I Won’t Be on CNN Tonight for the Dobson – Obama Dust Up

Posted On
06/24/2008

I Won’t Be on CNN Tonight for the Dobson – Obama Dust Up

I got a call today from Campbell Brown’s producers to be a guest on tonight’s CNN Election Center hosted by Campbell. They wanted to discuss Dr. James Dobson’s comments today about Obama’s interpretation of the Bible and what Dobson called Obama’s “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution. I had to turn them down because I’m in the Midwest speaking to a media conference and tonight’s show schedule conflicted. You never know where these things will go. They were going to set me up against Roland Martin – a CNN advisor and Democratic Strategist. These calls are tough because in this case I have feelings both ways:

First – there’s no question that Obama’s point is lame. It’s typical of people trying to make a point to exaggerate Old Testament dietary or hygiene laws and show that since we don’t follow them today, we should question anything the Bible says. That’s a pretty weak understanding of the Bible – especially for a candidate that’s trying to convince us he’s serious about his faith.

As I wrote in my book “Branding Faith” – it’s all about perception. And I would advise candidates from both sides of the aisle that if they want to reach out to certain constituencies – in this case Christians – they need to be sincere and exhibit a real commitment. People can smell a con miles away.

Just this morning the Wall Street Journal did a feature on how Obama’s irking some hard core Democrats because he’s moving toward the center. Funny how during the primaries, he ran left of Hillary to show he was loyal to the cause, but now in the general election he’s moving to the center. It’s an interesting and well documented story in the Journal and it brings up the “perception” issue again. As in the Jeremiah Wright case, he seems to conveniently move in the direction he needs to for political expediency.

It leaves the perception that when you don’t have any real values, that’s what happens.

On the other hand, I had a few issues with the way Dr. Dobson presented his case as well. First – the speech he referred to was 2 years old, and his producers apparently just now discovered it because it’s gotten such wide play on Youtube and other places. So it’s revealing, but not exactly “late breaking news.”

Second, as I listened to the broadcast, it’s harks back to the rhetoric of the evangelical right of the last decade. As Dr. Dobson mentions, evangelicals have pushed the political influence button for years, but the dial hasn’t moved an inch on the abortion issue.

So my question is – how long before we realize that political power isn’t the best way to make cultural change happen? Christians need to vote and be a vital part of the political process, but programs like Dr. Dobson’s today serve not to move the ball forward, but to raise money for the cause.

To his credit, Dobson is open to meeting with Obama, and I believe that type of engagement will do far more than trying to rile people up on the radio or TV.

We live in a different age – one of cultural engagement, rather than political influence. When people of faith understand the difference, then the dial will move…

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

http://www.youtube.com/reeceracer storm

Thanks for posting, I'll have to check this deal out…..I'm sure Dr Dobson will handle himself well.
http://lunarskeletons.blogspot.com Oengus Moonbones

Phil: "…programs like Dr. Dobson’s today serve not to move the ball forward, but to raise money for the cause."

Nicely said, Phil, but the Culture War in this country is over: We Lost. Dodson is just fund raising by saying all the expected shibboleths. And the MSM will certainly spin things in Obama's favor.

Go see http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817217,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-nation

When you have 57% of "evangelicals" thinking that "all roads lead to God" then they're not even hanging on to their own faith, and don't even know what they believe, and things are truely rotting from the inside out.

And you expect them to change the culture?

So after voting GOP all these years, we ended up with a handful of ashes.
http://josephb.smugmug.com Joseph Bruno

I was not a Phil Cooke fan. The first time I heard Phil speak was out at that "conference in the midwest" last night. I got back to my hotel room and started reading the blog. I have to agree that Obama does seem to be shifting position to apeal to the segment he needs to win. I guess that's the politicly expedient thing to do (perhaps why I'll never make a good politician). I agree 100% that talking with the man you disagree with is a much better tactic then attacking him. There are just too many Christians who interpert the bible to back their particular view (or misinterpert it) or just plain use it as a club to beat somebody down.

I'm all for change but remember that means we as Christians must be willing to change as well. And as Christians we need to keep in the forefront that change does not mean comprimise.

Thanks for turning down CNN to speak at ChurchMedia.Net.
Reepicheep

We lost? really? Then I suppose we might as well recall all those Christians working in Hollywood and NYC, trying to make a difference in the trenches of the culture war. They are bleeding and dying for nothing, I guess.

Rather than focusing on the 57%, why not focus on the 43%? They need to be bolstered and encouraged – not told the battle is over.

I don't expect that those 43% can change the culture, but I think that God can, and that He is – through the lives of those 43%.

And I agree with Phil, and with your final point, Oengus. If we trust in the Republican or the Democratic Parties to do anything but promote their own survival, we can just lay down our weapons and cloister together in some catecombs somewhere outside of Albuquerque.
Dan

Phil,

First, as co-organizer of the conference, I want to thank you for having the integrity to keep your commitment to speak at the conference rather than chasing after the exposure of being on CNN.

That said, I share your frustration with the inability to embrace much leadership. Chasing after power in a democracy means appealing to the largest number of people – a task that seems to inherently contradict a call to follow a narrow road.

As the son of a part-time local government leader, I witnessed firsthand how someone can have integrity and use the power of office positively – as long as the goal is always to serve. However, I'm not sure how one can hold on to integrity and service and still be elected to a national office.

It would be fun to see someone!
http://www.bestfinance-blog.com JosefaSantiago28

Some time ago, I needed to buy a house for my firm but I didn’t have enough money and could not purchase something. Thank goodness my mate proposed to try to take the personal loans at trustworthy creditors. Thence, I did so and used to be satisfied with my bank loan.
http://www.knightopia.com/journal Steve K.

Phil,

I'm glad you weren't on CNN tonight defending Dobson's "fruitcake" attack on Obama. If you had, I would've expected you to have listened to ALL of Obama's 2006 speech at the Call to Renewal conference (not just the parts that Dobson conveniently pulled out to criticize).

I also assume you've heard all about Obama's "off the record" meeting in Chicago with lots of evangelical leaders (including Stephen Strang, Cameron Strang, T.D. Jakes, Franklin Graham, etc.). I haven't ready anywhere that Dobson was at that meeting. Perhaps he was, but if he's now saying he is "open to meeting with Obama" it sounds to me like Dobson didn't get an invitation to the party and now he's trying to rustle something up. That's what happens when you're interested in being close to power — and the (new) powerful don't ask you to dance.

You're absolutely right about the shift from political influence to relational influence (or, as you put it, cultural engagement), but I think you're wrong about Obama's "move to the middle." Check the comments again from evangelical leaders who met behind closed doors with Obama. I think that's pretty revealing about who Obama is and where he's coming from. He gets this relational thing, and he's open to listening to and receiving input from people, even those (like me) whom he knows disagree with him on some issues. That shows me his true character and values, and those are values that I embrace, which is why I'm voting for Obama in November.
Phil

It’s not about me being “wrong” on Obama’s move to the center, because the Journal story is well researched and pretty compelling. He’s backed the domestic spying bill, opted out of the public financing system in spite of the campaign reform position by the Democrats, he’s said he would consider cutting the corporate tax rate, told Jewish voters he would supported an “undivided” Jerusalem, and has even endorsed John Barrow, a conservative, white Southern Democrat against a liberal, African-American female.

Listen to the left – Matt Stoller, liberal activist and blogger says it gives activists “a strong reason not to trust him.” The endorsement of Barrow really stoked anger on the left. OpenLeft.com said, “It’s up to us to create a progressive check on Obama.”

It’s a fascinating change from his record of being the “most liberal Senator” according to the National Journal, and during a time when 58% of voters perceive him as liberal. Don’t get me wrong – from a strategy perspective, moving to the center is a smart move. But his own people are angry. MoveOn.org is petitioning its members to object to his support for the spy bill.

So it’s obvious from his positions during the primary (left of Hillary) that he’s taking a definite and strategic shift now that he's in the general. The question becomes ‘why’?

As I’ve said before, he’s good looking, articulate, and has a great presence on camera. But on paper, any small business owner in America has more leadership experience. For all of his posturing on “crossing the aisle” and “bringing America together,” show me a single time during his short career as a Senator when he did anything along that line.

You view his “change” to the center as the real Obama. I think the record shows it to be a strategy move. Simple as that.
http://www.knightopia.com/journal Steve K.

OK OK I relent, I'll read the WSJ piece!

Maybe the reason I'm not so bothered by Obama's move to the middle is because, as a more moderate voter, it's one I'm kind of glad to see. It is strategic, and I'm all for good strategy. And, in fact, I would argue that "his own people" (his "base" if you will) are more moderate-leaning (like me).

If Obama was "left" of Hillary during the primary, it was because Hillary went all guns, God, gas tax holiday, and glory at the end in a desperate attempt to win with white voters (which, sadly, worked to some degree). Obama didn't move, IMO. It was Hillary who shifted to the right.

And I'm sorry, Phil, but "any small business owner in America has more leadership experience"? Look at Obama's track record again. President of the Harvard Law Review. Community Organizer. Senator. That's a bit more experience than the guy who just opened an ice cream stand. I like ice cream — a lot! — but I'm not going to vote for that guy to be President.

And another thing … ;-) … You say, "Show me a single time during his short career as a Senator when he did anything" to unify the country? My response: Have you been paying attention at all to this campaign?! Millions of people organized at the grassroots level. Millions of new voters entering the democratic process. Young and old. Men and women. Black and white and all ethnicities. Democrats and (former?) Republicans and independents (liberals? moderates?). I'd say there's been a monumental coming together behind his candidacy!

But support for more warrantless spying? Not gonna do it. I think MoveOn has a good reason to try and pressure Obama on that one.
http://www.marked35.blogspot.com Mark E

I'm a big fan of Cooke….as a producer, he makes a great commentator on what is really important.

"So my question is – how long before we realize that political power isn’t the best way to make cultural change happen? "

Yes yes and amen.
http://www.knightopia.com/journal Steve K.

Bill, just to reassure you, Obama is not my "Saviour," Jesus Christ is. My hopefulness in what an Obama presidency could mean is a political hope (not a spiritual one), and it is mixed with healthy skepticism.

When I say people are coming together behind his campaign, I don't think you can deny that millions of people are supporting him, from all persuasions and walks of life. To call that "pure smoke screen" is to deny the obvious, whether you agree with it or not. "Surface stuff" may be true. People are fickle and finicky. If Obama doesn't deliver on what his supporters are hoping/expecting from him, then yeah, that support could disappear, just as George W. Bush's support went from sky-high at 9/11 to the pits of what it is today.

Anyway, I've been working full-time in various ministries for 12+ years, mostly in communication and media, promoting (if you will) the One who is worth promoting, the one who can change hearts. So please don't assume that my hopes for Barack Obama presidency in the political sphere means I am placing any hope in him in a spiritual sense.
http://www.billgrandi.com Bill Grandi

First, my political comment: rose-colored glasses for sure! I have a youth pastor who is pro-Obama largely because of his stand on the war. He claims BO will get us out of the war. (I say he is dreaming). BO has no clue what it will take. In the meantime, he takes 4000 heroic American soldiers and says "get us out" while saying it is okay to kill millions of unborn children. Something wrong with this picture. I can't help but picture a man standing with his finger to the wind. Political expediency. Frankly, this will be a difficult election to vote in because neither candidate stands out to me. And that coming together for his campaign? Pure smoke screen. Surface stuff.

Second, I agree that things will never change by legislation. We have proven that. America will change; people will change only when hearts are changed! And that will only happen when Jesus changes a person's life. I am tired of politics and all the promises made and not kept. The only One worth promoting and the only One who keeps His Word is where I prefer to focus-Jesus.
http://www.knightopia.com/journal Steve K.

hey jsindorf, I respect Phil's expert opinion as much as (if not more than) CNN, which is why I read his stuff religiously. So no need to lecture me on who he is or why he's writing this post. He's a big boy, he can handle a little pushback, I imagine.

And to say that he's "not trashing Obama" in a post like this, OK fine. "Trashing" is a bit strong of a term, but let's see … He's most certainly suggesting (based on the WSJ's research and analysis) that Obama is a moving to the middle simply because it is politically expedient … which shows a lack of character … which Phil alluded to … and Phil also threw in a pretty sharp jab about his experience (or lack thereof) … Come to think of it, I think Phil did do a little "trashing" here. What do you think? Maybe it's not me who's wearing the rose colored glasses. ;-)

(I'm smiling as I type this, BTW, tongue firmly in cheek. Can't we all just get along?!)
jsindorf

Hey, Steve K., back up and look at the big picture. Phil is making a point about communication, marketing and perception. The reference to Barak was for two reasons:

1) as an case study — look what the WSJ researched and revealed and what can we learn from it.

2) to show that the real media (CNN in this case) sees Phil as a national expert on issues relating to communication and culture. (Which he is, by the way.)

So please take off your rose colored Obama glasses and see this post for what it is. Phil is not promoting McCain and not trashing Obama, he is simply using one of the most visible stories of the day to help us think about our communication strategies before we go public with them.
Barry Armstrong

In the (nearly) immortal words of The Mamas and Papas: “and the beat goes on…”
A2 BrewTay

Just way too much weirdness surrounding this guy. See below::

San Francisco Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL

The Times of India

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL

I guess this is how he reaches out to all sides.

New Age speak: Aura

Charismatic tag: Anointing

Bottom line: Where's it coming from?

As a strategist, Obama is working tactics all across the board. Phil, you're spot on. Fascinating to watch, alarming to consider the significance. Either way, I'm applying for a visa outta here for the next four!
AmeriKan

Obama is a "wolf in sheep's clothing." The term, "Christian," is used very loosely in Obama's world…does not equate with the killing of the unborn.

He is buying the minority vote with "dues paid back" during a four-year term of office…payback means taxing the middleclass to the hilt in order to pay off his supporters with endless, money draining social promises. Change? Oh, it will be change alright that will break the back of America and make her more dependent than ever on BIG government.

Phil Cooke

NEXT SPEAKING EVENT:

I Won’t Be on CNN Tonight for the Dobson – Obama Dust Up

Production : Strategy : Digital Media : Consultation