Oh, come on. Every candidate for president I've ever heard says "this election" is the most important one ever, "a defining moment in history." What's new about that? And I don't hear Obama saying he's God, or even Martin Luther King; I hear him saying he's the candidate for these times.

If anything, Obama consistently says 'we' not 'me'. Seems like a messianic personality wouldn't be able to emphasize the collective.

Also seems to me that so many people are jaded about politics that anything that actually looks good has to be wrong. "What, I actually have a chance to make a good choice this time, rather than vote for the lesser of two evils?! Nah, must be a fairytale."

"Cynicism is a sad kind of wisdom" -BHO,last night.

Therefore, you are sad.
Grow a backbone.

what If after four years Mrs Laura Bush would like to run for presidency...does it make sense? is it power hungry?

America should never deceive the young who have become now involve in their country...give Obam a chance!

The Democratic Party has been waiting for someone like Barack Obama and not because he's an African American but because he's a brillant man.

I think JS is missing one important point. Obama is inspirational (like it or not) and that was Reagan's one strong point.

People LOVE to be inspired.

I am sick of Obama's "message of hope"...I hope people stop dying in the desert...I hope soldiers stop dying in Iraq...I hope a full blown depression doesn't happen...I hope senior citizens don't have to choose between food and medicine. Does anyone really think this silly message has any guts behind it? If we really want serious solutions, as voters we need to take a long look at Senator Clinton again. These issues are much too serious to take lightly.

I think it is safe to say that many Obama supporters view him as a "savior" of sorts. But the issue here is that Obama is leading people at their feet and not at their heads. Essentially, it's empowerment. It's not only that Obama can bring people together to win an election, but that he can bring people together behind progressive ideals. I have no doubt that HRC is knowledgable and truly believes in the same progressive ideals, but she won't move the country in the same way.

Part of Obama's power is his inspriration, and I can see where people view that as being almost religious, but if we really want a radical shift toward progressive policy, we'll need a leader who can bring together a grassroots coalition. This is the same kind of politics Sen. Paul Wellstone espoused.

Beware the politician with too much charisma. Don't forget that Kennedy was responsible for our first overt actions in Vietnam. This was an illegal undeclared war - as is our current 'conflict'.

If you look past Obama's great speaking skills you will see that he is just another US imperialist. Last summer an issue of 'Foreign Affairs' had an essay by Obama - here is an excerpt:

“We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests."

The 'vital interests' phrase is key. The Clinton doctrine and the Bush doctrine both were based on protecting US interests and resources around the globe.

Folks, our current military spending exceeds the rest of the world combined! We maintain 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world.

If anyone has a better word for this than 'imperialism' I'd like to know what it is. We spend nearly a Trillion dollars per year maintaining this overseas empire. We're not welcome there - and the aggression against the US has an obvious basis in our far reaching 'foreign policy'.

It's amazing how difficult this obvious hypocrisy is to see. I was blind to it a long time as well. We preemptively attach others, but we would never accept such a premise against us. We maintain a vast military abroad, yet we would never allow a foreign military presence on our soil.

If you read the original preface to Orwell's 'Animal Farm' (this was unpublished until recently) - you will read how 'self censorship' based on political correctness is the most insidious and difficult form of censorship to see. The inability to grasp or discuss the huge faults in our foreign policy seem to fall into this category. Yet you need go no further than the good old golden rule (or ethic of reciprocity) - 'Apply to ourselves the principle we apply to others'.

There are candidates that grasp this issue and voice this topic candidly - Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. Alas - they are not seen as 'viable' candidates.

Please don't fall for the slick politician - too much is at stake. All of the top tier candidates are simply a continuation of the US imperialism we've be immersed in for at least 50 years.

The essence of the Obama campaign is often missed: this is the first post-modern candidate. He is talking about a transformation of the method of politics from top-down, win-at any-price, opponent-as-demon, policy-crafted-from-above, to bottom-up, open, win-win, opponent as intelligent contributor, citizen-involved policy creation. It's an expression of modernist v. post-modern outlooks. It appears in all corners of America. It magnetizes post-moderns and puzzles moderns. And it is the direction of Western culture as it travels through one of the great philosophical transitions of history.

Awesome, Mr. Stein, awesome! I've heard the same thing from him many times, he's already presuming that his (possible) presidency will be as transcending an occurrence as those momentous achievements he equates himself with.

Expect more like this. They have nothing on Obama, so they're trying out tactics - he's not black enough (didn't work), he is too black (didn't work), and now it is the old anti-Martin Luther King slur - he believes he is Jezus. Let me guess - it won't work either. Rove and his crew just don't have anything on him, so they come up with garbage like " Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise.". No one will convince you? So evidence to the contrary wouldn't sway you either, right?

I disagree profoundly with this article. I watched both Clinton and Obama speak last night. Even before I read this blog, I had been struck by Clinton's constant use of "I" -- "I see..., when I am elected..." while Obama, even in the passage you quoted above, refers to "we," "us," and "they" as in they who fought slavery and fought for civil rights. He explicitly calls for greater participation and has been inviting people into the process. He actually acknowledges that he cannot do this by himself... which is why people feel like they are not campaigning for a political candidate but for a piece of a social movement that is theirs to own. Note the number of people who contribute to his campaign with $5-10.

Have you been asleep the last seven years? Standing in the middle of the debris that is the current sorry state of our union, Obama is reminding people why we used to be proud of America, and the long tradition of goodness, courage, and yes, hope, that is our legacy and that is ours to continue.

" I am sick of Obama's "message of hope"... Does anyone really think this silly message has any guts behind it? "

You can stop now, it isn't working. Too bad you have nothing positive to say about Hillary Clinton, isn't it?

By the way, I am not connected to the Obama campaign, I am strictly speaking in my own capacity. But as someone who has been on the internet for over 10 years, I think I can spot a 'message' being reported over and over again.

It is the same talking points repeated over and over again: Obama doesn't have the experience (Obama has been a senator longer than Clinton if you count his Indiana Senate experience); Obama hates women and therefore the pro-Obama vote is a 'mysogynist' vote (let's try to play the 'poor Hillary' vote again, so we can run against her, because we believe it worked after Iowa); he is all message and hope (appealing to the people who don't actually listen to his speeches). I think I have all the talking points there.

Rove and his buddies must be working overtime, trying to go after Obama. The reason is simple. Obama is electrifying the Democrats AND the Republicans to vote for him. Hillary only electrifies the Republicans into voting against her.

Note that none of the claims against Obama has to do with his policies or his voting record. Because they are getting absolutely no traction against him.

Not my messiah.

I agree that he is being a bit self referential and over the top.

I also try not to like any politician because of his or her oratory skills...but I get really moved by Obama.

I know that Obama is basically the same as Hillary on their viewpoints, but he just has that extra edge. That, and the fact I can't stand the Clinton/Bush machine.

Obama's message of "hope" really inspires. He knows that it will be a hard road to forge and speaks accordingly.

"Me" also has it right when speaking about Obama's detractors. They don't attack his views, they attack the method of his views.

I don't think that attacking hope is the side of an argument that anyone wants to be on.

Lastly, when I voted for Nader in 2000 I wanted change. Eight years later, I want it more than ever. Obama appeals directly to that in me, and I think a lot of others as well.

No messiah, no politician could ever be so.

All politicians suck and nearly all are egomaniacs.

So the question comes down to: Which sucky egomaniacal person do we want running the country?

******

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office."
~ H. L. Mencken

i have nothing terribly profound to say about this, but i do think that many people miss the point of Obama's inspirational monologues. In his case, some of his most enthusiastic backers are also the most easily-discouraged...I'm speaking for myself, as an African American here. Despite the fact that this is NOT about race, it is undeniably an emotional rollercoaster ride for us...I appreciate his efforts to keep me engaged & inspired, because more than once, so far, I've thought about giving up hope - America will never elect a black man, etc.
I, for one, NEED his inspiration & encouragement, as he needs my support. It's a symbionic relationship designed to improve life for EVERYONE.

"Cynicism is a sad kind of wisdom," - This is the beauty of his words and what prevents the hateful and nasty people like yourself, Jonathan Stein, from swaying the solidarity of people who wish to join together in a common cause to regain control of a country that is supposed to be for the people and by the people. Not for the corporations and by the clergymen. Get over yourself and grow up.

The sign of a true Messiah Complex is his ability to fool so many with so little. People are looking for meaning and this is what Mr. Obama is plundering.

Frankly, I think he is one of the scariest men to run for office aside from George Bush. He makes GW look like a middle schooler in the Messiah business.

But why leave out the reasons why we should worry:

------------------------

WHY WAS OBAMA AGAINST THE WAR? The recent report of the Obama Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi connection was mind boggling to me because of one elemental factor: Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire with connections to Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime and his wife both are political donors to Obama's campaign I am even more perplexed today when I came across this entry by Nibras Kazimi, a visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC. who writes a weekly column on the Middle East for the New York Sun, and a monthly column for the Prospect Magazine (UK) and whose "Talisman Gate blog is widely read by Iraq experts and commentators in the United States..." The Washington Post, July 19, 2007 "Obama's Saddam Connection? When I first saw the names Barack Obama, Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi a week ago in some random newspaper report, I was sure that some reporter would extrapolate these connections further to include the name “Saddam Hussein”. Well, I guess I expected too much from the American press, and it fell to The Times (UK) to spell out the obvious. Back in the opposition days, the name “Nadhmi Auchi” was just another front for Saddam’s intelligence service, or so we thought. Auchi (…a Chaldean Christian; there’s a Muslim family by that name too) knew Saddam intimately enough in his youth to the point of conspiring together to pull off an assassination attempt on Soviet-leaning Iraqi strongman Col. Abdul-Karim Qasim in 1959. Auchi was considered one of Saddam’s guys, who mysteriously left his job in the Ministry of Oil to start a business in Luxembourg with school-pal Nasseer ‘Abid (…Shia from Nassiriya). Auchi’s brothers stayed behind in Iraq and fixed deals with their brother to bring oil industry spare parts, but one of them got too greedy and went too far—from the regime’s perspective—in hoarding kickbacks and was executed over corruption charges in the mid-1980s on Saddam’s personal orders. Yet, even after this, Auchi maintained a connection to Saddam, according to what we in the opposition believed at the time. A very reliable source of mine who knows Auchi very well disputes any intelligence or money laundering roles that Auchi may have performed on behalf of Saddam, but then again, had that been true, enough people would have formed a different impression about Auchi and this stigma of him being one of Saddam’s ‘secret men’ would have faded away—but it never did. What is certain is that Auchi never turned against Saddam even after his brother was murdered, and may have stuck to the Ba’athist talking points when talking politics. Auchi has faced all sorts of controversy and legal action in Europe, and at one point had difficulty obtaining a visa to visit the United States. I’m not fully sure, but I think that Auchi eventually did make it to Michigan and was honored at some ceremony there; I remember seeing something in the local Iraqi-American press to that effect. I could be wrong, but some reporters should be checking this out. What if there had been an Obama-Auchi meeting that may have been arranged by Rezko? Has any reporter asked Obama about this to his face? What if either Rezko or Auchi sold Obama on how the Saddam regime sees things, and that’s why Obama took a stance against the Iraq war? Was Obama influenced by a Saddam connection?? Are the investigative journalists of the US in HIBERNATION?

Posted by: papeehara
February 2, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/

VetGirrl
Your conspiracy theory junk doesn't do anything but make you look crazy(er?).

Keep it short. I stoppped reading after the second sentence.

I repeat, "Cynicism is sad sort of wisdom."

If Mr. Stein had bothered to actually follow Obama's campaign, he would know that Obama is not saying that HE is what we need, he's saying WE are what we need.

Obama IS actually saying that we need to march and organize.

Obama is SPECIFICALLY saying, much as Howard Dean did, that he is NOT going to solve all our problems, but that only WE THE PEOPLE can make our dreams happen.

How incredibly sad that Mr. Stein goes so far as to point out that his writing will reinforce a certain meme, even as he creates that meme with his ill informed nincompoopery.

-Beauchard

**I think those cynics who howl the most loudly about Obama (and those of us who appreciate him), are the ones who most WANT HIM TO BE REAL. They desperately want something to believe in, but can hang on only to their "sorry wisdom of cynicism." They haven't the courage to fight for something better.

"Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try."
~ Peggy Noonan (1950 - ), in Good Housekeeping

I am a British Iranian living in UK for most of my adult life. I am married to my lovely white English wife. I have a son called Cameron and daughter Abigail.

I want to really congratulate all of you in US, since for the first time you have allowed a Woman, Black African Origin regular guy, An Old man to be in the race for the top job. How refreshing is that? It is fantastic to see the leader of the FREE world to take the lead and show the rest of the world what democracy means. To show the rest of the world how the US system can allowed a somewhat ordinary man with humble background (Obama) to reach where he has come so far and may be win.

I have never ever been too much in politics as I never felt my vote can make any difference what so ever. It really does not matter much over here if it is Labour or conservative in power. They are all practically the same do the same since while they are in power. I never felt that there is much difference between them. In fact last time I voted for a joker as I thought he was the only one that could have made a difference.

There is something absolutely certain over here in Europe. You will never ever, see a none white Caucasus man/woman ever reaching the top. Over here if you have not come from Eton and did get your degree in Oxford or Cambridge then you will never be in charge - Just forget it. You may make it as an MP or assistant something just to be politically correct. I guess I don’t expect a none Italian to head Italy since the culture is very Italian. There are not many foreigners living there. However, somehow I expect differently in UK or say in France due to their colonial background. They went out and ruled many continents for centuries and allowed people to come here and live her for generations. Therefore, it is fair to expect the right to reach the top for all these none white Caucasus people should be there. yet I just don’t see it here or rest of the Europe. Over here It is as impossible to be a black prime minister as it is to be a future black King of England
I tell you that the rest of the world is watching you with great interest and admiration if I may say so, because, it is different this time. You are indeed making history. Your are making a statement this time around that is much more profound than in your recent history. Recently, I have been watching, almost every YouTube debate in the subject. I am so impressed with what is happening that I almost feel I am voting with writing this post over here and this weekend I will blog in my usual IT blog space.

Naturally from what I see I want Obama to win due to his extraordinary sincerity and his natural ability to see what is the right thing to do. This is a great talent any man can have. The leader of a country must have that ability and clearly Obama passes that with maximum mark. Probably his other biggest asset is his ability to move people, to make them stand up and move in the right direction.

When Bush and Blair together went for Sadam to Iraq, I felt they were great. I felt they had the balls to go to Iraq in a bold move. But now I am a little wiser and I know that my hate for Sadam was so much that it clouded my better judgment. Perhaps it did the same for Bush and Blair.

Guess what

Obama was above all that stuff.

Salar

Oratory is necessary to inspire. "I have a dream" is far more powerful than "I have a position paper."

"I am sick of Obama's 'message of hope'...I hope people stop dying in the desert...I hope soldiers stop dying in Iraq...I hope a full blown depression doesn't happen...I hope senior citizens don't have to choose between food and medicine. Does anyone really think this silly message has any guts behind it? If we really want serious solutions, as voters we need to take a long look at Senator Clinton again. These issues are much too serious to take lightly.

Posted by: silverlucie on 02/13/08 at 10:27 AM"

You hope soldiers stop dying in Iraq and yet you support the canidate who voted for the war, who voted for Kyl-Lieberman, who refuses to repudiate torture, and even refused to sign a pledge indicating her allegiance to the Constitution?

I think you should give your candidate a few more looks. Without the rose-colored glasses.

Obama is a Lieberman Democrat; he specifically picked Lieberman as his mentor in his Senate freshman days. His contempt for Paul Wellstone was expressed in his comment that Wellstone was a "gadfly."

Mr. Stein, You must be so proud to have officially joined the Clinton spin machine. Why even bother to write your own pieces? Why don't you just let Sid Blumenthal pen them for you? Or Jake Tapper? I loved the part where he compared Obama followers to members of the Charles Manson cult. See www.ajc.com/opinion/content/ printedition/2008/02/13/obamaed0213.html

Geez, Obama.... It's just enough! The guy is a good candidate but, beyond the repetitive inspirational rhetoric, lies a completely standard platform. Prove me otherwise! Tell me what he's going to do to "turn Washington on its feet." What will you say after 'yes we can' becomes just another past hit?

That's the big question... not for you, supporters of Obama, but for Obama himself. Good pop products of top quality know well about this. If you don't provide substance, no one will remember you in a little while. And so far, all he relies on is on his rhetoric. As a good Spanish expression says: "Words belong to the air, and there they stay"

Does Obama's hope rhetoric wear a little thin after a while? Yeah, it does. Are his speeches lacking in substance? Sometimes, but he has his campaign platform outlined for those who take the time to look for it.

If Obama had decided to ditch the hope appeal, would he have drawn as many new voters? Would there be throngs of people clamoring to vote in the primaries? Nope. There wouldn't be. In fact, I bet that if Obama wasn't running this year that there wouldn't be as many Clinton supporters either. Like it or not, Obama has people fired up about politics...and that cannot be a bad thing in my opinion. So if his speeches seem a little wishy washy after a while...well, maybe his speeches are meant to draw in new supporters, and not appease jaded hip columnists who overananalyze what are at heart meaningless poli-advertising anyway. Are Clinton's uber-market researched safe speeches really soooo chock full of substance? I would say they are not.

So if Obama is elected president will there be a bit of a letdown when people realize that he won't make manna fall from heaven? Perhaps a little, but I bet we will have an entire new generation who realizes that politics matter.

"History is moving, and it will tend toward hope, or tend toward tragedy."

~ George W. Bush (1946 - )

Sounds like even some Bushies will go to Obama.

"I am just a poor boy
though my story's seldom told
I have squandered my resistance
for a pocket full of mumbles
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest...
After changes upon changes
we are more or less the same..."
Paul Simon "The Boxer"

Inspiration...hope...change. Like all words, easy to recite. But real change requires commitment, strength, courage, sacrifice, resilience--not just for a vote or two, not just for a campaign, but for years--for lifetimes.

Self-interest is largely what makes the world go round. Politics is a well-oiled machine kept humming by self-interest. Change, if it happens at all, comes from the trenches. And it is tireless, endless work to try to keep the progress you have managed to make--those greedy waves NEVER stop lapping away at your castle of sand.

If Obama truly thinks he can inspire in the masses the kind of commitment that true change requires then he is, without a doubt, an egomaniac.

For those who believe Obama will bring real change, you will be disappointed and disheartened. Change is a struggle that never ends, not a feel-good rally.

If you are TRULY inspired, then that power comes from inside yourself and not from some politician, however eloquent he might be. It is YOUR blood, sweat and tears that make YOU the hero, not the ones with the lofty words.

ian, that was BEAUTIFULLY said. Thank you.

"Cynicism is a sad kind of wisdom." Hmm. It's kind of interesting that everyone is focusing on the "sad" part, and not on the concession that cynicism is, in fact, wisdom.

As for Obama, well what do we have? A charismatic leader who promises that through collective action we can achieve glorious results. Yes we can. Okay. No historical examples to suggest that might go badly, right?

"Leadership is based on inspiration, not domination; on cooperation, not intimidation."
~ William Arthur Wood

Monte Asbury wrote: "[Obama] is talking about a transformation of the method of politics from top-down, win-at any-price, opponent-as-demon, policy-crafted-from-above, to bottom-up, open, win-win, opponent as intelligent contributor, citizen-involved policy creation."

Except that he's publicly announced his intent to continue using the unconstitutional presidential signing statement, which President Bush has used several hundred times during his presidency to modify and ignore legislation passed by Congress. That sounds pretty top-down to me.

Obama completely lost me when MoveOn began supporting them. Ugh. Oddly enough, this whole thing is starting to remind me of the Bush campaign. What's next? Halo pictures? http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm

If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign.
~George W. Bush

Oratory is necessary to inspire. "I have a dream" is far more powerful than "I have a position paper."

I don't want to come off as condescending, but that's an awfully silly thing to say. King did have a position paper. It was called "Going Through Hell". And thankfully, he had the passion and courage to stand in the capital of the United States and to demand "change". He was the real deal. He even talked specifics. Every listener to that speech knows what he's talking about, knows what it takes to make that change. Because he had been making that change and inspiring others to do so for years before that day. You knew that what was being done was scary, tragic, and demanding, but that that change would not happen without our back breaking efforts. King didn't just "inspire", he quelled our fears and set fire to millions who had once deemed their dreams dead. He (along with many many other civil rights leaders, writers and musicians) passed law without ever being elected.

Nobody voted for Martin Luther King Jr. They didn't have to.

With that out of the way, I completely agree with this article. I think it was the NH speech that had me feeling this way about Obama. It seems cheap for him to cite past movements. Only because... I don't know what he stands for. If it's corrupt government he's fighting against, which I do think is a worthy cause, I wish I could participate in the fight with him before having to vote for him for president first. It's just really strange and off putting.

A great deal of people are relying on him and I just hope we're all making the right decision. His speeches are lovely, but hopefully they're inspiring people to do more than just vote for him.

I really don't care for Obama, but I have to admit, the man is brilliant. As much as he doesn't want to admit that he's a politician he's an incredibly capable one. He's gotten this far without talking much about policy, misquoting opponents, and yes, playing the race card (I mean... c'mon. How many times do we have to hear that he's related to Cheney, a white guy, before it gets old?). Before anyone thinks I'm a crazed Clinton supporter, I will say that I think he'd be a vast improvement on what he have now despite my distaste for him personally (I can't stand Clinton's personality either). We'll see what happens...

Strictly referring to the course of history Obama paints, I think his point is less about being a mesiah and more about the United States culturally moving forward. A black president is an enormous step forward in equal rights for this country.

American Revolutionaries -> Manifest Destiny -> Slaves/Abolitionists -> Suffragettes -> the Labor Movement -> the Greatest Generation -> the Civil Rights Movement -> Himself (aka black child of an interracial couple)

Barack Hussein Obama is just an ambitious, narcisstic politician with a goal of being President of the United States. Listen to his words and watch his body language when he speaks about his nomination. In 2006, Obama and a few other advisors devised a very good plan of fooling the masses by preaching hope and change because that is what we want to hear. Americans want a good president. But we need to think with our heads and think like a corporation where in the hiring process the employee's past performance is scrutinized because it will determine future value to the company. Now shake off the wishful thinking and look into Obama's past performance. Not too good.

"Barack Hussein Obama is just an ambitious, narcisstic politician with a goal of being President of the United States."

Unlike the other politicians running for president?

All politicians suck.

One of them is going to be president.

Obama is a good choice, better than McCain and likely better than HRC.

The last thing we need is another cocky president who promises more than he can deliver. Like Bush, Obama has a completely unrealistic sense of his own capabilities and limitations. We need a pragmatic, hard-working realist. Vote for Hillary Clinton. Her speeches may not knock you off your feet, but she knows what needs to be done and she won't stop until its done.

As a response to Ian:

Yes, change is an ongoing process... but you are putting rhteroical shackles on someone is offering a message that resounds. That is B.S.

Put simply: by denying the possibility that someone actually means well, you are denying the possibility of politics and government in the US of ever making the steps necessary to change.

You are essentially adopting the "one person can't change the world, so why bother," hipster line. No matter how eloquently you spout apathy, it is apathy.

It is junk to call someone a cult of personality when they have not implemented any standard cult or brainwashing techniques. Everyone does the word "cult" injustice and denies its awful historical legacy by pawning it off on a politician with lofty rhetoric that inspires people to try and alter the political system that is KILLING the third world and SQUEEZING US DRY.

It isn't about Obama; it is about the message. This writer and all of the others who get dyspeptic from hope hate the message that somehow things can improve or that the system can be prepared. Obama isn't saying all at once... he is declaring the possibility that by putting people (most notably him) in office that speak and act on these grounds, that this country and the whole world can move in a more positive direction without the divisions and rancor that have POLARIZED us into increasing extremist camps.

Get it??

the most revealing incidents of barack's messiah complex have been this recent string of staged fainting spells by young woman at his rallies.
he dramtically stops his speech to clear the way and offer help to the nearby fainter (what, nobody in the back is fainting?) and then offers his very own bottle of water to heal the gal while the crowd goes wild. then, it's on to the next stop to repeat this whole spectacle of the holy obama healing the sick.... blech !! is this a presidential campaign or a tent revival meeting ? this is the phoniest bit i've ever seen and nobody seems to be questioning it for fear of being called a racist or lacking in "hope" or some such garbage.

In response to Eric:

Words are cheap, and the world is full of well-intentioned people, including Obama and many of his supporters.

Someone who holds a realistic attitude is NOT being apathetic. Those who are truly inspired understand the personal cost that commitment to meaningful and lasting change incurs. No leader, regardless of his eloquence, can ever give that to someone else--it comes from deep inside a person, from their dreams, their suffering, their wisdom, their altruism. Apathy is what those with unrealistic expectations will end up feeling when their "dreams" are not achieved with the minimal effort that they are willing to exert. Progress is made by those who stick around to do the hard, dirty work after all of the "dreamers" have gone home. It doesn't feel much like a dream when you're covered with sweat and mud, holding your ground in the trenches, but you stay the course--not because you hear the distant echoes of some pretty speech, but because you are inspired from deep within yourself to make the world a better place. Those who don't understand this will never contribute much to any cause.

Politics as a whole does not lend itself well to change. Like many things in life, you can mess things up a whole lot easier and faster than you can fix them and make them better. We need all the (relatively) good and honest people in office that we can get, who will do what they can to stop the relentless assault of greed and corruption, and hopefully have some time and energy left over to build a little better system. The one elected to the "top" cannot simply drag that huge political beast behind him wherever he wishes it to go--no one is that strong and powerful and talented.

Obama apparently believes that he can continue to inspire throngs of people even after he is elected, but most of you will just get on with your lives and wait for HIM to pull the rabbit out of the hat, leaving the relative handful of truly inspired to do what they can "on their own". That's the way it's always been. That's not the voice of apathy, it's the voice of experience.

Movements need leaders, to be sure--to offer ideas, to dispel fear, to lend a little support and let you know that you are not alone. But an election is not a movement--it is an eclectic assemblage of problems and ideas. It is not a place to go to get inspired.

"Someone who holds a realistic attitude"

What's realistic to one may not be realistic to others.

Just because you think you are being realistic doesn't mean you have a monopoly on perspective. Nor are you being realistic because you think so, no matter how concinved.

Consider:

"Never hire or promote in your own image. It is foolish to replicate your strength and idiotic to replicate your weakness. It is essential to employ, trust, and reward those whose perspective, ability, and judgment are radically different from yours. It is also rare, for it requires uncommon humility, tolerance, and wisdom."
~ Dee W. Hock, Fast Company

You have to respect yourself before you can truly respect another.

Just a thought.

Inspiration as a fault? Interesting but wrong.

bravo, el polacko the only thing missing is a white suit.

In response to capt:

You are absolutely right--my "realistic" is not your "realistic" is not someone else's "realistic." We all come to wherever we are based on our experiences and our perspective.

I never claimed to have a monopoly on perspective--who does?? I would, in fact, categorically deny that such a monopoly is even possible. No one can ever stand in exactly the same spot as another, can they?

"Inspiration as a fault? Interesting but wrong." In my opinion, inspiration certainly can be a fault. As your last quote indicates, strengths and weaknesses come in all shapes and sizes. What is right for one person can be absolutely wrong for another. Canned inspiration for the masses is, generally speaking, not very helpful if one wants to actually inspire people. And it can have the opposite effect down the road in the "wrong" people. Disappointment can lead to hopelessness in some people, if their circumstances and personalities come together in the "wrong" way. In all likelihood some Obama supporters will wind up being totally put off by politics down the road, because he is creating unrealistic expectations that will never be met. (That is, of course, my personal perspective, but history tends to back me up on this--great expectations are seldom, if ever, realized.) Because we are all individuals, the effects of Obama's "inspiration" will affect each person a little (or a lot) differently. To suggest that "inspiration" is universally positive is to deny the individuality that you seem to embrace.

Inspiriation is generally a postive word. A quality not a fault.

To each their own but words do have specific meanings.

Maybe you mean the effect of his inspiration (if he has that) is not a positive?

I think of inspiration as a good feeling not a bad one.

Maybe that's just me.

I do agree that inspiration is a positive word as well as a good feeling. But I understand it to mean that a seed has been planted that will grow and flourish and create something worthwhile that wasn't there before.

So, yes, inspiration should produce some sort of effect or it isn't inspiration. My dictionary tells me that it implies a creative force, so I would expect it to produce results. So perhaps Obama is "inspiring" happiness and other nice positive feelings, but he's not necessarily inspiring any "action".

The effects of Obama's "inspiration" could be positive, negative, or neutral, depending on each individual. I don't think most people will do anything at all with it in the long run, which is to say the effects are neutral. Or, to use the meaning of the word as I understand it, he doesn't inspire at all, except to get some people to feel good enough to vote for him.

"get some people to feel good enough to vote for him"

I think even he would admit to that.

Campaign rhetoric being what it is.

"'get some people to feel good enough to vote for him'
I think even he would admit to that"

Personally, I think he would say that it's not about him, it's about CHANGE. It's about how YES WE CAN, we can make it happen, if we all work together. It won't be easy...we'll make mistakes....

It's about the post we're all responding to, that messiah complex thing. It's about how he seems to be trying to start a grass roots revolution from the high and mighty podium of the White House, how he seems to be a man of integrity and good intentions, who seems to believe he has the rhetorical skills and the charisma to achieve this daunting task.

I don't think it matters much whether or not he makes us feel good, if he can't inspire action. And if he can't inspire action, does it matter to him? Does he have a "back-up" plan? Does he really need us, or can he do it pretty much by himself?

No politician has a scarcity of ego. But, as J.S. said, this is a bit much.

Looks like Wis and Tex is going his way.

What an embarrasment of riches to have two such candidates running for office for the Democratic party (if you ask me).

Have you read his 64 page blueprint for change?

barackobama.com/issues/

Your post seems more akin to GOP talking points.

Are you going to support him if he wins the nomination?

Do you think the other candidates are more humble?

Jonathan was right:

"Does this post play unhelpfully into the pernicious and growing Obamaism-as-cult meme"

The meme lives on!

In response to capt:

Frankly, I am fascinated by the response that Obama creates in so many people. I have been spending a considerable amount of time trying to figure it out, hopping madly all over the web (including his site) looking for clues. It is a phenomenon that is hard to explain, especially when one factors in that there are quite a few posts expressing a response of fear and distrust and uneasiness that the posters themselves have trouble explaining. Not all who feel an emotional response to him are inspired.

Personally, I have to admit, I don't "get it." He doesn't do anything for me (none of the candidates do), but his meteoric rise peaked my curiosity.

I do firmly believe that "change" is much harder to come by--both in politics and life in general--than so many of his supporters seem to believe. It's not like nobody's been trying until now, is it?! But there are so many problems in so many arenas, so many obstacles, so many opponents--where have all these people been? Where will they be in six months or a year? Obama keeps saying WE--are they making plans?

If some of what I have to say sounds like GOP talking points, so be it. Why does that matter anyway? You have to drop your partisan baggage when you're hunting around for answers or you'll never get anywhere.

As already stated, I don't think any candidate is humble. Actually, I think genuine humility is very rare indeed. (I don't consider myself humble or I wouldn't be posting little messages to complete strangers, would I?!)

My voting strategy (is this really any of your business??!!) is to vote for the candidate that I believe will do the least amount of damage. It didn't used to be...

Fascinating indeed.

Amen.

[...]

Dissing Obama’s speeches is, at best, a risky strategy. Barack Obama is an exciting candidate and his charismatic appeal restores faith in a political system that many Americans despise because of the last seven years of George W. Bush, the eight years before that of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the terms of other Presidents going back to Richard M. Mixon and Watergate.

Obama brings hope in a time of despair and attracts those disillusioned by the system back into the electoral process.

(from CHB)

capt,

Dissing Hitler's speeches is, at best, a risky strategy. Adolf Hitler is an exciting candidate and his charismatic appeal restores faith in a political system that many Germans despise because of the incompetence and failures of the Weimar Republic.

Hitler brings hope in a time of despair and attracts those disillusioned by the system back into the electoral process.

**********

There. Fixed it for ya!

There's a great big stupid leap of the phoniest supposition that this supid blogger makes.

Obama never says voting for him is the answer, rather goes on and on about what "WE" can do if we decide to go down he road he
pictures.

In other words, this blogger misses the whole point.
He can transcripe till blue in the face, he doesn't, apparently read it. Off on his own willy tangent. What else is new.

Oh, god, I knew this would turn out to be about Jews.

And Hitler and the holocaust.

Everything is. Every day and every day. Nothing else has ever happened.

The smear slime machine is just getting started.

Bush is Hitler, BHO would have to be Stalin or another historical figure - maybe the devil?

Time for a real leader
February 15, 2008 - 8:10am
By DOUG THOMPSON

Hillary Rodham Clinton claims she has “solutions” while Barack Obama only has “speeches.” Obama, she says borrowing an old Texas cliché, is “all hat and no cattle.”

From this vantage point, we’ll take Obama’s words over Clinton’s solutions. Given her performance in the last eight Democratic Presidential primaries, we’d also say Hillary is all hat and no delegates.

As her rhetoric turns shriller, Clinton finds herself with fewer ears to assault. Blacks desert her in droves to back Obama. Latinos are taking a second look at the Senator from Illinois and liking what they see. Her base among older white women erodes daily.

At her cavernous campaign headquarters in Arlington, senior staff members scream at each other and point fingers of blame at anyone but themselves. Her attack dog husband, neutered by a backlash against his over-aggressive tactics last month, now utters the same shrill rhetoric as his wife.

Hillary is in trouble and it shows in every movement, every action and every bungled attempt to jumpstart her campaign. Her new strategy of putting everything on the line in the delegate-rich states of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania threatens to turn her into the Rudy Giuliani of the Democratic Party.

She may still pull this one out. Nobody in politics can top the Clintons on comebacks but this time the odds are longer and the opponent may be better at the game than them.

Dissing Obama’s speeches is, at best, a risky strategy. Barack Obama is an exciting candidate and his charismatic appeal restores faith in a political system that many Americans despise because of the last seven years of George W. Bush, the eight years before that of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the terms of other Presidents going back to Richard M. Mixon and Watergate.

Obama brings hope in a time of despair and attracts those disillusioned by the system back into the electoral process.

As Americans, we desperately need to feel good once again about our country. We need someone to restore that pride that the Bushes, the Clintons and others have stripped away with too many lies, too many scandals and too many assaults on our freedoms.

Call it the “man on a white horse” syndrome, riding in to save the day. Perhaps it is fitting that the man riding that white horse may be black. In another time, perhaps it could be a woman on the white horse but at this time and place that woman does not appear to be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Barack Obama is not perfect. No human being should claim perfection and no voter should expect it. But a real leader inspires the nation he or she serves. A real leader motivates. A real leader restores hope to a nation in despair.

At this time, based on what we see and hear, Barack Obama is that leader. Hillary Clinton is not.

***

You can "fix" anything you like but you should do so to the original author.

All politicians suck, they are liars and live off the public dole (quite well).

One of them is likely to be president come election day.

A rogues gallery to be sure but we can all hope for the future - a better future with the possibilities and potential that we can do something good, turn our lemons into lemonade.

All politicians use rhetorical skills to gain support then once in office do as they please - we can't unelect them and if Bush escapes impeachment I can't imagine any president being removed from office.

So what can we do? Take all of that into consideration and take a shot, hope your vote counts, hope the SCOTUS stays out of it and pray for a clear winner.

I am so tired of the 50/50 split. I would never expect to be in the majority on many issues but the country is divided enough.

The next president will have a rare opportunity. Not so much in the specifics but generally to heal and unify the people.

The GOP is just starting to fire up the old wurlitzer - expect some very nasty stuff - I hope America is as tired of that stuff as I am - if so it will blow up in their faces.

"The next president will have a rare opportunity. Not so much in the specifics but generally to heal and unify the people."

I keep hearing this from Obama supporters, but I really don't see the evidence. I have never seen the democratic party so divided. Many bloggers claim they will never vote for Clinton if she is nominated instead of "their" candidate. Some people say they are losing personal friends over this election.

What is the premise here--that once all of the competition is eliminated, the rest of us will finally "see the light" and fall under the spell of Obama's amazing oratorical skills? That he has the power to heal and unite us and make us feel hopeful and happy?

Is that or is that not a "messiah complex"?

"The next president will have a rare opportunity. Not so much in the specifics but generally to heal and unify the people."

Whomsoever the next president is.

Maybe it will be McCain.

The opportunity is for the winner of the election and the potential is all ours.

"I keep hearing this from Obama supporters"

Now my preference is your business but I was out of line asking if you would support which eventual nominee?

I am a Kucinich supporter for what that is worth and I am no partisan.

If you want to be taken seriously you have to read the posts and not interject your assumations into your responses.

I think BHO is inspiriational, and I think that is a good thing for those that are lucky enough to be inspired - that doesn't mean I am a supporter.

Thanks

Where's the Substance?
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 18 February 2008

Madison, Wisconsin - Many pundits and the Clinton campaign keep asking where the substance is to Obama's campaign. There's a simple answer: in his plans.

It's true that his stump speeches are full of soaring oratory and do not satisfy policy wonks, but do a simple search of his web site and you will find substance. He also regularly gives policy speeches packed with specifics.

For example, on Saturday in Wisconsin, Senator Obama laid out his plan for revitalizing the Community College System.

Obama proposes to make tuition at a community college completely free for most Americans by creating a new "American Opportunity Tax Credit." He explained, "This fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is free. The credit will be available to families at the time of enrollment by using the prior year's tax data to deliver the credit at the time the tuition is due. Recipients of this credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of public service a year, either during the school year or over the summer months."

The senator also proposed creating a so-called "Community College Partnership" that would assess the role of community colleges and help to tailor their services to the needs of students and industry.

Senator Obama also laid out his plan for the economy in a speech to workers at a General Motors assembly plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, on Wednesday.

In that speech, Obama said he would offer direct relief to victims of the mortgage crisis, and would also offer a tax credit to low- and middle-income taxpayers that will help them meet their mortgage obligations.

His job creation program focuses on infrastructure and "green energy jobs." He proposes spending $210 billion over ten years to create jobs in these sectors and retrain workers to transition to these opportunities.

Another proposal affecting workers would be in the area of retirement accounts. He would mandate employers to place a small percentage of salaries into a retirement savings account. Under his plan, the federal government would match the funds set aside.

For working parents who split time between earning a living and caring for their kids, Obama proposes expanding the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 a year, and he proposes doubling spending on quality after-school programs. He also would expand the "Family Medical Leave Act" to include more businesses and millions more workers, and would require every employer to provide seven paid days of medical leave a year.

On health care, the major difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are mandates. Both would set up a similar system that individuals could buy into. Clinton would mandate that everyone must buy in. Obama would only require that children be covered; he cited the situation in Massachusetts,where some people are being fined for not buying into a plan that they think they can't afford. Obama says he is committed to universal health care, but doesn't want to put an "unfair burden on individuals while we work to get there."

On Iraq, Obama has pledged to getting all US combat troops out in 16 months. Clinton will not set a date. Neither candidate would remove all troops; both believe a small force will be necessary to protect the embassy, and to protect Iraqis who have assisted our soldiers. Many antiwar activists oppose both Clinton's and Obama's plans, saying they don't go far enough, fast enough.

This article is not intended to be an endorsement of Obama on the issues. The real differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are very small. Senator Clinton also would invest in "Green Jobs;" she has a national service plan, and would provide similar tax credits. The corporate media are doing the country a disservice by echoing unfair charges that Obama's campaign is all about speeches and has no substance.

"Thanks"

I have read the posts, although I didn't reread all of them today. I have read them enough to know that I am not the only one making "assumptions" about your posts. Maybe we should be reading all of your posts with more care to all of the details (an assumption on your part that we should?) or perhaps you should be a little more clear?

The fact that you are not personally an Obama supporter does not invalidate my concerns about his ability to unify this country. And the question of whether or not this presumed ability constitutes a kind of "messiah complex" remains unanswered.

"perhaps you should be a little more clear"

I'll try.

Thanks

"And the question of whether or not this presumed ability constitutes a kind of "messiah complex" remains unanswered."

****
I think you have answered your own question.

Look for inspiriation in someone else - if you have watched/listened one candidate and he/she doesn't do it for you - move on to the next.

It is perfectly normal to have your own point of view.

You will never see anything exactly as others do.

That doesn't make anybody wrong or right.

It also doesn't make for anybody having any kind of a complex (as far as I can tell)

"Where's the substance?"

I, personally, have never really questioned that Obama had "substance". You can't run a campaign without "ideas". So every candidate writes up theses elaborate plans, most of which either never see the light of day or else are chewed to pieces by the mighty political machine. They help you understand where the candidates are coming from, but you don't really expect much of it to matter after the election.

Having said that, Obama really has been pretty light on substance until recently. When I went to his site not so long ago (a few weeks?), there wasn't much detail. I was told to come back soon for more detailed information. And he's only very recently started to go into much detail in his speeches. Perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps it was a response to all of the criticism.

Having said all that, I thought the point of these posts was supposed to be his style, not his substance. Politics light--I'll vote for you because you make me feel good, because you make me believe in you, because you make me feel hopeful, because you make me forget what a scary world this is, because you make me feel that all of these pressing issues and difficult problems can be solved. Inspiration, right? Why is that a bad thing?

Well, obviously it's not a bad thing in and of itself. But it's not enough--not nearly enough. And the substance doesn't really matter in the end. If you vote for someone because he inspires you, and the solutions that he offers requires that he continue to inspire you (that WE thing he keeps talking about), then he had better be able to KEEP inspiring you so that WE can get the job done. And I don't think he can...

The GOP is lapping all this up -- they know the Dems are self-imploding. Both Obama & Clinton supporters are so passionate about their candidate, that I've heard & read of several people saying they won't vote for the other if they get the nomination. And, several have stated that they will cross party lines to vote for the 'moderate' McCain. Neither Obama nor Clinton will make the mistake of saying they are the "great uniter." We've heard that before -- guess we will be looking at yet another failed Democratic candidate in the face of what should have been a sure thing.

i wish you could step back and read what some of you are writing. It's creepy.

I can't imagine so many people who are so needy that they have to swoon and go nuts about hearing someone speak; who have such a need to be inspired by someone but can't get it in their lives any other way.

Creepy

LOL -- you are sooooo right Florida!

The question of whether or not there is a "messiah complex", is not so easily answered, in my opinion.

It depends more on what Obama thinks of himself than it does on what others are thinking of him. Does he believe that he can continue to inspire masses of people after he is elected president (should that occur)? How important is the ongoing participation of the constituency to the achievement of his goals? If "WE" don't really figure in his plans--if he thinks that the office of the presidency is powerful enough and he is dedicated and talented enough without "us"--then the idea of a messiah complex is irrelevant. In that case, he is just another run-of-the-mill candidate, with a great gimmick. (Kind of sleazy in my book--not the kind of person I want running the country...)

But if he IS relying on "us", then he must be relying on his ability to continue to inspire, in which case the idea of a messiah complex is absolutely valid.

I can't claim to know what the truth is here, since I don't really know the man. Maybe he doesn't even know himself. But I can look for clues and sift through the logic and reach my own personal conclusions. And that is what I have done.

And with this post, I find that I am starting to repeat myself, so I think it must be check-out time...

If Obama is soooo different from all other politicians, then why, in his latest TV commercial running in Texas, do you see only whites and Hispanics? I think he's as big a liar as every other politician, just smoother.

Exactly what's wrong with the messiah thing, especially if it is true? How sad that the picture in this blog post makes the messianic a crypto-Christian thing. It means someone who brings history (or a phase of history) to a close.

Take that seriously and you'll see that, contrary to the blog's derisive tone, Obama's presidency would in fact close out an important narrative thread in our history. He plays that role. If you don't like that, well, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

A full argument about this is at my blog, linked via my name below, in case of interest.

Exactly when did inspiring rhetoric become a bad thing? That's a sad commentary on the Left today. I think no few folks will be sad to see W. go, as it means the loss of that great sublimated object for expelling resentment. Well, yes, W. has played that role quite well...

Right on! It's nothing more than a cult of personality.

Excellent article.

Personally, I keep waiting for O to start speaking in tongues. I know it's coming at any moment. Perhaps AFTER the swearing in ceremony.

In 2 years as a senator, the only legislation Obama proposed was a bill to send money to the Congo. He has had two years to promote CHANGE. He has done nothing. I will vote for Clinton.

This post brings up some very valid concerns about Obama.
Even Farrakhan has now come out uplifting Obama as a savior, going so far as to compare him with Mohammed.

Michelle speaks of him, addressing crowds with quasi-biblical phrase that associated with the birth of Christ "Be not afraid..." she comforts...(for unto you this day is born...?)

Obama constantly invoke belief - "They will tell you not to believe..." Believe in what? Just believe in him. He doesn't have very concrete ideas, but damn if he can't inspire people to get behind him to acheive something ambiguous...(Obambiguities...)

His stylized pepsi logo with the American flag logo and the images of a rising sun or glowing nimbus behind his head...

It is all a bit much.

But the worst part is the blindness and fervor with which he is followed.

Hillary Clinton has fought for and won the battles he dreams of fighting and winning many times over. She's much better qualified and far more brilliant and effective than he is as a politician. If you've never read her biography on Wikipedia, now is a good time to take a look.

You know what is really scary about the "Obamaniacs" is that they really, REALLY recall a time in history when manic crowds gathered around another "great" orator who positioned himself as the great new hope for change: Adolph Hitler.

Beware blindly falling into the mass hysteria surrounding this candidate or you may find yourselves part of the "Bariech."

I'm a Dem, but if Hillary doesn't get the nom, I'm voting for JM.

Obama is not what he appears to be..His opinion that abortion and homosexuality is justified by the Sermon On The Mount(Matt.5) shows he is not truly a Christian..Jesus said DO NOT KILL AND EQUATED THE SIN OF ADULTERY WITH A MANS THOUGHTS OF IT..Matt 5....v.21,22 and v.27,28..Homosexuality was considered an abomination...Obama twisting the words of Jesus to fit his evil agenda is a serious offence..
As for Obamas religion of choice.he has said the islamic call to prayer is the most beautiful sound on earth.. He also recited the shahada to a newspapter man...One is considered a muslim when he recites the shahada according to islam's rules.. Islam also claims all to be muslims whose parents are muslims..Obama proudly wears the Arabian names of Barack and Hussein..What we have here is a wolfe in sheeps clothing seeking whom he may devour..

It is wise to remember Hitler..A wimply little man with a big voice who also thought he was a messiah...
This wimply man in a tiny little seemingly powerless country almost destroyed the world. He was responsible for the deaths of 50 million plus..People also said this child of satan was a Christian.. He fooled some too.
It is imperative we remember that USA is not a tiny little powerless country..An evil leader in USA WILL use our power to destroy the world..
Hitler like Obama also came in peace complete with a peace sign.. The swatiska was originaly a peace sign..
Obamas peace sign he uses actaully has its roots in the first century.. It was used by nero when he killed Christians..He said there would be peace when all Christians are dead.. The peace symbol is also on runes of ancient alphabets.. and it is portrayed in a 5th century rendering of Peter being crucified upside down.. this peace sign was plagerized in the 1950s.Those offering peace are not always what they seem..

I forget to mention that Obama might really be a messiah.. He is just not the Christian's messiah...
1400 year old islamic prophecy says mohammed will return in the last day as a messiah for all men..He will have the name HUSSEIN.. (HUSSEIN is the name of all 12 imams of islam) Of course it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out this messiah will be the antichrist that claims he is the real messiah...THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE

Sorry, Im seeking a President not a messiah. I want some solutions to real problems. I want to see some real answers not just pretty speeches, but someone who is ready able and willing to answer questions questions directly. Bush staged events, spoke only to friendly press and now Mr oBama rather than answer questons stages speeches and staged it was with as many flags as he could get on that stage. But he never stood and answered direct questions and this is really not the first time. He avoids those situations. I want a president who in times of trouble will be answering questions and will be listening!!!! I have not seen those qualities yet in Mr Obama. I do see yet another politician staging events, and being quite calculating in his attacks and talks. That isnt really the change I expected. Well, it really isnt change, its just a new name.

As the Bell Toll with each step i make,the faint sound of a Bell, just keep ringing and raping out a tune. What is that sound? As i come near the sound becomes clearer. Its saying Let Freedom Ring Good God Almighty Let Freedom Ring.

By Herb Mathis

WAKE UP PEOPLE! There IS ONLY ONE SAVIOUR AND HIS NAME IS JESUS CHRIST AND HE DIED ON THE CROSS OF CALVARY OVER 2000 YEARS AGO.THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!IF OBAMA IS THE ANTICRIST THERE WILL ONLY BE DEATH FOR THOSE THAT BELIEVE AND FOLLOW HIM. THE ANTI CHRIST IS NOT GOING TO ARRIVE ON THE SCENE AND SAY "HEY EVERYBODY, I'M GOD HE KNOWS HE WILL BE LAUGHED OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET. NO HE IS GOING TO GET INTO THE MINDS OF THE PUBLIC FIRST. THE FIRST SEVEN YEARS HE WILL BRING "PEACE" THEN AFTER THAT THOSE WHO REFUSE TO FOLLOW WILL BE KILLED.THE TRUE MESSIAH WILL COME THROUGH THE CLOUDS ON A WHITE HORSE. HE IS THE ORIGIONAL PEACE MAKER. IF OBAMA IS THE FALSE MESSIAH AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NEIVE TO BELIEVE THIS DRAK, WOE TO YOU!!!!!! YOUR LIVES WILL BE OVER. SO PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES,CHOOSE CHRIST AND LIVE.