Thank you James Dobson

Evangelical screeds are just what Obama ordered!

The battle now is for the middle and the farther Right the anti-Obama forces seem (and they will be lumped together - McCain cannot escape his allies, right or wrong, and even if they don’t like him either) the more moderate and reasonable Obama will appear, the more the mythical middle will feel they can identify with him.

So thank you Rev. Dobson. Please keep it coming!

I don’t know if you want that, DSeid. McCain’s biggest problem with the evangelicals is that he doesn’t have them in the bag. Dobson might tip them towards McCain.

Ah, but what Dobson’s really pissed about is Obama calling him a black racist…or something.

It should be noted that not all people who identify as “evangelical” are knuckle-walking trogs, but A lot like Unitarians who actually believe. They are cheerful, upbeat, and socially progressive, at least in the sense of a genuine concern for the well being of others. The Sermon on the Mount has more to do with how they behave than Leviticus.

Dobson is wholly invested in the Thou Shalt Not branch of Christian theology. the kind of people who seem to think of salvation as primarily being a Get Out of Hell Free card. More about fear than about love. Cringing Calvinists, who spend half their life in Hell before they even die.

The Trogs wouldn’t be for Obama if he was ten shades of white, they aren’t racists about this. The Happy E’s can probably be persuaded to vote for Obama, without a lot of difficulty.

Dobson said he just wants to be a tool for God. Mission accomplished.

Arizona, 'luc’s point is cogent - this cycle more than most Evangelicals are not a unitary block and the Religious are not owned by the Right. The Dobsons are not going to vote for Obama, never would, and even Dobson might not come out for McCain:

The more his opposition consists of self-made caricatures the better for Obama.

I think we’re agreeing more than we disagree here. Dobson might tip people who were going to sit out towards McCain, I suppose is what I should have clarified.

Obama’s picking a fight with someone who controls a barrel of ink. Not sure I see the logic in that but, hey… go for it.

Maybe it has something to do with integrity.

Obama is hardly “picking a fight.” He made a single comment in which he used Dobson’s name as one polarizing figure–which is a legitimate point. He also made the comments 24 months ago when he was only beginning to consider a run for the presidency. That Dobson waited until now to respond strongly suggests an agenda on the part of Dobson rather than any antagonism on the part of Obama.

Obama didn’t pick a fight with anyone. Dobson fixated on a few lines from a speech Obama gave two years ago. You can read the entire transcript here.

The irony is that Obama was using this speech to tell liberals and secularists to be more tolerant of people of faith. Her are some excerpts:

Most of the speech has that kind of tone, and it also includes Obama’s story of his own conversion to Christianity.

What Dobson latched onto was this stretch here:

Dobson firts whines that Leviticus doesn’t count anymore because Jesus wiped away the old covenant (this is what Dobson says is "distorting scripture), then he completely misses the point and accuses Obama of telling him what to think about abortion (which he doesn’t).

If you read the entire speech (and I hope you do), you’ll see it’s about the most pro-faith speech you’re ever going to find from a Democrat, and it does not distorty Scripture. I challenge you to read the whole speech and tell me if you think there’s anything you disagree with or find insulting to Christianity. Dobson is making himself look like a tool.

By the way, Dobson has no formal training in theology (his doctorate is in psychology), so his credentials in commenting on the Bible are no better than Obama’s. Dobson’s allegation that Obama has a “fruitcake” interpretation of the Constitution is stupidly condescending considering that Obama is a former professor of Constitutional law, while Dobson has no legal education at all.

One more thing, Dobson is a guy who says that a good way for dads to bond with their sons is to take them in the shower and show them their cocks. The guy is a nutball. His poor opinions of Obama and McCain is a credit to both of them.

He went out of his way to poke someone who was a critic of McCain. Doesn’t matter how you feel about Obama’s point. It matters how someone with a barrel of ink feels about getting poked. He had an unintended ally and now his Director of Religious Spinnery is going to have to make nice to shut him up.

I noticed that part. So, does this mean Dobson will never again quote Leviticus 18:22 when he’s talking about homosexuals?

I wonder who made Dobson the true interpreter of the Bible. There are many divisions of Christianity and that is due to many different interpretations of the Bible.

I get many emails claiming that Obama is a secret Muslim. Since this is a free country,if he were, he would still have the right to run for president. It is hard to understand why any Christian wants freedom of their religion but not those who differ. Thankfull most Christians do!


Poked him? He just used him (again, 2 years ago, before McCain had won the GOP nomination and before Dobson had said he wouldn’t support McCaon) as an example of a conservative religious figure. I really don’t see how any reasonable person can see that as Obama going “out of his way to poke him”.

Wow. Got a cite for this?

Not that I doubt it, mind you.

That speech is word-for-word from his section on Faith in his book The Audacity of Hope.


I believe he’s talking about allowing young boys to grow up being comfortable with their sexuality which in itself is not a bad idea. His suggested techniques are a bit out there for sure.

Really? Dobson’s first attack on McCain as a preesidential candidate did not come out until six or seven months after Obama had made this speech–and long before anyone thought that McCain had a chance at the candidacy.

Making claims about Obama’s purported mistake that requires that the arrow of time be twisted into a pretzel hardly supports your contention.

Polarizing figures? Did he happen to mention the Rev. Wright in that speech?