majority of men avoid "the talk" whenever possible. Why then, would a woman with a reputation like Hillary Clinton's have as one of her key campaign slogans "Let The Conversation Begin". Does she have a bunch of therapists working for her? Is she trying to appeal exclusively to her feminine base as she launches campaign? (Notice the pink power in the picture above)

I don't know about you, but when the poster child for angry, bitter old women starts trying to win my vote by saying that we have to sit down and have a talk, I want to run the other way. I want to hide. I want to point to the guy next to me and ask, "Are you talking to him?"

Let the conversation begin? Just when you think it couldn't get worse, you realize that this is going to be an ongoing conversation where Hillary tells America what's wrong with it, and how she in all her wisdom can fix us. We are just at the beginning of having "the talk" because we will not just have one "talk" we will have several over and over and over again.

I really think this is a strategic error that will backfire on the Clinton for President campaign.

Dreams and Covenant or What I learned from Al Sharpton

This week I had the opportunity to think a little more deeply about the "I Have a Dream" speech that sits on a poster at the entrance to my office. And that deeper thinking is thanks to Rev. Al Sharpton.

One of my favorite news shows is HARDBALL with Chris Matthews. On Monday, Chris was talking to Al Sharpton about many issues. He was especially talking about Barak Obama in the context of the MLK Day Holiday.

As Sharpton shared some of his thoughts on a wide range of issues, he made a little comment about the "I Have A Dream" speech. Sharpton said that most of us, regardless of ethnicity, rush too quickly to the "DREAM" part of the speech. He went on to say that we need to spend more time contemplating the first part of the "I Have A Dream" speech which talks about recieving a bad check, and the "promisory note" that freedom entails.

What Rev. Sharpton said intrigued me, so I watched a YOUTUBE video of the event. In the process I discovered Sharpton was a very insighful man, and that led me to think about several things in relation to this part of the speech.

I think it is interesting that the dream speech is grounded in covenant theology. We tend to run forward to the eschatology closing stanza, and forget the call to covenant that is in the first part of the speech.

This makes the speech so much deeper. Why? First of all, simply by calling for the renewal of covenant he is basing his whole argument on Biblical grounds and on the basic covenant of our life together as a nation. No other image of community in Scripture is more foundational than the concept of covenant.

Covenant theology is also important because it does not call for the kind of justice that separates us from one another once our agreement is set right. It compels us to believe that the destiny of all us tied together. Thus, the central vision of Martin Luther King Jr.'s theology that undergirds his civil rights is not establishing one groups rights over against one another. Instead, it is a vision that requires us to be reconciled with one another and be in right relationship with one another. It is not simply a call to a cessation of conflict and recognition of rights, it is a call to renewed friendship and brotherhood. In other words, much like the practice of non-violent protest, the "I Have a Dream" speech calls us to passionately love enemies as alienated friends that we need to get close to again.

I think too often we go straight to the inspiration, and forget the intellectual meat of the speech, which is really what makes it beautiful. Rev. Al Sharpton was right.