Skip to content
Categories:

The Matthew 25 ad emphasizes Obama’s family, ‘Christian faith’

Post date:
Author:

Regular readers may recall that I’ve taken an interest in the “Matthew 25 Network,” a new religious political action committee spearheaded by Mara Vanderslice, who served as director of religious outreach for Kerry-Edwards in 2004, and who has been active in encouraging Democratic candidates to discuss matters of spirituality more openly on the campaign trail.

The group’s first ad was a radio spot, and the group unveiled its first TV ad today.

While the first spot emphasized Obama’s religion, this one highlights Obama’s role as a family man (after, that is, a pastor is quoted touting Obama’s “Christian faith”). The viewer is told, “As a pastor, I know you can tell a lot about a man’s character based on how he treats his family…. Throughout his entire career, Sen. Obama has stood by families — including his own — and as president, he’ll stand by yours.”

Now, I have no idea whether the ad was made after the recent unpleasantness surrounding John Edwards. For that matter, it’s hard to say whether there’s a subtle dig here at John McCain over the difficulties in his first marriage.

Either way, the simplicity of the ad works pretty well. It’s a straightforward enough message: Obama is a pro-family Christian. That’s it. That’s the whole ad.

I can think of worse messages for a mainstream audience to hear right now.

On a related note

, I’d add that there seems to be a growing audience of young evangelicals who may very well be receptive to a “religious left” message.

Jonathan Merritt is a Baptist preacher’s son with a pristine evangelical lineage. It was his dad, the Rev. James Merritt, who reportedly brought President Bush to tears in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks when he called the president “God’s man for this hour.” The Rev. Jerry Falwell was like a grandfather.

“I grew up believing an evangelical couldn’t be a Democrat,” said Merritt, 25. “The two were mutually exclusive.”

But in the past year, as the presidential campaign has focused on the country’s problems, Merritt has begun to question the party of his father. There was his recent revelation that “God is green,” a mission trip to orphanages in Brazil that caused him to worry about global poverty, an encounter with a growing strain of politically liberal evangelicalism that has taken off online, and a nagging sense that Bush’s unpopularity has been an embarrassment to the evangelicals who overwhelmingly voted for him.

“When you look at the political party that has traditionally championed poverty, social justice and care for the least of these, it’s not been the Republican Party,” said Merritt, who now considers himself an “independent conservative” and is unsure whom he will vote for in November. “We are to honor the least of these above even ourselves. It’s very difficult to reconcile totally.”

He is part of a growing group of young born-again Christians standing on one of the many generational breaks surfacing in this election cycle. Merritt still shares his parents’ conservative convictions on abortion, a core issue that forged Falwell’s Moral Majority and brought evangelicals firmly into the Republican camp, but he says they are no longer enough for him to claim the Republican Party.

In fact, Merritt is of particular interest as an anecdotal example. It was Merritt who gained national attention earlier this year for pushing Southern Baptists on environmental issues. Soon after, to Merritt’s surprise, the Obama campaign reached out.

“They tried to feel me out and see where I stood,” he said. “They weren’t pushy.”

We’ll see soon enough if I’m right, but I continue to think the evangelical vote will be worth watching on Election Day.

Comments

  • pfgr

    says:

    I think the ad is a bit of a low blow to McCain, but given the tone of McCain’s ads it does not bother me at this point.

  • Dale

    says:

    “I grew up believing an evangelical couldn’t be a Democrat,” said Merritt, 25. “The two were mutually exclusive.”

    I thought just the opposite. How could a true christian be anything but Democrat.

  • Fast Eddie

    says:

    Steve says:

    Either way, the simplicity of the ad works pretty well. It’s a straightforward enough message: Obama is a pro-family Christian. That’s it. That’s the whole ad.

    Nearly.

    “For his entire career, Senator Obama has stood by families..including his own.”

    If that isn’t a straight kick in the bollocks aimed at the philandering abandoner-of-his-first-family John McCain, I don’t know what is.

  • SadOldVet

    says:

    “I continue to think the evangelical vote will be worth watching on Election Day.”

    The only thing worth watching about the evangelical vote will be their turnout. Obama may get a percent or 2 at the edges, but core will vote republican. Combination of ‘that is what we always do’ and fear invoked by the rethugs and McLiar campaign.

    And of course there will be the media echo chamber for the rethugs and McCrap to rely upon.

    A video is posted on RawStory.com of CNN today. To introduce a discussion (he said – he said) about a McCain ad, CNN runs a video of Obama with a crawler at the bottom reading “OBAMA THE ANTICHRIST?”

    CNN/Fox/MSNBC will continue (he said – he said) discussions of every smear of Obama by the rethugs and McLiar. Naturally, a percentage of amerikans will assume there must be some validity to the question. The RR will eat this sh*t up!

    Whether it is Jerome Corsi or McBush ads that start with 3 phallic symbols, 2 white females, 1 black man or McBush ads that push that Obama is the antichrist; the corporate media will continue have ignore truth and focus on being fair and balanced by presenting ‘both sides’.

    Never forget that the Low Information Voters are the core voting group of the republican party and this works with them. Low Information Voters is republican-speak for stupid white trash who largely get their facts directly and/or indirectlly from Fox Noise, Rush Limbaugh, and the multitude of echo chambers for the rethug party.

  • Old School

    says:

    The “including his own” line may be a jab aimed at McCain, but if it is, I think it’ll go right past the majority of people who see the ad.

    A kick in the bollocks would have to also mention McCain’s divorce.

  • Jon B.

    says:

    “If that isn’t a straight kick in the bollocks aimed at the philandering abandoner-of-his-first-family John McCain, I don’t know what is.”

    You really need to watch the ad to see how hard of a kick it is!

  • tp

    says:

    Sen. Obama has stood by families — including his own

    I literally laughed out loud at that. It definitely comes off as a subtle dig at McCain’s adulterous past.

  • Michael W

    says:

    He and Michelle have been together almost 16 years?? Bah, humbug. They are newly-weds. Hubby and I have been together almost 17 years, and we don’t get the plaudits that they do.

    And trust me, we have a much more difficult time staying together with everything pointed against us.

    Michael W

    (Note: I think I’m going to change my signature to include my full last name, instead of just the initial. Ed, I know, can’t give a response, but Tom, do you have any insight before I do that?)

  • Michael W

    says:

    I should probably mention that gay relationships are usually consider on a par with straight relationships by a factor of ten. I.E. 6 months in a gay relationship is the equivalent of 6 years in a straight one.

  • Rabi

    says:

    I think the ad is a bit of a low blow to McCain

    Well, while I generally have a problem with the idea of a candidate having “family values,” as if the other does not, I disagree with you here. Americans have a problem accepting Obama as one of them. He’s “different,” maybe a little scary. Given the context, I don’t have a problem with a third party trying to emphasize that he’s a family man. With Obama in the position he is, I think it rings much stronger as a defense of Obama than an attack on McCain. I see not as trying to lift Obama above McCain in terms of who cares more about families, but rather simply trying to level the playing field, show that Obama cares as much as McCain.

  • Racer X

    says:

    It definitely comes off as a subtle dig at McCain’s adulterous past.

    What? McCain has an adulterous past???

    And what’s up with McCain wanting a pro-choice VP, anyway? Is he pro choice because he paid for abortions for some of the girlfriends he had when he was cheating on his wife? Did he use a condom when he was cheating on his wife, or just risk it?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  • smiley

    says:

    Way OT (sorry) but isn’t it interesting that the owners of major league sports teams are giving to McCain in the same ratio as active-duty troops are giving to Obama — 6:1.

    Like the ad. I didn’t get the “including his own” quip at first so I’d not be surprised if many other people don’t either. I’d be curious to know how many people even know about that part of McCain’s background.

  • Dale

    says:

    If evangelicals could get evangelical about love rather than rules, that could be a revolution. Imagine all that passion going toward loving one’s neighbors and not being judgmental. Another opportunity lost.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    My nomination for stupid comment of the week:

    Asshat @ 1: I think the ad is a bit of a low blow to McCain…

    WTF?
    The ad has absolutely nothing to do with McCain: Overtly or covertly.
    The vast majority of Americans have no idea McCain was even previously married.
    Or that he left his crippled wife and the kids because he found a rich, young sugar-nipple to suck to fame and fortune. Shit. If those facts were widely known… McCain wouldn’t even be in this race.

    The ad is simply a positive declaration of Barack’s family values.
    To claim such a declaration is a “low blow to McCain,” is to take It’s-Okay-If-You-Are-A-Republican to new lower levels of hyper-stupidity.

    Run this ad.
    Fund this ad.

    Specifically because of the comments of the prick @ 1.

  • MaBelle

    says:

    Oh, yippee!

    Even MORE religious pandering.

    In a hysterical, frantic effort to show voters how “Christian” he is, Barack goes out of his way to gather the true believers into the Democratic camp. It dovetails quite nicely, I think, with his newly-announced faith-based program as POTUS, and I’m sure by the time he’s through pandering to millions of zealous true believers from Rick Warren’s church he’ll have a golden halo around his head.

    Jesus! Where do Democrats get the idiotic notion that all they have to do is copy the Republicans in order to win? How long do we think it will be before we can just toss a coin about which party to support, given that Democrats look more and more like Republicans every year? How long will it be before choice and gay rights are completely whitewashed by Republicans in Democratic disguise?

    All this in an effort to win the true believers. Sometimes, when I read crap like this (Democrats and their zealous outreach efforts to evangelicals) I wonder why I bother to vote at all…

  • doubtful

    says:

    MaBelle,

    To be fair, this ad did not come from the Obama campaign. It’s from a PAC. I believe the article makes this clear in the first sentence.

    Secondly, Obama’s plan for faith-based ‘outreach’ is to reinstate separations between church and state that Bush spent the last eight years tearing down.

    You’re jumping at shadows, and sounding a bit unhinged and zealous while doing so. What exactly scares you so much about going to the polls and casting your vote for the same candidate as a religious person?

    Dale really nailed this issue in the second comment.

  • Lance

    says:

    Dale said: “I thought just the opposite. How could a true christian be anything but Democrat.”

    Bingo!

    Jesus was not a Republican. If anything he’d have taken a whip to the scum running the Republican party after he threw them out of the Temple.

  • Lance

    says:

    MaBelle said: “All this in an effort to win the true believers. Sometimes, when I read crap like this (Democrats and their zealous outreach efforts to evangelicals) I wonder why I bother to vote at all…”

    That’s just the trick. No body is trying to get Pat Robertson’s vote. We are trying to make a moderate independent voter understand that we are not some sort of communist anti-christian extremists who are going to close all the churchs, temples and mosques (though the Republican’ts might do the mosques).

    If in the process we remind the younger evangelicals that you can’t have a policy that forces women to have children then dumps them in the gutter, we will be getting somewhere.

  • st john

    says:

    RE: the Civil Forum at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA on Saturday http://www.saddlebackcivilforum.com/index.html, here is how Pastor Rick Warren portrays McCain on his(Warren’s) website: “Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican candidate for the Office of President of the United States, was elected to the United States Senate in 1986, serving his home state of Arizona. He was a member of Congress from 1982-1986. He and his wife Cindy live in Phoenix, and have seven children and four grandchildren.” I wrote and suggested this is a misleading bio, given that Cindy and John have no children between them. “…have seven children and four grandchildren….” implies they share a biological family. I wonder if the Scarlet Letter (A) will be part of the forum discussion?

    Here is the bio for Obama: “Senator Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic candidate for the Office of President of the United States, was elected to the United States Senate in 2004, serving his home state of Illinois. He was previously an Illinois State Senator from 1996-2004. He and his wife Michelle live in Chicago’s South Side with their two daughters.” Notice the use of “their” in Obama’s intro.

    “In addition to my primary calling to proclaim the Gospel Truth of salvation in Jesus Christ, these Civil Forums further three other life goals: helping individuals accept responsibility, helping the Church regain credibility and encouraging our society to return to civility,” Warren added.

    How does Saddleback Church maintain a tax exempt IRS status with this forum?

    Lots of questions for discussion.

    I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
    peace,
    st john

  • Chad

    says:

    Obama a man of faith? What a crock of B.S.

    A man of faith doesn’t sit in a hate-spewing, black separatist church for 20 years without raising the spirituality of their message.

    And a man of faith does not vote for abortion rights.

    These people are trying to paint Obama as something he isn’t to appeal to middle America. Good luck with that.

  • Chad

    says:

    Oh, and about the infidelity stuff about McCain. He answered all those questions years ago when he was running for earlier campaigns and the good people of Arizona got over it. Maybe you should too.

  • DebbyeOh

    says:

    To MaBelle @ 15: I don’t think this is an effort to “copy” what the Republicans are
    doing with the religious right. I’m a committed Christ follower and have been one for some time, and I’ve been a Democrat in my voting since I cast my first vote. I really think people of faith are starting to see how absolutely un-Christ like the RR is and are starting to realize it’s time to break the stranglehold they have on our faith.

    (It may take some time, maybe up to McSame’s 100 years, maybe 1000 years, but I believe Islam will get from under its extremist, too. Just my 2 cents about that.)

  • OkieFromMuskogee

    says:

    “..it’s hard to say whether there’s a subtle dig here at John McCain over the difficulties in his first marriage.”

    Subtle dig? Are you kidding? It’s a powerful kick in the cajones.

    Chad @ #20 and #21: Thanks for the sermons on who is, and is not, a man of faith. There are other faiths besides yours, and obviously most of them are morally superior to yours.

    If your faith tells you that marital infidelity is ok and supporting abortion rights get you excommunicated, then I’m not interested. Take your bigoted crap it to the wingnut blogs where they hate black churches too.

  • TR

    says:

    I love Chad’s “logic” — McCain’s adultery and divorce are off the table because the people of Arizona knew about it and elected him anyway, while Obama’s membership in Trinity United Church of Christ, which was also well known and ignored by the voters, is still a major issue.

    I know you have to be functionally retarded to call yourself a Republican these days, but Chad seems especially taken with the idea.

  • st john

    says:

    And Obama answered all the anti-christ, Muslim BS. So, get over it, Chad. A man of Christ does not promote the killing of millions of people, for any reason. I don’t agree with Obama on many things, but feel he is way more “christian” than his opponent. We would have fewer abortions if genuine birth control and family planning were considered valid and healthy alternatives to ignorance and the head-in-the-sand mentality of anti-life/pro-fetus advocates such as you, Chad. I think you really need to read what you write before spewing it out here on this forum. Look in the mirror and ask yourself how many lives you are willing to take to save one fetus; one gallon of oil; one pro-war, adulterer. Don’t cast your aspersions upon us until you have cleared your own nest.

    I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation.
    peace,
    st john

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Michael W (#8) asked: (Note: I think I’m going to change my signature to include my full last name, instead of just the initial. Ed, I know, can’t give a response, but Tom, do you have any insight before I do that?)

    What do you have to hide? If nothing, then no problem. If you live somewhere gay unfriendly and you would worry about being “public” then you should consider that.
    Your call.

  • KRK

    says:

    st john,

    You’re wrong about McCain’s children, and it’s a mistake I’ve seen repeated a lot lately. McCain does have children with Cindy. It doesn’t do the cause any good to be pushing on a loser of an argument like this.

    From a December 2007 Boston Globe article:

    There are the children from his first marriage – Doug and Andy, from his first wife’s former marriage – whom he adopted when they were young, as well as a daughter, Sidney. Then there is the second family: Meghan, Jimmy, Jack, and the McCains’ adopted daughter, Bridget, 16, who became a target of dirty campaigning in the 2000 presidential race when she was portrayed as the child of an illicit union.

    So he has two adopted sons and a biological daughter from his first marriage AND a biological daughter, two biological sons, and an adopted daughter from his marriage with Cindy.

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/27/mccains_children_avoid_the_limelight/

  • st john

    says:

    @KRK: my apologies to you and the McCains. I didn’t realize all the complex issues regarding his families. It is a curiosity that his children are not associated with his campaign, in any way, for a “Family Values” kind of guy.

    peace,
    st john

  • Chad

    says:

    St. John, I don’t think McCain wants to put his children out there because then the liberals would try to smear them too. McCain has two sons serving over in Iraq and he doesn’t want to bring that up because it would be unfair to them. In my book, that’s a nice thing for him to do.

  • st john

    says:

    Gee, Chad. You just exposed McCain’s 2 sons in Iraq to the insurgency. I’m sure they will now target them and hold John’s feet to the fire on his defense policy. Is nothing sacred? Of course, if something should happen to them, that makes JMc a greater hero for sacrificing his sons to the “cause” of freedom.
    Good job, C.

    peace,
    st john

  • hornblower

    says:

    People,

    Families are not part of the campaign. George Bush is a good family man and look what happened.
    I would prefer not to know anything about wives/husbands and children. They are running for President not for sainthood.
    What are your policies? Where do you want to lead the nation?
    When you bring religion into the mix it never goes well.

  • Chad

    says:

    Oh, and thanks Tom Cleaver for suggesting I get lynched, how tolerant of you. Can I come over and join your party of peace and tolerance? Jerk.

  • st john

    says:

    @Hornblower
    Bush a good family man? What does that mean? What happened? Being responsible for the deaths and displacement of over a million people, some of them members of families, equates to being a good family man? I guess I just don’t get it. I feel less safe today than I did on 9/10 and isn’t that the line of demarcation for National Security?

    peace,
    st john

  • st john

    says:

    Gee, Chad, you feel threatened? Didn’t your “man” suggest that killing Iranian citizens with cigarettes was a good use of our exports?

    We are not always able to maintain our peace and tolerance in the face of the hate speech and behavior of our (R) brothers and sisters.

    peace,
    st john

  • libra

    says:

    I wonder if “Chad” is a “hanging chad.” — Tom Cleaver, @27

    Nah. Just a Polish “czad” — extremely bad smell. Probably comes from the same source as skunk’s spray — fear.

  • Chad

    says:

    St. John, didn’t your man say, “the white folk’s greed runs a world in need.”

    That sounds really unifying doesn’t it. Every ill in this world is caused by the white man according to Obambi.

    Killing Iranians with our cigarettes is a good use of our exports. Who cares? Cigarettes are a commodity. If people like Iranians and Chinese, and such want to buy our tobacco, who’s to stop them? No one is forcing people to smoke. And besides, I’m sure McCain said it jokingly and with a smirk on his face, but you took it seriously because he’s a white man killing Iranians, and you have no sense of humor because you live in a world of misery because the big evil Bush govt. is repressing you.

  • pfgr

    says:

    ROTF at 14:

    1. The point of post #1

    2. Your understanding

    Name two things that have never met.

    But go on calling people filthy names, I’m sure you’ll convert people to your point of view that way.

  • hornblower

    says:

    Faith and family have nothing to do with how the country is governed. I prefer faith in American ideals and being a member of the family of nations. Why should any of care if they get along with their wives? Bush is a good example of why ones personal life and running the country are unrelated.