The Political Racial Profiling of Barack Obama

by Joel on February 28, 2008

Barack Obama will never be good enough, pure enough, or kiss up enough to become President of the United States. He just might win anyway; I hope so. Against the odds and against the rules. This post discusses only rule No. 1. Obama, or any Black presidential candidate must prove, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt, that they detest, reject, abhor and revile Louis Farrakhan (I’m not a fan of his, for the record). However, a White presidential candidate, as in John McCain, and formerly Mike Huckabee, may not only accept but actively court the support of extremist preacher John Hagee of San Antonio, Texas. Hagee rants about gays and only a few pay attention, I suppose. But why would John McCain say that he actively embraces the support of Hagee, who has claimed that the Catholic Church conspired with Adolph Hitler to exterminate the Jews? And was there much outrage when Rudy Giuliani accepted the support of diamond exploitation evangelist Pat Robertson, who once described the United Methodist Church as the “spirit of the anti-Christ”? Candidates such as Obama have to keep their eye on the speedometer at all times. They have to know that their headlights and tailights are working properly. If not, then out comes the ticket. White candidates may get caught, but it will be for a wink and a warning.

Joel Betow
Stroud, Oklahoma USA

{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }


Kim 02.28.08 at 10:10 am

A well-respected sometimes-idiot (and certainly this-time-idiot) in the British press - and broadsheet, not tabloid - has just devoted his column to “the cult of Obama”: not only telling us to beware the populist politician and his bandwagon, but worse, warning us about elements of fascism in his rhetoric. In response, a biographer of Oswald Mosley has added his own Amen. Any of this extremist claptrap in the US?


Larry B 02.28.08 at 1:07 pm


Of course there is plenty of that kind of rhetoric here. It’s an election year and we have free speech rights. From what I’ve read of both Obama’s and Clinton’s position, if there is anyone that leads towards facism, it’s Clinton. For example, Clinton wants mandated participation in a government health care program, Obama wants to incentivize people to participate. But I’d hardly call mandated particiapation in government healthcare facism.


I think you are overplaying the issues. If every candidate rejected the support of anyone who has said something they disagree with they wouldn’t have any support. In the elections, it has little to do with whether you agree with a particular position or not, rather it has to do with the political calculation of how much support you get or lose by embracing a particular endorsement.


DH 02.28.08 at 3:38 pm

John Hagee extremist pastor? What are you talking about? I also don’t believe that Hagee said the Catholics and Hitler conspired to kill the Jews or that the Methodist church is from the Anti-Christ. I just don’t believe those things. The fact remains homosexuality is a sin from Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6 so for me what is so wrong for Hagee to mention that in his sermons when there is a growing number of people who are doing or tempted to do this and other type of sins?

For me McCain is much better candidate than Obama or Clinton.

Here is a joke: Chelsea Clinton went to Iraq and asked one of the soldiers “What three things do you fear?” The soldier said “Osama, Obama and yo mama”. I thought this joke was funny and thought there might be others who would appreciate some good humor. :)


Kim 02.28.08 at 4:34 pm

Hi DH,

That is funny, thanks (though I’d can the “yo” - some may take it as racist: “your” is just as effective).

By the way, my brother is an ex-Marine. And like the soldier in the joke, he doesn’t know squat about the war either.


Richard 02.28.08 at 7:03 pm

Hey DH, Joel said that Pat Robertson described the UMC as the anti-Christ. And he did. Here’s the quote:

You say, ‘You’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and Methodists and this, that and the other thing’–nonsense! I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the anti- Christ!

And a quote from Hagee’s book ‘Jerusalem Countdown is circulating widely on the internet:

Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.”

Which seems to support Joel’s point. You can read this for yourself. Look up the book on Amazon and search inside the book. This little gem comes on page 78.

I reckon that pretty well qualifies Hagee as an extremist.


malc 02.28.08 at 7:15 pm

Obama’s greatest problem is that he’ll never be as good as Morgan Freeman as president.


tortoise 02.28.08 at 7:55 pm

Malc - maybe, but then I know some people who claim that God’s greatest problem is that he’s not as good as Morgan Freeman as God.


DH 02.28.08 at 7:59 pm

Well, I guess I believe the soldier DOES know about the war. I still wonder if the “to” as being rascist.

I don’t want to get into a discussion about Hagee and Pat Robertson. I think there is some evidence that some of the Catholic churches did conspire with the enemy. I do think it is extreme to state in such a grand way a higher extent like Hagee. The higher extent is what is extreme by Hagee not specifically what he said.

With regard to Pat I do believe churches that go against Scripture by believing certain that are actually sin as not being sin is going against Christ and His word and in a small way is kind of “anti-Christ” but not in the eschatological sense. Again, Pat used a broader brush but projecting the minority to the majority. So I agree it is extreme but only to the level of extent not from specifically what he said if one understands the context of Pat.

I still wouldn’t have worded these things like Hagee and Pat. I think there are ways to say these things that are not extreme and much more acurate than these two.

Malc, I too like Morgan Freeman. As president? I don’t know but I sure do concur his acting ability. One of the best. :)


Mark Byron 02.28.08 at 8:07 pm

McCain goes to a garden-variety Baptist church when he’s in Arizona; he’s nominally Episcopalian but his wife is Baptist. So, while he may be supported by Catholic-bashers (Hagee-sorry, DH, but the shoe does fit) and mainline-bashers (Robertson), he’s far from being one of them.

When he’s back home, Obama goes to a UCC church in Chicago with an eccentric Afrocentric pastor; an arm of that church has honored Farrakhan in the past, IIRC.

While I agree that the emphasis on how much megatonnage you bring to blasting Farrakhan has become overblown, Obama does has more of a link to him than McCain has to the theocon rogue’s gallery that Joel brings up.

Part of that problem for Obama is that it hasn’t fully sunk in that Obama is a fairly devout liberal Christian; his dad was an non-practicing Muslim and was raised largely secular by his nominally-Christian Euro-American mom and grandma, coming to a Christian faith as a young adult.

However, some people still have it in their craw that he has some Muslim tie that would have him friendly with Islamics; folks who insist on using his middle name Hussein merely add fuel to that fire.


Joel 02.28.08 at 8:42 pm


McCain actively sought an alliance with Hagee; he didn’t merely accept his support. Your references to Obama and his church seem lame to me and just solidifies my view that a “higher” standard is set for Black candidates. The idea that Farrakhan and Hagee are in different categories is a distinction without a difference. I do appreciate, however, that you are able to look at the whole person of Obama and in very human terms.

Good to interact with you! I need to hop over to your site and leave some comments again.

Although I regret the focus by others on Obama’s middle name, these things are better brought out now than in October.


DH 02.28.08 at 9:05 pm

To me whether he sought to get Hagee’s support or not is really no big deal. I’m not a Catholic basher. I do believe that the difference between Farrakhan abd Hagee is a distinction with a difference. One worships the one true God the other does not by way of worshipping Allah and not believing that Jesus is God as opposed to a prophet. So it IS a distinction with a difference.

It seems to me that Mark was very balanced in his response. While I disagree to a point. I still believe his analysis of Obama and the entire subject is something I can overal agree.

I personally would rather vote for Huckabee but if the choices were between Obama or Clinton vs. McCain I would have no problem voting for McCain. I just hope he doesn’t pick some “middle of the road” Republican. A McCain/Huckabee ticket would be great but it might be a “hope deferred”. If it is McCain/Guiliani I probably would right in a candidate as opposed to voting for that ticket. However, I don’t see that being a possibility. If McCain or for that matter any candidate is going to win they have to find a way to win the smaller states. My analysis of the Democrats is that they pander to the larger states and the small states feel disinfranchised to the point where they support strongly the Republican party who for years has sured up the smaller states. Democrats will always win California, NE and the west coast but those states alone will not mean an election won. Man I love the Electoral College. The beauty of it is that the rights of the smaller states are protected and it forces candidates to campaign over the entire country as opposed to just the big states alone.


Bene D 02.29.08 at 2:14 am

The UCC church Obama went to had Jeremiah Wright as senior pastor, and he has a daughter who ran a magazine (Trumpter) and both are fans of Farrakhan. Mark is correct, this church is afrocentric.
By using the degree of separation rule, therefore, anyone who goes to Trinity UCC is a Farrakhan fan.

Obama made a statement about Wright and his daughters praise of and award to Farrakhan, “he truly opitimizes greatness” etc. with this: “I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.”

It goes to the degrees of separation.

Let’s use Jesus General’s example:

Tim Russet interviewed Prince Bandar who met with Osama Bin Laden in the 1980’s, therefore Russet is a Laden supporter.

Tim Russet interviewed GH Bush, who was born to Prescott Bush who funded Hilter, therefore Tim Russet is a Hilter lover.

It’s swiftboating.
And it works.


Mark Byron 02.29.08 at 5:04 am

You’re stretching things a bit, Bene, but you have a point. The construct that is in play is

X supports Y
Y supports Z
Z is a “nutcase”

Therefore “X supports nutcase Z.”

That’s what is implied in the Obama-Farrakhan case with his church being the connecting Y, which is unfair to Obama; he’s let his dislike of Farrakhan’s theology and Jew-bashing be well known.

The McCain case seems a bit different

X belongs to party Y
Nutcase Z belongs to party Y
X is nice to Z as part of keeping the base of Y intact

therefore “X must agree with nutcase Z”

Here, the connective Y is that they’re all Republicans, or at least conservatives broadly defined. I haven’t seen the McCain-Robertson connection yet; Robertson has pretty much slimed McCain every step of the way so far. Eventually, the two will talk, but I’ve yet to hear of that conversation.

Joel, if you have a link to McCain’s “actively courting” Hagee, let me know, since I haven’t seen it. Huckabee did preach at his church, so you’d have a much better case with him.


Joel 02.29.08 at 6:37 am


One source was the Catholic League, which I wouldn’t claim to be a “news” source as such, but still:

“McCain Embraced Hagee Before Huckabee

On December 21, 2007 we posted a statement on Mike Huckabee’s scheduled appearance at Rev. John Hagee’s church on December 23. We have subsequently learned that presidential hopeful John McCain reached out to Hagee last fall. Hagee introduced McCain on September 20, 2007 during his “No Surrender Tour” at an event in South Carolina.

The Catholic League has long considered Rev. Hagee to be a bigot, and the reason we are citing the McCain appearance now is because we want to treat the Arizona senator the same way we treated the former governor of Arkansas.”

Hagee himself is another source. He announced on January 29, 2007 that he had an extended breakfast with John McCain to discuss foreign policy. Also, according to Hagee’s association, Hagee was with McCain on July 17, 2007.

According to McCain’s own campaingn log, Hagee appeared with McCain at the Citadel in South Carolina in September 2007.,

According to Federal Election Commission reports, McCain accepted a $1,000 contribution from Hagee in March 2007.

It appears that you have a different definition of “court” so I’ll let you believe what you want.


Bene D 02.29.08 at 6:44 am

John Hagee gave Mike Huckabee a few thousand for his campaign.

I don’t know that Hagee and Farrakhan are much different Mark.

They are both zealots, both fund-raise for their religion, for their politics, both seek media attention, both are known for for their bigotry.

I don’t know what would be acceptable media for ‘actively courting’ but here are a few for you in no particular order.

1) September 2007 The Catholic League noted McCain’s presence in the Haggee No Surrender Tour.

2) Right Wing Watch has a piece from July 2007 about McCain showing up at the CUFI Washington Summit.

3) The Dallas Morning News Religion blog has information on the Hageee/McCain relationship.

4) Dan Gilgoff at Beliefnet interviewed McCain and his ties to Hagee and the ADL response last year.

5) Talk2Action has documented Hagee/McCain meet ups since I believe it was CNN quoted Hagee in 2007 saying there was a conservative backlash against McCain.

6) Jews on First has documentation of McCain/ Hagee in Washington.
In the Christian Zionist section they have a sidebar on McCain/Hagee.
They also have audio and links to traditional media coverage such as Associated Press IHT, NYT , JP, etc.

Here is an email Hagee sent out to supporters re: breakfast with McCain in January 2007

Hagee is a member of The Arlington Group - which McCain has at appeared before.

Hopefully these will be a start.:^)


Bene D 02.29.08 at 7:02 am

Sorry Joel, Mark directed his question at you and I didn’t mean to comment on top of you. ;^)


Joel 02.29.08 at 7:41 am


Anyone is welcome to respond, even where the blog post writer is the one addressed. You provided additional information.


DH 02.29.08 at 3:48 pm

Well Bene, Mark and I see things differently between the relationship between Farrakhan and Hagee. Hagee worships the one true God while Farrakhan worships a false god by not believe that Jesus God but a prophet. So there is a huge difference between them. I don’t see Hagee as much of a bigot as Farrakhan. To compare Hagee to Farrakhan in any remote and obscure way is totally fallacious. To me Mark’s logic seems clear to me. I totally agree. However, I see nothing wrong if there was a relationship between Hagee and McCain. However, I would see a major problem if there were a relationship between Obama and rasicst Farrakhan/pastor who supports Farrakhan, etc.

I agree with Mark that McCain hasn’t actively courted Hagee. However, to me whether or not he did is no big deal because Hagee isn’t a bigot. Just because some Catholic League says Hagee is a bigot doesn’t a bigot make. Farrakhan and his “Black Power” message not that is very much racist.


Joel 02.29.08 at 4:02 pm


Without meaning to be condescending, or at least overly so, the fact that you express your views as you do suggests to me that racial profiling is right on target as a blog title.


DH 02.29.08 at 6:20 pm

I don’t racial profile. I know many minorites even black people who don’t support Farrakhan. This has nothing to do with race but whether particular beliefs support or goes against Scripture. I sure am not “racial profiling” Obama. Many blacks I support: J.C. Watts, Colin Powell, Condaleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, etc. So to say I “racial profile” is a total misnomer in light of the facts.


Joel 02.29.08 at 6:45 pm


I should have worded my response more carefully. I’m not suggesting that you are racist, nor would I claim purity on this issue. My response to your post was meant to provide that it makes me feel more justified in using the blog entry’s title — which I see as a wake-up call for all, but particularly for those of us who sing “lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim.” I believe that there is corporate sin involved that has its roots in how society as a whole reacts. I have made my own contributions to that reaction, and not all of them have been positive. I’m trying to raise larger issues. At “In the Agora” I posted a comment indicating that Bill Clinton’s comments with respect to the South Carolina primary were racist. I believe that, but do not see such as the whole of his character. While I am disappointed in John McCain welcoming support from Hagee, politics is like sausage-making, where God can bring a good result out of a nasty process. Although I am an Obama supporter, I did not intend the post to be partisan. Democrats themselves have held Obama to too high a standard on the “association” issue, but may have been too easy on him regarding what he will do if elected president. I would not take back my monetary contribution to McCain’s 2000 presidential effort nor claim to be embarrassed by such. My view was that George Bush was unquestoning of some elements of the Christian right and that McCain was more principled. I am disappointed that McCain seems to have abandoned his rebuke of certain “religious” sentiments, but believe that McCain would have found a way to avoid invading Iraq.

I find it necessary to be up-front about who I am supporting for the very purpose of then moving beyond our individual choices to our collective participation in rebellion against God.


DH 02.29.08 at 7:55 pm

Joel, I never said that you thought I was racist. I was saying that I’m not “racial profiling” Obama. I guess what I’m saying is that the title doesn’t seem work for me. I guess one really shouldn’t be upset that McCain didn’t rebuke certain “religious” sentiment. Fighting in Iraq qas necessary. Saddam needed to be out of power and the only way to do that was to fight the regime. I believe we invaded Saddam and terrorists after the regime gone as opposed to invading Iraq. We attacked an evil regime we didn’t attack a legitimate soverign nation.


DH 02.29.08 at 7:55 pm

I don’t consider Saddam and/or terrorists as soverign


Wood 02.29.08 at 8:07 pm

Well, quite. except that there are many nations the US and UK do recognise as soveriegn that are just as bad (Saudi Arabia is easily as vile as Saddam’s regime, f’rexample).

It’s a massive hypocrisy in which we are all complicit.


Bene D 02.29.08 at 8:10 pm

While Bill Donohue of the Catholic League may not be the best representative, with all his huffing and puffing his organization documented the connections.

I suggest you look at the response/react of InsightCatholic and United Catholics.

Moderate, mainstream representation asking Mr. McCain to educate himself regarding Mr. Hagee’s public statements about their faith.

They are asking him to do what Mr. Obama did - distance himself.
The degree of separation with McCain/CUFI is something Republican Catholics are not happy about.


DH 02.29.08 at 9:26 pm

Bene I don’t see the conparison that you are suggesting. I don’t see the need for McCain to distance himself regarding Hagee. However, I do see the need to have Obama distance himself from his pastor who supports Farrakhan.

Wood, I don’t see Saudia Arabia as being just as bad as Saddam’s regime so therefore there is no hypocrisy going on as you suggest. Unless you believe all of that Michael Moore crap about conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 of which there is no evidence or support of these terrible misstatement of facts regarding 9/11.


Wood 02.29.08 at 10:00 pm

Wood, I don’t see Saudia Arabia as being just as bad as Saddam’s regime

Then you weren’t paying attention. It’s not the only evil regime we support.

Hell, look at Chile in the 80s. The only difference between Saddam Hussein and Augusto Pinochet was that Pinochet didn’t turn around and bite us in the butt as thanks for us funding him.


DH 02.29.08 at 10:27 pm

Wood, I HAVE paid attention. See we discuss Saudia Arabia and satisfy that then you bring some other things up. The fact remains that Saudia Arabia is NOT worse than Saddam who gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Saudia Arabia doesn’t even come close to that and to even compare the two seems rather odd. Again we are talking about the Saudi gov’t not minoritiy groups who happen to be terrorists of which the Saudi gov’t doesn’t support.

With regard to Chile, which I don’t know why I’m talking about Chile when are solely talking about Saudi Arabia, but at that time we didn’t know how bad it was over there until it was too late. Pinochet wasn’t a Communist and the US was in the middle of the Cold War. If Chile went Communist then it definitely would have made a worse situation than otherwise even with the terrible actions of Pinochet of which I agree with you was terrible.


Paul Martin 02.29.08 at 10:40 pm

Actually the Allende Government was not carrying out torture etc. That came with the Pinochet coup. I write this with some feeling as my mother’s half brothers were born of my grandfather’s first marriage which was in Chile. One of my uncle’s was the founder secretary of the Anglo Chile Friendship Society and he knew that Pinochet was bad news even before the coup. Another uncle lived in Valparaiso at the time of the coup and a young man they had brought up was detained. He had the hooding treatment but was released relatively quickly. At university I met Chileans who were not so lucky and who endured electric shock treatment etc.

The fact is that Kissinger ( another war criminal) had a policy of “making the economy scream.” The interests of a privileged capitalist class was put above that of the majority og the people. The US Gov’t under Nixon turned a blind eye to Pinochet’s crimes. Even when former Finance Minister Orlando Letelier and his American secretary were murdered on American soil a blind eye was turned.

The simple fact is that hope was killed by fascists on September 11th 1973. The US government was very much involved in the crime. For years good people were sacrificed on the latar of multinational self interest. The US didn’t lift a finger for years. Britain was not significantly better.


Harry 03.01.08 at 4:14 am

Why does New York Times attack McCain on sex scandal but ignore Obama Hussein gay sex scandal as Illinois politician says Globe this week


Richard 03.01.08 at 8:38 am

I haven’t heard about either scandal, I don’t think, so I can’t answer your question. I can ask another though.

Why would anyone think it is anything other than stupid to refer to Obama as Obama Hussein?


Joel 03.01.08 at 4:02 pm


What you are referring to is a lawsuit filed by a single individual, without assistance of an attorney, meaning he couldn’t convince a single lawyer that his claim had any merit. The individual making the claim has offered no evidence that would be legally acceptable in court. The media has checked into this story or allegation and not found it believable. So far, the man making the allegation has turned down money offers to take a polygraph. A polygraph would not be admissable in court, but if he took it as administered by an independent, neutral party, the media would look into it further.


Bene D 03.02.08 at 8:17 am

Joel: After Catholics and Democrats spoke up:

“As a Catholic, I am personally offended by John McCain’s embrace of such a divisive figure. I join many others in the Catholic community calling on Sen. McCain to immediately distance himself from Hagee and denounce his remarks,” said DNC Executive Director Tom McMahon.

It is not a repudiation but I think it’s as far as he is prepared to go:


Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.

I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.


DH 03.10.08 at 2:13 pm

“…defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.”

All reservation about McCain have gone away with this statement.


Christine 04.08.08 at 7:24 am

During a campaign event in North Carolina Obama suggested that JESUS CHRIST is not the only way to Heaven. He also stated that Jews, Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much “children of God” as he is. There is a article in the Christian Post. Click on Society, then Politics and it will be at the bottom of page. He claims to be Christian,but every true Christian knows that JESUS is the ONLY WAY. Also Oprah has recently said the exact same thing. On you-tube she is promoting a book “The New Earth”. I advise everyone to look into this!!! GOD BLESS


Kim 04.08.08 at 9:08 am

Hi Christine,

Quite apart from your debatable exegesis and exclusivism, are you suggesting that people should not vote for Obama because of his pluralist theology of other faiths?


DH 04.08.08 at 1:55 pm

Kim, how is the concept of One Way to Salvation debatable when Jesus says “I’m the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father but through Me.” in light of “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father.” in light of “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe in your heart that GOD has risen from the dead you shall be saved.” in light of “Not by works of righteousness which we have done but by the mercy of God He saved us through the washing of the regeneration and the renewing from the Holy Ghost.”

I will say that while I would be concerned on this, it isn’t the only reason not to vote for him. He has many more other views: pro-abortion, pro homosexual marriage, higher taxes with people who make $25,000 who now pay no taxes thanks to Bush going to pay 15%, Obama’s desire to negotiate with known terrorists organizations and/or governments, greater degree of socialism than should be needed in a society, etc.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>