Via LGF. Ace mocks it as an especially Morfordesque example of Morford’s oeuvre, which does indeed embrace so many conservative stereotypes of the San Francisco liberal as to make one wonder if he’s not doing it for attention, but is his logic here really that off base? Liberals might reasonably favor Obama for his policy positions but how else do you explain, say, Doug Kmiec’s incoherent affection for him but in precisely these terms? No experience, no particularly impressive displays of judgment save for Iraq, which is itself being diminished daily by his surge naysaying, nothing at all to commend him really except his youth, his rhetorical ability, his uniquely American racial background, and the fact that he craps honey and flowers and communes with the cherubim and seraphim on a celestial plane attainable only by him. The great punchline of the election is the left’s incessant whining about the dearth of media coverage of substantive issues (most pointedly in the ABC debate) as backdrop for a nominee who is where he is based almost entirely on personality and “identity.” Morford’s language is more flowery than most Obama supporters would be comfortable with, but how is his logic significantly different from theirs?
No, it’s not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn’t have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.
Dismiss it all you like, but I’ve heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who’ve been intuitively blown away by Obama’s presence – not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence – to say it’s just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.
Here’s where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.
The boldface is mine, the itals are all Morford’s. Never forget, the guy who wrote these words is precisely the type who, in the same breath, can deride conservatives as being soft-headed and overly inclined to hero-worship in contrast to his own bad-ass, irreverent, liberal self, and then turn around and call Barack Obama a “Lightworker” who’s going to change human consciousness. I take him and most of the rest of Obama’s supporters roughly as seriously as I do the girls shrieking themselves into unconsciousness in Beatles concert footage. And I say that as a devout Beatlemaniac myself.