Fitz!!!

sorry for OT – YKOS2 location vote is up at
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/28/131258/195

now back to your regularly scheduled Pach – always a good thing!

You should read Chris Bowers and his post on how this kind of language hurts progressive electoral prospects.

Pach, you are absolutely right on NAFTA. It’s my own check on Clinton praise.

Matt:

I think I have that link in the main post, too. Thanks!

I Swear Pach, that these pols are braindead at times.

WTF was Obama thinking?

I was NEVER an Obama supporter for this very reason……..He pretends he isn’t looking to be on the ticket in 08 but after reading this it is more than obvious, he is…..He can snicker all he wants…watchout fellow Lake dwellers…HE is the next Lieberman…GUARANTEED….I knew it and I am more convinced than ever, and you are soooooo right Pach…Clinto weakened the Dems for his own power….

Pach you are my god.

Obama thinks he is going to be the first african american president….he has been pander-puckering to the right and attacking the progressive left with shit just like this ever since he got in office. Fuck him.

We need to jetison his sorry ass instead of hoping and praying he will come around.

The Obama-worship on the left is a mystery to me.

I think there is a legitimate concern here about criticizing your own party with terms used by its political opponents, and sort of reinforcing their points against Dems and progressives. But Obama is very concerned about losing the black religious base, and I think he’s trying (arguably clumsily) to shore that up in speeches like this. The post seems a bit too much, like he ran over your dog than backed up to make sure it was dead. And I assume Clinton must’ve been in the front seat egging him on.

Thanks for this post, Pachacutec,
thanks for pointing out the YearlyKos interfaith service, and thanks for “but that was then; this is now.” Regardless of how one felt about Clinton, all I gotta say is “truer words never spoken.” Along with “that was Bill Clinton and DLC is not Clinton”.

Of course, the hardwingnut Theocracy would consider an interfaith worship service essentially the same as Devil worship. But the vast majority of voters would see very different.

We need a psychotherapist to explain the weird negativsm of the corporate and centrist Dems. Or why they all tend to that, no matter where they start. Odd and puzzling phenom, that.

I think we can officially agree that Obama is not the great hope for the Democratic party that he was touted to be in 2004. Just another DLC Dem trying to find that mushy middle road.

Spot on, pach. The Repubs think winning means hanging together, the Dems think it means hanging separately.

Hi, I’m a lurker, but wanted to comment on this.

Obama was making that statement largely to the religious left, the Sojourners/Covenant for a New America conference that I just got back from about half an hour ago. And I gotta say, the media likes to push this message about the “Democrats don’t like religiuos folks” message, and respond well to Democrats who they think are saying the same thing.

But, this was really not the context of Obama’s speech. I hardly thought he was castising Democrats. And the part quoted in the Post, “. “Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith…” and “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.” That was right after stating that everyone comes to this from a moral perspective, whether or not they’re religious, adn they shouldn’t pretend to be religious when they’re not. His statement quoted above about secularists came as the counter when, speaking to a religious crowd, he told them all that they should respect people who come to their views for a secular reason.

A surprisingly large (considering it was half a revival) part of Obama’s speech was on the seperation of church and state. I thought it was rather brave, considering the crowd.

The Demcrotic party is like an abused and battered spouse. They are scared to death to stick up for being abused. If someone hits you and you don’t defend yourself just at forcefully then they will only keep battering you until you are full submissive. That’s were the Democratic party is right now. They need to start swinging back each and every time they are attacked. You callin’ me a unhinged angry liberal??? That’s right, that is exactly what i am and I’m damned proud of it. I’m angry and unhinged b/c YOU BASTARD ARE LIARS AND CROOKS!

We have got to start hitting the right back. they are murdering us this summer and the Democratic leadership (with the few exceptions, Murtha, Feingold, etc.) is either A. laying low and hoping it doesn’t matter or B. actually going along with some of it in some insane attepted to co-opt some issues. It will fail come November if we don’t quit being ashamed (or at least appear to be ashamed) to be LIBERAL. Godamn right I’m a liberal, you got a problem with that then f**k you, I’ll fight the biggest single celled redneck in the house! That kind of thing, that’s over the top but you get the point. Murtha is the only one that is good at it.

Liberal is not a dirty word, and neither is lesbian or lawyer. But LIAR, that’s a dirty L word an the only one that matters to me.

Obama has been a hell of a disappointment. They will mow him down if he keep playing this guy trying to co-opt stuff. It won’t work. Can’t believe he is that dumb.

And during CLinton’s tenure, Democratic control and/or power within state legislatures was absolutely decimated. Props to Howard Dean’s 50-State Project for aggressively seeding the rebuilding of grassroots Democrats/democracy.

And EPU’ed from last thread:

Sirota at Huffington Post and Froomkin at Washington Post are must reading today. The Rethugs/Corp thugs are giving us the rope with which to hang them for their corruption and lies.

Also, sharing an enote I just got.
Just an FYI: Beginning in eight days, telemarketers will be able to call your cell phone at your expense. To stop them from being able to call you, just call 888-382-1222 from your cell phone and it just takes a couple of seconds to take your name off their list.

siun –

I’ve been a faithful lurker at dKos since the earliest days, but am still not registered. May I pass a thought about location on to you?

Many folks are suggesting Philly (which I’d be happy with, since I could stay with family and that could make it much more affordable for us), yet here’s another thought:

Why not Atlantic City? You would get the same kind of great price breaks that you got in Vegas, and for the same reasons. But even better — when it’s hot out, the best place to be in the region is “DOWN THE SHORE” as the Jersey types call it.

The ocean breezes make everything so comfortable. And the Atlantic City beaches are free (some other places demand a paid-for “beach tag”), and it’s the perfect time of year to swim comfortably in the ocean. Not to mention the fun Boardwalk — it’s so much fun to walk the boards at night, hearing the ocean roar (above the arcade noises!).

In fact there are plenty of hotels right ON the boardwalk. Mr. K8 and I stayed at one on our recent trip “back home” and it was so wonderful.

Just a thought to pass along.

Atlantic City is also a blue town.

I wasn’t thrilled by his speech either. In particular I had a problem with Obama claiming that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.” Lol–where exactly is this great Democratic movement to stop politicians from speaking about religion?? It seems like the opposite is happening. However, despite this statement, I still like and admire Obama. Him pushing the idea that Democrats talk about religion is nothing new.

On a side, note, I know this blog is about putting folks on blast, no holds barred, but even still, for me, calling Obama an “idiot” took away from the validity of your message. It’s like when that trough-feeder Trevino called Jane illiterate, an insult that’s so ridiculous that it makes the person who stated it come across as a bit juvenile.

Bill Clinton would not have won either election without Perot draining away GOP votes.

Pach says “but now it’s time to get past Bill worship.”

I got past it when he wasted his strong political capital in 1993 and ‘94 on legislative proposals which energized the opposition – both important ideas, but sure to go down to failure. Gay rights in the military and a diffuse set of focus groups seeking a solution to medical care costs.

The first energized the religious right and further alienated a military (and military supporters) which already had a certain disdain for him. The second rallied the vast medical industrial complex in such a way that the GOP was able to latch itself onto that industry groups’ funding sources just in time to tie into their organizational efforts to take over the house in 1994.

I still voted for him twice. My mom (87 years old and a big progressive booster) calls him the biggest waste of Jeffersonian-level intelligence in the history of the presidency.

WDC 11

I disagree with your comment.We don’t need pieholes like Obama.

Obama is simply another Lieberman….
only for now he’s in training pants.

1,181 DAYS AND THE KILLING GOES ON AND ON AND…

Pachacutec:

Thanx, brother, for the air freshener…I can remember when I was dragged thru the grease for callin’ Obama a black Lieberman. I think we gotta be real careful with this suede-shoe salesman, he’s slick as snot on a glass doorknob. I remember readin’ a post about one of his runs for local er state office against an old “Panther” neighborhood activist…the black activist was very circumspect and wouldn’t “swiftboat” a successful Black politician but there was some encouragement to the press er other Democrats to look a little closer at brother Obama ‘cuz there my be more’n we wanna see.

We must push the “liberal” er “progressive” religious leaders who are out in the streets and neightborhoods and in the jails and hospitals…we must push those who wish to be pushed into the debate over spectific issues and in local races. These clergy, includin Unitarian Universalist folks, have been bloacked out of both the local and national press. We must be careful not to pit these people against their rightwing, psuedo-religious brothers but must run them out as religious alternatives to the Christian brownshirts.

Thanx again Pach, and I am tryin ta get thru ta yer “Roots” folks but I’ve been too busy workin lately…

KEEP THE FAITH AND TAKE NO PRISONERS, REMEMBER THAT THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS DON’T APPLY TA POLITICS!!!

I read the speech, and Obama repeated his statements impugning liberals several times.

Pach,

Thanks for including Chris’s post, it connected the dots for me.

Interestingly, I was just listening to John Dickerson on AAR, and he pointed out that with Ralph Reed under what might be fatal fire for his casino shenaningans, and evangelical churches starting to shun the “fire-and-brimstone” types, while taking up causes like global warming… perhaps we’ve turned a corner on the stranglehold that that the theocratic right has held on America for far too long.

So along comes one of “Ours”… a celebrity Democrat, a darling of the Left (for reasons I simply cannot fathom)… and gives the power right back to them.

THANKS A LOT, SCHMUCK!

Can we now please stop gushing like 12 year-old girls reading their teen mags about this opportunistic asshole, as our shining white (or mocha, or whatever) Savior in 2008? Jesus Christ (no pun intended!), just nominate Hillary, and get the next debacle over with, already!

If Bill Clinton is such a freakin’ genius, how come he turned the Democrats into the minority party? He took a majority party and triangulated it into irrelevence for his own aggrandizement.

His Sister Souljah/pissing on progressives/”new democrat” tactical schtick wasn’t what got him elected. It was the fact that Bush 1.0 was so goddamned awful. How this got translated into the Liebermanesque strategy of dissing your own party is just a mystery to me.

Just my opinion. Actual mileage may vary.

WDC #11: I can see your point, but surely there are more positive ways to make the it.

If they are going to do this, at least they could quote some scripture!
—–
Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the publican [that is, barkeep, and probably tax collector, ed.], standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner’. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [that is, forgiven ed.]rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
—
There you have it, we poor Democrats who stand at a distance, beating our breasts and bemoaning our sins are justified! And lifestyle issues and tax policy thrown in to boot.

And that the King James Version too. The Literal Word. Theocrats, answer that!

Mrs K8 – good suggestion, I will pass it along.

and Pach – BRAVO!!!

It is such a pleasure to see this nasty strategy called on the carpet.

Also seconding or thirding the Pach/Stoller recommendation of Chris Bowers’ post – brilliant.

Wait is this the same Barack Obama who called Joe-nertia his friend and mentor and is backing DINO Joe in his primary race. If it is I gotta ask why are you people surprised.

This is the kind of shit that really pisses me off. It’s not that the “religious Left” or the Left in general is less understanding or passionate about religion and faith, nor are they less aware of it’s role in society, it’s just the “religious Right” is piercingly vocal about it and Obama knows this. He’s just pandering and it’s sad.

The note that the media fled the YearlyKos interfaith worship service is very important note. I have never seen Big Media comfortable with any religious sentiment other than, secularized, sentimental, and often empty conventional forms of piety.

Better that Obama pull a Frist and throw it the medias faces during some interview show.

Thanks for parsing this Obama speech, Pach.

And acallidryas #15, thanks for the caveats.

I shall be watching Obama carefully, with wide-open eyes. I haven’t decided yet.

I’ve edited the main post to make the Bowers link stand out a bit more.

GOP planning a new floor stunt tomorrow attacking the media…read about it at MSNBC’s First Read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/

CNN’s Ed Henry reporting on GOP vs NYT. Don’t these people ever deviate from the script Mr. Rove sends ‘em? No mention at all of the public mentions/domain of SWIFT long before the NYT article. Where’s the context????

Thanks Pach, I just finished yelling pretty much the same thing at my computer. Received a newsletter from Rabbi Lerner’s Network of Spiritual Progressives which included info on his conversation with Obama and Obama’s speech.

It just shows how well the smears of the right have worked when the left repeats them as fact. We have a mountain of lies to fight against. It makes me sick.

OT: Anyone read that one of the Marine recruiters featured in F9-11 was killed in Iraq recently.

Larry and Samurai Sam are spot on. As has been said here and on many other blogs, one of the biggest problems Dems have is that they keep following what works for the Right and that makes them look weak and ineffective.

Listen, I am absolutely positive there are wonderful, nice, giving Evangelicals out there, but the organised political wing of that group is none of those things. Sweet merciful crap-on-a-stick, how blind do Dems have to be to not see the damage that has been wrought on the US in the last 5 years?

Democrats need to initiate and come up with their own ideas, not just re-act to Karl Rove and his ilk. Re-acting just insures that Dems are behind the curve, not setting it.

Frankly, the idea that any religion should be a central component of any party or campaign rather than something that guides people in their private lives is one we damn well need to do away with. I don’t care what you do in your home, but if your public bible is anythinig other than the US Constitution, what you have to say about morality and ethics is worth about as much as what I flushed down the toilet this morning.

http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1564
Check out #18. That’s the kind of garbage we need to be discouraging.

I remember Obama’s 2004 keynote, and thinking it was a great we-are-all-one-America kind of message. It wasn’t until 6-12 months later that I realized his goal was not reconciliation, but rather capitulation.

As for Clinton, the greatest harm he did to the Democratic party was almost accidental: His success *legitimized* the DLC triangulation strategy, even though the real reason for his success was his incredible charisma and political talent. He could have been to the left of Feingold or Bernie Sanders, and he still would have won. Maybe by even more, for all we know.

Democrats need to pull a mass Frist on the corporate media. On pretty much everything. Let the GOP and Democrats have a media Fristing contest and we will see who wins.

(June 28, 2006 — 12:05 PM EST // link)
Frist: Senate GOP polls sagging because CNN not living up to role as GOP mouthpiece.
– Josh Marshall
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..008867.php

Apparently Frist did this on the TeeVee, in front of everybody. Here you got a respectable majority group man, dresses up in a suit and a tie, can stand on his hind legs and talk and all, hold beating hearts in his hands and put them bask in working order, and he does stuff like this, in public. And every inch of what he sais was BS. Democrats can do the same thing, minus the BS. I think the Democrats would win a media Fristing contest.

Well I’ve said it on a few other blogs, but I’ll say it here too.

There’s nothing wrong with engaging religous folks in dialogue. However, Democrats need to make up their mind about what they stand for. Are you in favor of rights for all Americans? Or only for the Americans that the religious people are comfortable with? There is a definite group of Democrat leadership types that just wish Progressives would go away, so they can be more “moderate” in peace. The trouble is, this strategy has been a disaster for the Democratic Party.

I am not a Democrat, I’m an Independent. I would become a D officially if the party officially grew a spine, and actually stood for something other than pandering to whoever will vote for them today. Why on earth should I throw in my lot with politicians like Lieberman, who vocally attacks his own party’s positions; or with a Schumer, who is perfectly willing to support and fund people who are not even members of his party; or Feinstein, who is not even in favor of supporting the First Amendment; or Dean, who is opposed to gay marriage, and thinks gays should just live with civil unions and shut up. I’m sure I’m not the only one out there feeling like this.

Either Progressives will seize control of the Democratic Party, or they will be forced to form a third party to have their issues addressed. While I am not opposed to dialogue with the religious folk, I just don’t see how this benefits Progressives at all.

There is nothing wrong with Obama calling on the Democratic Party to reach out to people of faith. But he needs to learn how to do it in an inclusive way, not in a way that demonizes Democrats and supports the same Democrats-as-godless stereotype he says he is trying to overcome.

Michael Gredell 10

I missed this particular speech, but Obama’s speech (IIRC it was during or a part of the 04 Democratic National Convention) was pleasingly progressive in content and style. Therein, Obama gave us all a great deal of hope and inspiration.

After that, his voting record indicated that he was lying like a Cheney. And he has made numerous harmful and hurtful public gaffes (such as this speech) that would make Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller proud.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama is a panderer not unlike Hillary. Lets all send him a letter because he is truly a major disappointment.

OT: Anyone read that one of the Marine recruiters featured in F9-11 was killed in Iraq recently.

I’m sure there’s no significance whatsoever to recruiters being pressed into combat…

Obama’s argument is a red herring. It IS possible for the democratic party to nurture common-ground with all kinds of religious organizations — both parties have done that throughout history. At the same time Democrats need to have the courage to stand up and insist on preserving the important constitutional framework that seperates church and state. The US may be a country populated by religious people, but we are not a theocracy — yet. One only needs to look to places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in order to understand what would happen if that were allowed to occur.

For shame Obama!

Bill and Hill, Hill and Bill. Who came first the Hill or the Bill? Bill first became president, we all know, then Hill said, ‘I’ll now follow Bill next up to the city on the hill.’ And Bill said, ‘I’ll follow you Hill and do everything you say, because you’re the Prez.’ She answered, ‘Bill, come now, be honest, you know how you have to thank Hill for everything.’ What she meant to say was, ‘You know Bill, Hill is the protoclone of the Bill and when I become president you will publicly praise and thank Hill for the Arkansas creation of Bill.’ ‘Do you want a Hill following a Bill?’, someone asked. ‘Not I’, I chirped up, ‘neither of these Ills.’

Right on Pach… Let’s not for get it was Bill Clinton who gave us “Clear Channel”, and all the other disgusting Media Consolidation that turned the “Public Airwaves” into corporate megaphones. The “Telcom Act” of 1996 ranks right up there with NAFTA as a huge betrayal of everything those of us on the left say we stand for. “Freedom of the Press” rings pretty hollow when control of all the electronic Media that matters rests in the hands of just a handful of giant conglomerates who don’t give a rats ass about anything but grabbing even more control over what we see and hear than they already have.

Clinton did many things well. We all look back fondly at the days when we were actually talking about starting to pay down our National Debt. But sometimes it seems our concerns about the mess created by the many misdeeds of “W” clouds our ability to be objective regarding the Clinton years.

Make no mistake about what I’m saying… I’d love to see clinton leading the country again. But I’d also like to see how he might have acted differently with the kind of immediate accountability Blogs and the Internet have added to modern political discourse.

Sorry, I did not come away with the same reaction after reading the linked story. Maybe I need to find the entire text of the speech.

It seems to me you’re saying it is okay for us to criticize the Democratic party but it is not okay for an elected Democrat to do so if that criticism involves religion. If I have that wrong, please enlighten.

I am not a proponent of any religion, and I recognize that I am in a minority in this world. However, I do not begrudge anyone their religious beliefs as long as it is not FORCED on the rest of society. Mandatory prayer in schools, teaching “intelligent design” and posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings were issues being FORCED on society by the religious right.

I agree with Senator Obama that VOLUNTARY expressions in the public arena and politicians embracing non-fanatical religious groups are fine.

Let’s not put all religious people in this country in Jerry Falwell’s sanctuary. That is just as bad as labeling all Muslims as terrorist.

I read the Wash Post article twice. And I read Pacha’s post twice. Maybe it is too late in the day for me, but I did not see in the Wash Post anything in quotes, attributed to Obama, which would reasonably be considered Dem Base Bashing. What I saw was the Post’s reporter characterizing something Obama may have said, as “chastizing”. I really don’t know that Obama chastized the Dem base. Maybe the report is slanted, for some reason — reportorial sloppiness, for example. But we don’t need to be so sensitive, or so hysterical, that we take what someone says about what someone else may have said, so terribly to heart.

Folks,

Its the power thing… it is sure to corrupt.

Real progressives are few and far between and are not taken seriously by power brokers in the beltway.

It’s the whole recasting of the landscape after the regan devolution… progressives = losers = bad. Librals = losers = bad. Conservative and consensus and the middle are where it’s at baby.

The right love’s to push people like Hillary and Obama to the center and slam them for not having a position… and they are right!

These suck ups think that playing ball is the way to go, but they mostly are spinless sell outs cos they love da power and face time on tee vee.

Narcissist on Steroids Quote of the Day:

“”Everywhere I go,” [mAnn] Coulter says, “people are treating me like a returning war hero.”

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

1,181 DAYS AND THE KILLING GOES ON AND ON AND…

Neurophius @#40:

Obama is NOT calling on Democrats to reach out to people of faith, he is calling Democrats antagonistic to religion…and he is specifically callin’ Democrats anti-Christian.

Look at this guy’s pedigre…University of Chicago, DLC dandy, Lieberman endorser. I think this guy is , in fact an Illinois Leiberman. He came to power in almost the same kinda conditions that Lieberman did only Lieberman had the overt backin of the Nazis and the National Review.

KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T BE DISCOURAGED, THERE ARE A LOTTA CHARLETANS AND OPPORTUNISTS OUT THERE AND THEY’RE ALL DANGEROUS!!!

Prairie Sunshine says: “Beginning in eight days, telemarketers will be able to call your cell phone at your expense.”
June 28th, 2006 at 11:07 am

Please read this: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/06/dnccellphones.htm

The Truth about Cell Phones and the Do Not Call Registry

Despite Re-Circulating E-mail, It is Still Not Necessary to Register Cell Phone Numbers

As the number of phone numbers on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry surpassed 125 million, the Federal Trade Commission today reiterated that despite the claims made in e-mails circulating on the Internet, consumers should not be concerned that their cell phone numbers will be released to telemarketers at any time in the near future. In addition, according to the agency, it is not necessary to register cell phone numbers on the DNC Registry to be protected from most telemarketing calls to cell phones.

The truth about cell phones and the DNC Registry is:

* Contrary to the e-mail, cell phone numbers are NOT being released to telemarketers, and you will NOT soon be getting telemarketing calls on your cell phone.
* There is NO deadline by which you must register your cell phone number on the Registry.
* Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone numbers. Automated dialers are standard in the industry, so most telemarketers are barred from calling consumers on their cell phones without their consent.
* The national associations representing telemarketers have stated that their clients do not intend to start calling consumers’ cell phones.
* There is only ONE DNC Registry. There is no separate registry for cell phones.
* The DNC Registry accepts registrations from both cell phones and land lines. You must call from the phone number that you want to register. If you register online, you must respond to a confirmation e-mail.
* While the telecommunications industry has been discussing the possibility of creating a wireless 411 directory, according to the FCC, even if a wireless 411 directory is established, most telemarketing calls to cell phones would still be illegal, regardless of whether the number is listed on the federal government’s National Do Not Call Registry.

For More Information

To learn more about the National DNC Registry and the rules that enforce it, visit the FTC at http://www.ftc.gov or the FCC at http://www.fcc.gov. For more information about a planned “wireless 411″ directory, visit http://www.qsent.com/wireless411.

The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

(snip)

Joe-Bama!

rev. 2….

the DLC is going to need a new mascot when their other standardbearers are discredited…

I think this guy is , in fact an Illinois Leiberman.

I hate Illinois Leibermans.

I’ve always had mixed feelings about Clinton. He always struck me as someone who liked to have it both ways The criticism that resonated most with me was that he never seemed to stand for anything. I’m sure he really did, but it was sure hard to see, and I think that was because he didn’t want you to see. Nevertheless, that was a very effective schtick for him, and he was an effective President.

There’s nothing wrong with Democrats trying to work with business. Business is an important part of America. Unfortunately, the Democrats have largely abandoned workers as a constituency, and they are weaker as a result. That is part of the Clinton legacy, and it’s not a good one.

Doran Williams 47

We are neither overly sensitive or hysterical…JUST FED UP

Progressives are fed up with pandering puck wads like Obama and his good buddy Joe Lieberman.

Ok, it is too late in the day for me. Larry, just what did Obama say at that meeting, that was so terrible?

Why Does Obama Use Right Wing Frames?

While there is a legitimate debate about religion in politics, it only serves the GOP agenda to bash Democrats with right wing talking points.

Obama is a major disappointment — instead of telling Democrats how bad we are on religion, he should be telling the religious how Democratic values of tolerance and inclusion serve the interests of everyone.

Doesn’t the Bible take a dim view of Pharisees who loudly proclaim their faith? Didn’t Jesus say the kindness of a Good Samaritan was more important than the piety of the faithful?

I’m with Phineas – I want to be left to my own inner compass where religion is concerned; I want my political party to concern itself with government.

We are allowing others to establish a test of what does and does not constitute “religious,” and getting sucked into the mindset that in order for our political views and goals to be considered worthy they have to carry a religious component.

While we are being pulled along by that leash, many on the right are acting in stark contrast to the principles of any religion.

To be quite frank about it, I would rather not attempt to fold into the Democratic party those who want to bring the same kind of religious tyranny to it that has been brought to the GOP. I would rather we be identified as people who act on our values and morals and principles for the greater good, instead of just talk about them. Call me crazy, but in my twisted view of religion, I don’t believe God wants us to sell our souls in His name in order to attain political power.

Look, these quotes are lies, red herrings, straw men:

At the same time, he said, “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.”

As a result, “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.”

Those are right wing lies and talking points. They are smears against the Democratic base.

Obama should be held accountable for that. If we’re going to talk about context, let’s talk about the actual politic context of whose power these statements serve.

The abolitionist movement did the opposite of compromise with the racist religious South. Religion is not the sole purview of the right wing. Obama talks as if it is, as if the left needs to somehow speak soothingly to these people. Lincon at Cooper Union had it right: there is no appeasing these people.

You want to win over persuadable evangelicals? Talk about the gospel and its message of hope to the poor, the alien, the widow, the orphan. The rest is DLC failed third way positioning.

Sheesh! Where is the full throated, angry voice of the prophet? It’s not in the constituency to whom Obama is sucking up.

Moderator remove my 60 Thanks Larry

Taylor has a great new post up.

Sorry bout my 60 folks… server burped

Obama has the argument backwards, blaming Dems for not being something the religious right is? Get real. Keep religion out of politics. Stop emulating extremists!

Norske at 11:35 a.m.

I did not say that Obama is “calling on Democrats to reach out to people of faith,” although I implied it. What he is actually doing is arguable. The point I was trying to make is that if he wants to do that, he should do it in an appropriate way–by not bashing Democrats in the process.

I love your battle cries, btw.

yo, Pach, check this out. youse guys been yellow carded.

http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn06192006.html

There seem to be two points to this story: 1.) either Obama characterized the Democrats or some Democrats as hostile to religion, thereby feeding into the meme that Democrats = overzealous anti-religious absolutists, and/or 2.) the media, in presenting the story, framed Obama that way because that’s all part of the meta-narrative about “why Democrats lose”, etc.

All the blogosphere analysis about Daou’s Triangle and framing and not using the opponent’s language are for nothing if these pols don’t start thinking about it harder. They’ve got to think about how their words are going to be framed by the media, and the Dems can’t afford to give an inch of concession.

TRex said it: Attack, Attack, ATTACK!!!

Great. Another Democratic politician who’s internalized GOP bullshit.

Thanks Pach, and a couple of cents:
The GOP runs a centralized top-down party that looks remarkably like the old-school commie central parties these days. If you step out of line you’re likely to end up in the salt mines, fear and greed run everything, and the radical fringes make the crazed core look moderate.

That’s not our thing. I’ve read more than once that trying to coordinate the Democratic Party is like managing software engineers, oh, sorry, herding cats. Time and again I read that we’ve got to find a way to coordinate all the parts of our Party so we sing from the same score. I’m one that writes this in my more frustrated, weaker moments. And of course, ain’t gonna happen.

But even if we aren’t gonna get centralized, we can stop tearing each other down. We’ve got differences within the wings of the Party. That’s what makes us the prototype for a return to democracy. But when we start drawing the long knives against our own because their message is not aligned perfectly with our version of the truth, we’re asking for defeat. (Not to excuse hacks that parrot and support the criminal Republicans, of course…everyone’s got to draw a line somewhere…)

I am somewhat stunned by the vitriol in this thread. We all know enough to trace back the made-up quotes about Murtha, but no one goes back to the speech where Obama made these selected comments? Why are so many swallowing the MSM talking point without reflecting on what part of Obama’s speech was left out, because it doesn’t fit the picture?

Look, Obama is no savior. He needs to be pushed and held to the fire like every other representative. His 2004 Convention speech was not great, and it basically sought the same tone as this recent speech. Did you really think someone who talked about red state and blue state overlaps wouldn’t broach the topic of religion and ask for more understanding across the red/blue divide? To feel betrayed by the “black Lieberman” is to have not been paying much attention.

I think the following quote actually was pretty good:

“Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps _ off rhythm _ to the gospel choir.”

By the way, has ANYONE in this thread brought up the black church and its relation to the Democratic party?

i was so fired up after Obama’s speech at the convention in ‘04.

But he has been nothing but a disappointment since. His talk is progressive but, you’ve got to walk the talk and that he has not done. His voting record reflects this.

I also think it’s way premature for him to run in 2008. Frankly I don’t think that he’s ready. Sadly, I don’t think the country is ready either.

I thought that he was the next one.

OT Christopher Yoo as quoted from his Judiciary Committee testimony by Froomkin:

“First, I believe that the use of Presidential signing statements as legislative history is inherent in the system of checks and balances embodied in our Constitution. Second, I believe that Presidential statutory interpretation is also inherent in the President’s role as Chief Executive. Third, I suggest that recognizing Presidential signing statements as legislative history would better promote the democratic process.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00879.html

The sheer speciousness of his arguments is breathtaking. Notice how in his first point he says that the President’s use of signing statements is “inherent” and “embodied” in the Constitution which is to say that it is not stated anywhere in the Constitution. He could equally well have said that it is inherent in the Constitution that the President attend football games or chase pixies because the Constitution doesn’t say anything about these things either. Well Yoo thinks this inherency argument is quite something because he uses it again in his next point: signing statements are inherent to the role of Chief Executive. Why? Well gosh, just because they are. It’s that pixie thing again. Yoo’s third point is masterful doublespeak. You see signing statements “promote the democratic process” because they subvert and ignore it. How much more promotional can you get than that?

If how system fails, it will because of men and women who think like Christopher Yoo, which is to say that we have listened to those who do not think at all.

In EPU land but…
When *I* think of fundamental Christian values I think of the closing i hear every Sunday morning

Go in peace. Feed the hungry.

I look for a candidate to achieve these words

It’s official, Barak Obama is a putz. From the article Pachacutec linked:

“It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,’” he said. “Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats.”

Yes, and I, as an atheist, think that religious people should have no problem not practicing their religions anymore. They have to go to church every week, hand over a significant portion of their income, study their religion (allegedly), and what do they get out of it? Nothing, really. You see, Barak, here’s the part you obviously don’t understand, you’re not one of us, you self-important little wanker. Just as I have no idea (well, very little idea) why anyone would bother to go to all the trouble of having a religion, you have absolutely no idea what it means to be one of us. Oh, and are you a Buddhist? How about a Taoist or a Pagan? How in the world would you be able to speak for whether they feel marginalized or propogandized?

Whoever wrote earlier in these comments that Obama isn’t really about religious tolerance is correct. This guy is starting to look like Joe Lieberman with a tan.

I agree with metricpenny @ 47 and Doran Williams @ 48. I’m not seeing in Obama’s speech what a number of you seem to see. Like Doran, I read Pach’s post twice, the Post article twice, then went and read the transcript of Obama’s speech. I’m not a paticularly religious person, but i don’t at all have a problem with what Obama ACTUALLY said. Votuntary expressions of faith in the public square are fine.

Furthermore, to equate Obama with Lieberman is laughable. It’s not even close, really.

Cujo: Good point. That whole agenda Obama is pushing is actually a cornerstone of the right wing’s attempt to destry public education, which they fundamentally oppose.

For all of you arguing we should see context, that’s the context.

Stephen Parrish, CPA #52 – OT question…

I terminated my land line awhile back and transferred that number to my cell. So – how would they know if they are calling a cell phone or not in cases like mine?

Pachacutec @ 11:44 am (#59) – Yes, he is very fond of strawmen. No one with any sense expects that religious people are going to forget what their faith teaches them when they’re talking politics. What we expect is that when the facts obviously contradict some teaching of their faith, that they consider that and move on. And as much as I’d love to see a world where the light of reason and understanding replaced religion, I’m reasonably sure it’s not going to happen until something fundamental in human beings changes. Reason isn’t the natural state of many people, and I just don’t know how that’s going to change.

QUOTE:

There is nothing wrong with Obama calling on the Democratic Party to reach out to people of faith. But he needs to learn how to do it in an inclusive way, not in a way that demonizes Democrats and supports the same Democrats-as-godless stereotype he says he is trying to overcome.

_____________________________

This is exactly right. State your beliefs without attacking Dems. Don’t build yourself up at the expense of your own party! Stupid.

I do not recall any progressive demanding that religion be left out of anything. The idea of separation of church and state doesn’t even do that. It just demands that we don’t legislate it or have a state-sponsored religion, IIRC.

Ok. Here’s a few of the Religious/Progressive Groups I belong to:

Rev Barry Lynn’s Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:
http://www.au.org/
The one I mention above:
http://www.spiritualprogressives.org
Christian Alliance for Progress (blog)
http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/

Don’t want to be caught in the filter, so I’ll leave it at that.

You know, I consider myself a part of the religious left and Obama’s speech pretty much offended me.

“Government” is Cesar and does not exist to exempt from my faith obligations, by agreeing to be a tool to fulfill them for me. That is not what faith is about – utilizing politicians and governments to press the case for your faith for you.

It shouldn’t be what a politician is about either – using religion to create a political base.

I never shared the giddy admiration that many Democrats seemed to feel toward Obama when he first entered the national scene. I had nothing against him; I just felt that we needed more information, such as how he would actually perform as a U.S. Senator.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in the short term while reserving my long term judgment. I noted with approval that he voted against the cloture motion on the Alito nomination.

But in my estimation Obama has made a mistake in endorsing Sen. Joe Lieberman for reelection, prior to the primary. It strikes me as not only a sign of poor judgment, but also as a good-old-boy kind of move.

Obama could have gone to the Connecticut Democratic fundraiser and made plenty of remarks about how Democrats are going to win in November without sticking his nose into an intraparty contest, particularly one with as credible a challenger as Ned Lamont. I have to wonder whether Obama received anything–a good-old-boy I-owe-you-one, for example–in return for endorsing Joenertia.

cujo – what you said at 74

And WTF is this

“Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats.”

What about “the wall” of separation between church and state.

Why don’t we just chuck the constitution ‘cuz these guys have no fucking use for it anyway.

WTF do they think they are ????

Religion is a private matter. If it’s your thing, then it should inform your personal choices but it has no place in the public square.

Period.

I can’t write about this right now. I am getting ready to go to a Catholic church and blow out votive candles, then I am going to a public school to tell children not to recite the pledge of allegiance, then off to show Amish children the wonders of electricity, then to the Supreme Court with a chisle to take off the religious friezes from the walls, then to the local superchurch to give out copies of Brokeback Mountain on DVD.

-GSD

just to add data:

Obama’s Hope Fund Pac lists these candidates as the ones he supports:
Here you go:

The Candidates
Senator Daniel K Akaka (Hawaii)
Senator Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico)
Senator Robert C Byrd (West Virginia)
Senator Maria Cantwell (Washington)
Senator Thomas R Carper (Delaware)
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
Senator Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
Senator Edward M Kennedy (Massachusetts)
Senator Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
Senator Joe Lieberman (Connecticut)
Senator Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Senator Bill Nelson (Florida)
Senator Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)

http://www.hopefundamerica.com/thecandidates/

and the following from an IL blog is useful:

Interesting post at an IL blog – http://austinmayor.blogspot.co…..chive.html
and the article cited has faded off the STL site so this will preserve it – and don’t forget to take a look at Obama’s Hopefund pac pages to see who he supports. Also a website for a PAC to raise money for a 2008 run has gone live:

PAC Man Fever
I gotta pocket full of quarters, and I’m headed to the arcade.
I don’t have a lot of money but I’m bringing everything I’ve made.
I’ve gotta callus on my finger, and my shoulder’s hurtin’ too.
I’m gonna eat ‘em all up, just as soon as they turn blue.

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has raised more than $1.3 million since 1999 through his leadership committee, the Prairie PAC, steering much of it to his fellow Senate Democrats as well as to local Illinois candidates and party committees. ***

Freshman Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., set up a leadership PAC days after he was sworn in last January. With almost $3 million in receipts so far, the rising Democratic star’s PAC, Hopefund, has already raised more than that of any other local lawmaker this election cycle. ***

Durbin, for example, has contributed more than $200,000, or about 61 percent of his total expenditures, to other candidates so far this cycle. His PAC has two part-time fundraising consultants, no paid staff and relatively little overhead. Michael Daly, Durbin’s Illinois chief of staff, serves as the committee’s treasurer, receiving expense reimbursements, not a salary.

“We’re pretty tight with the dollar,” Durbin said. “What I’m trying to do is help other people get started in politics.” ***

Obama’s PAC, by contrast, has spent about $2 million so far this election cycle, with about 18 percent, or $365,000, going to other candidates.

Obama’s Hopefund has five paid staffers: a communications director, a political director, two fundraisers and an administrator. The PAC has also spent more than $80,000 in consulting fees, more than $90,000 on travel and $28,000 in rent, among other expenses.

As a percentage of expenditures, the Hopefund’s candidate contributions were the lowest of any local lawmaker’s PAC. ***

Several PAC officials noted that their contribution totals would grow as the election draws closer.

Robert Gibbs, a spokesman in Obama’s Senate office and for the Hopefund PAC, defended the PAC’s expenditures, noting that it had contributed the maximum to every competitive Senate Democrat without a primary and still had nearly $900,000 to give before November.

In addition to giving directly to candidates, Gibbs added, Obama has used his PAC to travel around the country for fundraising events. Obama is a major draw for Democratic hopefuls, who have barraged his office with requests for him to appear at their events.

Indeed, Obama’s presence at a fundraiser can be much more valuable – attracting hundreds of thousands of dollars – than a donation from his PAC, which is limited to $5,000 per election (primary and general). ***

Gibbs also said that because Obama’s PAC was new, it had many big-ticket startup costs that had eaten up significant resources. For example, Gibbs noted that the PAC invested heavily in establishing a direct mail list, at a cost of more than $350,000. That expense could reap big and ongoing dividends in future years, both for the Hopefund and for Obama himself, if the PAC cultivates a long list of loyal donors.
Now I’ve got ‘em on the run, and I’m looking for the high score.
So it’s once around the block, and I’ll slide back out the side door.
I’m really cookin’ now, eating everything in sight.
All my money’s gone, so I’ll be back tommorow night.

# posted by So-Called Austin Mayor : 7:15 PM 0 comments links to this post

He could equally well have said that it is inherent in the Constitution that the President attend football games or chase pixies

Hugh – YYooYou are just fun to read.

He’s John’s brother and he practiced with our new Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts.

Been out running around with The Kid, and thought I’d check in at FDL to see what’s been going on . . .

Damn! Missed a fun one here.

I read the WaPo article, and more than anything it made me want to find the full speech. Something just didn’t ring true in the article, but I can’t put my finger on it. Couldn’t find the speech earlier, but judging from Gene in Wash DC’s comment, it must be out there somewhere.

Meanwhile, The Kid wants his PBJJJ. That’s Peanut Butter and [strawberry] jelly, [raspberry] jelly, and [boysenberry] jelly. Can you tell The Kid loves the Food Network?

Later, all!

siun 12:16 p.m.

Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)? I wonder if any of Obama’s money is going to pay for that Nelson ad with the George W. Bush endorsement. Or did Rove pay for that?

Hugh at 11:58 am – According to this page (not definitive, IMO) Christopher Yoo is brother to John Yoo. (Yes, that one.)

Cujo359 at 11:59 am (#75, or thereabouts) – Amen to that!

I think this post, and the direction in which the comments veer take the discussion in some strange and not very helpful directions. The issue isn’t always Clinton. Why push that particular button. The issue may be Obama. I didn’t hear the particular speech he made and I don’t know the particular circumstances of that speech.

What really bothers me is the direction Sojourners took in the conference in general. Jim Wallis was given a reasonably cordial welcome and a prime-time opportunity to speak at the 2005 Take Back America meeting. I was impressed enough to buy his book and to add my name to the Sojourner’s mailing list. Consequently I got all the promotional material for the conference at which Barak Obama (and I should add, Hillary Clinton) were scheduled to speak. Granting that Wallis’ prime interest is awakening America’s conscience regarding poverty in this country those seemed to be logical speakers to invite. Their civic record on poverty issues is good, regardless of what their private religious stance may be.

BUT two of the most reactionary republicans, Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback, were also very prominent on the speakers’ list. http://www.calltorenewal.com/e…..akers.html . What has either of these men done to combat poverty and disparity of opportunity in this country? Did either of them fight to raise the minimum wage or to defeat the heinous bankruptcy bill, or to provide health care for those who lack insurance (the latter being a principal cause of bankruptcy). IF they did, and I missed it, I’ll go stand on a corner and publicly apologise to them and to the speaker’s committee and to Jim Wallis.

I didn’t hear what those men said. I haven’t yet seen a transcript of their remarks. I’ll have to see what I can find, and if anyone else locates them, I’d really appreciate a pointer to them. When I saw they were a given a prominent place on the speakers list I wrote Sojourners and expressed my deep reservations about the wisdom or integrity of offering a rostrum to them. I hate to see the religious left (yes, it is alive and kicking) betrayed in this way.

Thanks Pach
(and all others)
I have been of two minds how much to ‘go after’ Obama, not out of any great liking, but just wondering if he is the worst Dem out there.
But it is important to disabuse progressives of any notion that he is ‘one of us’
He is not.

Petter

I found the transcript on Obama’s senate website. Here’s the link:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech…..index.html

Gene – many thanks. I went to Obama’s website after reading the Post earlier this AM, and it wasn’t there yet.

Very good post, I’d like to here more. Dems for years have been dismal, the frustration of drifting always further right and marginalizing of progressive thought lost me long ago. I don’t like being without a party either but I can’t support something that is consistently moving in the wrong direction. My Senators, Schumer and Clinton represent one of the most progressive states yet still manage to misrepresent us with their pro war stance, Alito, Lieberman etc. You’ve been able to raise some deep problems in the party that need be said (here), there’s only one thing worse than Dems. acting like Reps. and that would be Reps. themselves. prepare the snark attack.

Mack:

It’s also important, even more important, in my mind, that we let high profile Dems know they will pay a price for selling out the base.

Obama’s bad rhetoric did not begin with this speech, but he needs to know fomr the growing grassroots and netroots that we’re watching and will not forget. We also have to give him the opportunity to learn and adapt through, er, feedback like this.

[Preview not working for me, so I’m hitting “Submit” on a wing and a…oh…nothing]

At moments like these, I like to return to this vintage (2001) Matt Taibbi screed, which goes too far in places (particularly the misosgyny in the final paragraph) but resonates in other spots in ways I find nourishing.

Sorry in advance if it offends any God people in attendance, but when Obama writes “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door…” I just want to throw up. I’m personally sick of having to check my atheism at the door, and this country shows far more evidence of the latter than the former.

My favorite Taibbi excerpt:

[T]he big problem with God people is that they make patent absurdities a central fact in the lives of entire populations, so that if anyone by chance wants to live a reasonable life, he has to do so in private, apologetically, like a man walking half bent-over through a crowded subway car because he has an erection in his pants.

When thinking about religion it’s useful to imagine what our world would like to a person looking back at us from about the year 3000 or 4000. That’s what I do from year 2001; I close my eyes and try to imagine myself, the same person I am now, living in Egypt under the Pharaohs in 600 B.C. All around me people are sacrificing animals and chanting and burying their dead cats in sacred receptacles, and I’m keeping my mouth shut, taking long walks along the Nile, volunteering to do the dishes rather than linger in on an after-dinner discussion… Basically life isn’t all that much different today. You can’t call people who believe in God lunatics in public – you can only think it in private. When you go to a guest’s house for dinner, and someone says grace, no one asks you if you want to participate, and you just sit there moving your lips, pretending to pray.

Obama absolutely sucks. He’s completely transparent, a tool of the moneyed consultancy class. I couldn’t believe the way progressives drooled all over him when he ran for the Senate. And what was the first thing he did? Take a $2 million advance for a stupid book.

You know, the one we’ve all been talking about.

Pach -

Tried to email Christy, and got it bounced back. Please check your gmail . . .

I’m with those who are not seeing the big problem here…there are people who are religious in the middle and even on the left. I count myself among them, though I’m not a Christian–I’m a Unitarian Universalist. I respect everyone’s right to faith if they have it, and the right not to have any. UUs are religious in their way and huge supporters of progressive causes, most especially GLBTQ rights and issues. And yet this a group of religious folks. I don’t see anything in the WaPo article that suggests pandering to the right–Obama says specifically that the Dems need to let people of faith know what they stand for so as to de-legitimitize the Robertsons and Falwells that have hijacked religion and morality. I’m sitting here with my shiny new copy of 50 Things You Can Do to Fight the Right and seeing how it talks (on page 84-85) about taking back church. Sounds directly in line with what Obama was saying in the WaPo article–I haven’t seen the speech yet.

As a UU, I see every week that some people in my congregation are vehemently opposed to what UUs call “God-Talk,” and are there because they are humanists. I also see folks like myself who are more or less spiritual agnostics–who believe in some sort of unifying principle or have some sense of the divine or the mysterious or what have you, though don’t adhere to any sort of fervent dogma or firm set of beliefs. I resent the rigid, dare I say fundamentalist, more-atheistic-than-thou approach which posits that all people who have any kind of faith are just stupid, naive wankers. I’m a well-educated professional, a thoughtful and reflective person, and I believe there’s more to life than just what I see in front of me. If you don’t, fine. But grant me the space to be spiritual and to let my faith and values influence the public arena. For me, being involved in the UU church has made me more of an activist, more committed to my progressive ideals, because it comes out of a sense of connection to others and a kind of responsibility that was far more vague and fuzzy when I was liberal but unchurched. Screeching that Dems are selling out to the right wing by daring to use the r-word is just as extremist as the bible-beaters, if you ask me. The reality of America in this day and age is that many, many people count themselves as religious. Separate church and state–definitely. Respect the wide variety of faith traditions, including non-Christian–absolutely. But to argue that any discussion of religion by a politican is somehow grounds that he’s not progressive is taking things way too far.

Pach, was away from the computer for a while. Great great post

Petro says: “I terminated my land line awhile back and transferred that number to my cell. So – how would they know if they are calling a cell phone or not in cases like mine?”
June 28th, 2006 at 12:06 pm

That’s an excellent question for which I don’t have an answer.

When you had your land line, did you put your number on the FTC’s Do Not Call list? If you did, you should be covered. If you haven’t registered your number, please go to the FTC’s Web site and put it on the Do Not Call list, to be on the safe side.

By the way, the prohibition against unsolicited telemarketing calls to cell phones has been in the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC 227) for a number of years.

I’m fed up with paeans to St. Bill Clinton. He was extraordinarily talented, and the Democratic party grew far weaker under his leadership.

Indeed. Thanks for saying that, Pach – while he was (mostly) good on policy, after 1994 he was always in defend-and-retreat mode, and never once used his bully pulpit to talk about what the Democratic Party should be becoming, what it should be standing for, whose interests it should be fighting for.

As a result, it’s been a dozen years since the Dems have had any sort of affirmative direction, which is a big reason why nobody knows what a Dem stands for anymore. And it’s really hard to get people to support a party if they don’t know what it stands for.

Thanks, Steven.

I’m not looking to become the target of a flame war, but I would encourage you all to actually read his remarks from this morning in their entirety. The link can be found above at 90/91.

What horseshit. Clinton gets blamed for every thing. If I were Clinton, I’d tell progressives to kiss my ass.
He was a good president, not perfect, but, bygod, he was a good president.
Trying to blame every ail of this country on NAFTA is isane stupdity.
[Ad hominem invective deleted, but the rest of the opinion in the post remains intact — Site Host] I read him [Pach] no more.

Joe D – guess you weren’t on welfare during the Clinton admin – I was – or a child in Iraq or ?

Obama:

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.”

Shure. And I wouldn’t ask them to. I would ask them to not be suprised if they get called on the nonsense they push. Like preparing the mideast to be a landing pad for Jesus’ second act; like saying that women are better off with cervical cancer than with having sex outside of marrage; like calling people who provide safe abortions “murderers”; like saying that if you’re gay you are not equal under the the law. The list goes on. What Obama is pushing is a myth. Liberals are generally not hostile to religion, just the nutty ideas some religious people push. I’ve seen no evidence of secularists in this country trying to prevent people from attending church. This is a idea promoted by the GOP and Obama is usinging for his own purposes; to show he’s not one of “those” Democrats.

Grrrrrr. I was at that Interfaith service in Vegas. At the beginning there were maybe 60 people. At the end there were between 200 and 250 people there. And this at 8:00 AM on a Sunday morning in Vegas.

Maybe it’s cos I’m a bit tired and it’s 400 degrees with 1000% humidity here in Florida today(ha! you think I exaggerate?)but fuck Obama. I’m sorry he was prematurely touted as the second comming but he ain’t so forget him. We need to cut our losses and move on.

I have to agree, Clinton has damaged the democratic party

he should have reinstated the fairness doctrince, he should have put social security back in a locked box, he should have pressed the arms for hostages crimes, he should have enforced the laws that prevent entities from owning too many media sources

for these things Clinton failed

I said a long time ago obama is drinking some kool aid.

I still believe it, I would love to see his campaign contributions list

I am very disappointed in Sen Obama’s willingness to embrace the conventional wisdom slurs against Democrats. So many of us are motivated to do what we do by our religious beliefs and upbringing. Now comes the Senator from Illinois to poke us all in the eye and to reinforce the stereotype that we’re Godless heathens!

AAAARGH!

You folks are way off base on Obama! He is a good guy. Politics means you must compromise and you can’t march in lockstep unless you wish to be in the GOP. So for the Democrats we need to have more voices not less. I like Howard Dean, Ned Lamont, Obama, both Clintons, and Joe Lieberman (if he gets the nod, if not GO NED!). You see I am a Democrat and proud to be a LIBERAL. Anything these folks do is going to be better than shit that comes from the GOP.

BlueUU:

I’ve spent time with the author of 50 Things. I’m pretty confident he would respond that you make your points by never, ever, using the language of or accepting the premises of the right wing. But that’s what Obama is doing.

Progressive values include and in fact are often derived from values rooted in faith. Obama is triangulating and claiming explicitly that the Democratic Party should be courting the evangelicals of the right wing base rather than the progressive grass roots, and framing the issue as if the progressive roots are hostile to faith. That’s a slander and a lie.

Oh, and I’ve read the speech. If people can’t read it and pick out the right wing frames then I’m tempted to say they lack reading comprehension or lack historical understanding, but I’ll leave it to others to sort that out.

Obama contributions by industry source:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pol…..cycle=2006

Syndicalist (70), The issue is not religion. The issue is Obama’s continual public scolding of the progressive wing of the party. He contributes to the idea that progressives are members of the social fringe, and are dangerous to the country. He doesn’t celebrate the party that celebrated him so loudly in 2004. Instead he is disdainful of the passion on the left. We embarrass him. Since he won his election in a walk, he thinks he has all the answers. When Senator Leahy was criticized in a diary on dailykos for his yes vote on Roberts, Obama wrote a pompous, condenscending, “remember your manners” diary in response. How dare we criticize his colleague? Who did we think we were? We didn’t know how hard it was to be a Senator, so we had no right to judge. Criticism wasn’t allowed. It was nauseating. He doesn’t talk to democrats, he talks down to democrats, always with a live microphone, plenty of media attention, and a strawman at his disposal. I predict that once Lieberman is gone, Obama will be the new favorite democrat on Faux News.

I am not religious. I read the speech and it was pretty bland. It sounded like a Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?” take on religion only a lot more long winded.

Politically, it is in keeping with Obama’s attempts to be the great mediator and all things to all people. And yes, I think he has 2008 on his mind. He is not, however, the next Lieberman. He’s more like the next Hillary. Like her, he appeared at first to be a progressive but both seem to have begun drinking the Establishment Koolaid as soon as they hit the airport in DC and it shows.

Pachacutec–Literally no article on FDL has touched upon my concerns more than this piece. It’s obvious that there is a struggle going on in the Democrat Party, and I think it is foolhardy for a freshman senator like Obama to link up with the dying branch. Sure Clinton looks good in retrospect compared to Bush II, but frankly the only accomplishment I can credit him with is the surplus he left Bush to squander and then some. I think his personal moral problems did affect Gore’s bid in a negative way. He–and his wife–have never shown any concern for the traditional constituents of the party–the lower wage earners, women, minorities. Someone should tell Obama that health care for black males significantly declined in the 90’s. Drudge had a film clip he used to show on tv of Hillary campaigning for Bill in New Hampshire. She meets a man. Hi, I’m Hillary, vote for Bill. I’m homeless. That’s nice.

We had an article and thread last week relating to religion, and I identified myself as a liberal/progressive Catholic. They can try and try to draw Bush’s right-wing religious to themselves and it will never happen. Meanwhile, people like myself are looking elsewhere than the Clintons for a true Democrat candidate. Right now with me it’s ABC–anyone but Clinton.

#92: I read the whole thing. thanks. I still think it is too negative and reactive, and charge that liberals or progressives hostile to faith is bogus. I don’t think it should have been in there. I do not remember hearing or reading a prominent atheist or agnostic or godless secular humanist belittle or dismiss someone for merely using sensible arguments derived from religious faith and applying them to policy issues, either in public life or here at this wicked liberal site.

People do argue against swallowing some one asserting that their particular cult’s beliefs must be swallowed whole, else we are a wicked society going to hell. I have a problem with that that line of argument too, and I am religious. Maybe Obama could have spent more time discussing that problem in a positive proactive way.

Anyone have significant interesting examples of such ridicule or dismissal?

I went to hear Obama speak here in Chicago a few months ago and his answer to *every* question raised was “golly gee, it’s so hard to be a senator and we can’t do anything”

My take is that Obama is a creation of the Clintons and being polished up to be the alternative to HRC if they can’t push her down our throats. Or her running mate – after all, how could we miss the “progressive” message of a woman and a black on a ticket – what better cover for the neocon dems?

Wolfie covering this now!

showing Obama – opens with Obama critiqueing the “when we do not talk about our faith”

playing right into the prog’s are non-religious meme

more tonight on Anderson Cooper …

this fellow is a sad piece of work. he doesn’t know whether to listen to which adviser at what time.
what an embarrassment he must be to himself?
he can change his mind faster than Rush can get a stiffie from the viagra. But he has one advantage, he doesn’t have to wait for the woodie to go away before he changes it again, and again.

this is what is wrong with our ticks, a prime example.

erm
in *my* book
when we don’t ACT on our faith we are in trouble…

Pach
My personal displeasure began after my first visit to Obama’s office to aske him to speak up about wiretapping (pre-Feingold)
His aide showed me a newat statement which was “not on the web site yet”
It never appeared there.
The next visit with Siun and Jon was even more interesting.
Siun summed it up nicely

Then we headed to Obama’s office one floor up. Where Durbin’s staff was friendly and welcoming, Obama’s staff was visibly irritated that we came by. In place of a waiting area and offers of drinks, when you enter Obama’s office, you are in a small area with no place to sit down and a desk arrangement that feels more like the DMV. Sheera (sp?), the receptionist, was unpleasant and did not want to speak with us. When we asked to see a staffer to discuss ideas and mentioned being part of a larger group of activist constituents, she suggested we contact Obama’s Hope Pac (which raises money for Lieberman, Clinton, and more established senators – google Hope Fund for the list). We explained once again that we were constituents who wanted to discuss the senator’s positions and she said that they do no deal with issues in Chicago, only constituent services like immigration, and we should speak to the staff in DC. We pointed out that we (and Obama’s constituents) were not in DC but apparently we’re expected to fly to DC to discuss real issues. After some wrangling, Sheera got a staffer (whose name I did not get – but I have the contact info for the head scheduler) who explained that we could request a meeting with Obama but must request it in writing. This process takes several weeks to get a response. Ms. Scheduler was amazingly patronizing in tone – Angie mentioned later that it felt like we were in High School and she was precisely right. The whole tone was that this was all a bother and they hoped we would leave quickly. no drinks, no conference room, no snickers!
(accurate except there is only one person I know who calls Angela Angie ;)

It’s fine Obama feels he needs to do some political calculus and try to sell his ‘moral’ creds. I think he has to watch carefully not to cast aspersions on his own side while doing it. But more importantly he needs to take a strong, vocal position against the war if he wants my support. No more Clintons or Liebermanns.

all this said,
I think Pach’s comment about enlightening Mr Obama is well in line
I will extract the constructive portions and pass my opinions along (I *am* a constituent after all)

on the war, I think there are some members of Congress who are sold on the idea that we have the ability and obligation to make things better
me, i am not so certain
i am certain that anything the administration says is, at best, selective and more likely untrue

siun, jon, and anyone else
if you’re still there
i would be up for a friday afternoon stroll to the Dirkson Bldg

And now Obama’s Democrat smearing, Karl Rove approved, Republican talking points are headed for the Mighty Wurlitzer to be regurgitated ad infinitum in prime time.

Everyone Must Go To F**king Church and that’s an order! Let’s incorporate Churchy into our government – just like the Taliban and “Radical Islam”. Yes, apparently, we are that stupid.

Mack – you’re on! email me a time and I’ll be there – meet for lunch same time maybe? I’m on vacation this week (that means I answer my email from home instead of the office – argh!) so my time is completely flex for this.

Maybe he is smart enough and has enough faith to know that Evangelicals are human being and that some are great people and some are losers — just like Conservatives (with fewer great people), Dems, Liberals, ball players, soldiers, and well other human beings.

Breakdown of Obama Pac expenditures and donors – interesting that it mostly pays a lot for travel – will look at this more closely later:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pac…..cycle=2006

Latest FaBlog: Heaven Knows Mr. Obama

I’ve HAD IT with this clown!

Cafferty is asking the “Is Obama right?” question now … send him your comments

scorchin’ Mr. E!

bravo!

Merci!

How about if you actually read the speech where he points out the many progressive Christians (he was speaking in a room full of them for crying out loud) instead of just assuming that the media’s interpretation of the speech is correct?

http://obama.senate.gov/speech…..index.html

You’re characterization of his speech is completely off the mark

edit: your instead of you’re

I’m completely pissed that many progressive blogs have completely misread Obama’s comments. Because they just read the media’s interpretation, not the speech itself.

No, I’ve read the speech itself. And you can stay as pissed as you like.

While I agree that Sen. Obama should change his rhetoric somewhat to not start with right-wing premises, I think the WaPo article did him a disservice by focusing on those particular parts of the speech. When I read the whole thing, it seemed pretty reasonable overall.

But Obama was preaching to the choir here, and I’m not sure that the speech was for the audience so much as the news wires.

As to Brownback and Santorum’s attendance at the conference, I don’t think it was out of line at all. In fact, I think it was a good thing. Believe it or not, Brownback is one of the biggest proponents of Third World poverty relief. A lot of the wackiest Evangelicals take the Sermon on the Mount as seriously as they do abortion, believe it or not, and I think building coalitions with them on issues where we agree is smart politics.

Given a choice between feeding starving children and whacking Sam Brownback over the head, I’ll take the former every time.

siun @ 2:13 pm (#133) Thanks siun, I did that. It might have been a little late, though.

Senator Obama isn’t right. He should make it clear that people of any faith, and people who have no faith, are equally welcome in the Democratic Party. When he says that he doesn’t see why people who don’t believe in his god should object to the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, or uses right-wing strawman talking points to denounce secularists, he is beyond the pale. He is not an atheist, a Buddhist, or a member of any other religious minority. He has no business presuming to speak for those of us who are, or to mischaracterize or views.

Look, when you give a speech that includes a whole slew of “on the one hand X and on the other hand Y” you can always find statements in it with which you agree.

But this false balance serves to legitimize right wing talking points and slanders against these nefarious “secularists” who in fact, as a small minority, are not at all politically hostile to faith.

Fair and balanced? Bullshit. People here recognize when the media pulls this crap and we’re calling Obama on it and we’ll continue to call Obama on it and peole can be as upset about that as they like.

Obama delivered a mushy pander of a speech triangulating against the base in a way every fucking right winger is going to repeat and repeat and use for get out the vote between now and November.

Fuck Barack. He fucked us first.

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I may have to link to it, I’m so pissed. But not surprised. Obama is doing a good job of consistently NOT living up to his hype. He is a sell-out of disappointingly monumental proportions. Too bad. He had such promise.

Pandering to the right wing religious nuts is so 2004…..How can we deal with people who want to force their narrow, bigoted interpretation of religion on us? We can’t and we shouldn’t. Lets should simply live our faith and let them come to us.

I’ll just opine for a moment on this “out of context” thing. The thought I quoted is a complete thought. What I objected to is the thought that is there, not some supposition based on what I read. As Pachacutec has written, there may be some false balance in some of the other things he said, but that makes these bits no less objectionable, in my view.

What I tried to do in my 11:59am (#74) comment was let Christians and other monotheists walk in my moccasins for a moment. I really don’t understand why monotheists are so attached to their religions from a philosophical viewpoint. They are, and I’m not going to talk them out of it, and sometimes their religion gives them an insight into how the world works or how it ought to work if it was a truly just world. That’s all I need to know. It doesn’t matter, as long as it’s just as clear that my choice of (non)belief is just as American as theirs is.

Hell, I’m not sure *Feingold* understands this, either – go read the interview with him in the current copy of GQ (Will Ferrell on the cover) and you’ll see Feingold pinning some blame for 9/11 on Clinton.

Can’t anyone here play this game?

siun, I know this thread has been long gone, but thanks for the list of (mostly) losers on Obama’s PAC. I counted them: they are another gang of 14.

“That’s all I need to know. It doesn’t matter, as long as it’s just as clear that my choice of (non)belief is just as American as theirs is. “

Except that it’s NOT.

We’ve got to fight like heel for our non-belief

Calling Obama an “idiot” is over the top, and frankly the post is hysterically uninformed.

By making the call to democrats, he’s not excluding “the base” at all. In fact, Obama is playing to the base that got him elected here in Illinois. Its not just about winning the support of so-called Lakefront liberals here in Chicago, but you also need the support of the African American community, and the folks downstate, both of whom are churchgoers. The real idiot is anyone who thinks they are going to win a campaign in this state without ever setting foot in a church.

Obama is not attacking what many see here as “the base,” but just making the obvious point that, we should not be writing off the votes of any group, just because they are churchgoers.

This is said so much its clichéd now, but blacks are the most reliable voting bloc the democratic party has, and the church is the most important institution in the black community. Still, you won’t find them sitting up in church with the Falwells and the Dobsons, because they know enough to know that they are a bunch of bigoted phonies.

Clinton grew up in the south, and he understood how important religion is as an institution to people. From a purely political standpoint, its foolish not to recognize and play to that. What those who are constantly screaming about slights to “the base” need to realize is that, being a churchgoer does not make one a wingnut.

clark @ 3:39 pm (#148) – What Obama’s saying is there in black and white:

* People who aren’t monotheists shouldn’t object to being made to recite “under God” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance

* Secularists are saying that religious people aren’t welcome, or that their opinions don’t matter if they’re in any way related to religion

* It’s OK to have religious activities on public property

Spin that any way you want, but what he says is both false and offensive.

146naschkatze – nodding – an interesting list,eh? gives a good picture of who Sen Obama wants to associate with.

and Clark – Sen Obama could demonstrate his dedication to the church going voter by doing just that – going to church, being active on his own time in religious activities and addressing the issues which inform progressive religious voters. He could have given a speech today calling on religious voters and so-called Christian politicians to live their religion – as I recently heard Fr. Pfleger did recently rather than play the rovian let’s all support the theocracy game:

Read Pastor Pfleger’s Statement on the Genocide in Darfur

Stop the Genocide in Darfur – Rally on Monday, May 1, 2006, 4:30 PM
Statement by: Rev. Michael L. Pfleger, Pastor,
Faith Community of Saint Sabina

It is time for America to break the silence and apathy on the genocide in Darfur, from the White House to the church house, from your house and my house.

Since 2003, nearly 500,000 Black Africans have been killed and over 2 million have been driven out of their homes. My problem is… Where is the moral outrage?

Paul Rusesabagina said that when genocide was taking place in Rwanda, the church was silent and their silence gave permission to continue.Sadly the same is true today when it comes to Darfur.

The faith communities must make their voices heard. We must pressure the United States to make Darfur a priority and to aggressively support a UN peacekeeping force to protect civilian lives and then put pressure on China and Russia to support it, rather than turning their backs on Darfur to keep their flow of cheap oil.

We cannot be more concerned about friendly relationships than about the destruction of human life. We must push for more states to follow the lead of Senator Jacqui Collins to pass legislation to demand disinvestments from Sudan until the genocide ends and then force or boycott companies like Pepsi, Proctor & Gamble and others if they fail to withdraw their investments immediately.

Yes, it is time to speak out to take action to break the silence. Every church, synagogue and mosque who dare to call themselves communities of faith ought to begin a calling campaign to the White House, I believe that if every house of faith chose to call and write the White House this week and voice their outrage and demand U.S. action. The shallow and cheap words of this administration that call it genocide and do nothing about it would be forced to take real action. I challenge every person of faith to call the White House 1-800-224-2084 and voice your outrage.

Houses of faith – It’s time to wake up.

Houses of faith – It’s time to stand up.

Houses of faith – It’s time to speak out.

Houses of faith – It’s time to take action.

Houses of faith – Let us either put our faith into action or close our doors!

Statement by: Rev. Michael L. Pfleger, Pastor,
Faith Community of Saint Sabina.1210 West 78th Place ~ Chicago, Illinois 60620 ~ 773-483-4300

©2006 Saint Sabina all rights reserved.

David Ehrenstein @ 3:30 pm (#147) – We’ve got to fight like heel for our non-belief

I agree, but I think it’s also important to realize there are many folks out there who are part of the Christian/Islamic/Jewish belief system who are OK with the concept that non-belief is as American as belief. They’re welcome. If they’re part of the religious majority and yet are still ready to accept beliefs that aren’t their own they’ve shown that they’re worthy of respect.

My problem with Obama is that he’s clearly not one of those people. He just wants to pretend he is while he’s telling us to go sit in the back of the bus.

Obama is an ass. Hillary’s ass, in fact.

What those who are constantly screaming about slights to “the base” need to realize is that, being a churchgoer does not make one a wingnut.

I suggest you reread the main post.

I pretty much agree.
I was in D.C. seeing the Aid’s Quilt when I decided to vote for Bill Clinton. the night before G.H.W.Bush had likened gays to “animals” I decided then and there that a vote on a guy who pretended to care was preferable to helping a man proud NOT to care.

Before that election, the one with Perot and Bush pardoning all the Iran Contra guys, Clinton actively courted the very people he would be first to isolate once in office.
unfair? I don’t think so. don’t ask don’t tell?

I often stick up for Bill now but I didn’t much in those days. After one year of THE WRECKING CREW a lot of Clinton Era stuff doesn’t bother me as much.

save this:
if he’d spent a FRACTION of the time he spent currying the favor of the people who elected him that he spent trying to woo those who TOOK HIM OFF AT THE KNEES, how different his two terms might have been.

As for Obama?
I think he’s got a lot of Joe-Mentum.

clark @ 148
Well said.

“I agree, but I think it’s also important to realize there are many folks out there who are part of the Christian/Islamic/Jewish belief system who are OK with the concept that non-belief is as American as belief. “

Really? Remind me again why I should give a shit about their condescension.

African Americans don’t vote for right wing talking points or get snookered by politicians, especially other African American ones, who make common cause with right wingers.

What is your depth of relevant experience in the African American community?

You know why the GOP runs African American pols who talk up fundamentalist issues? Not to win black votes. They don’t win black votes. They run these people to give white evangelicals a feeling of not being racially biased. Whether it’s MD or anywhere else, these black GOP pols compete for white votes, not black ones. Ask Steve Gilliard. Ask Alan Keyes.

The modern right wing evangelical movement was born from opposition to the civil rights movement, period. That’s racial animus dressed up in its Sunday best. African American people of faith know the difference, which is why they vote for Dems.

Your pragmatic, frankly shallow commentary on what animates African American voters could be misinterpreted by some as patronizing.

As for what got Obama elected in IL, there are some IL people here in this comment thread who contend with your assertions.

Pachacutec @ 157

I’ve been Black for the last 33 years. And an unabashed liberal for that matter. Then again, i guess you weren’t talking to me… *grin*

Right on Big P :)

I know this is EPU, for the nonce, I’m gonna respond. I read the whole speech. I don’t see it as attacking Dems or progressives, except when he says some progressives are uncomfortable with religion. I think the brittle, “fuck Obama” hostility of this thread and in some ways, increasingly on FDL, is disturbing. I’m a progressive, but I’m for trying to reach out to all those middle of the road voters–not by pandering to them a la the Clinton/DLC, but by trying to build some bridges. I just frankly don’t understand why in this thread, we’ve suddenly jumped to namecalling. I can read, Pach; in fact, I’m an English professor and am quite able to parse out subtle meaning and subtext. There’s such a thing as reframing the religious argument, too, and that’s what I see Obama doing. Reframing does require addressing the main issue. My original concern was with what felt like out-of-proportion hostility to what Obama’s saying. After reading the speech and rereading the comments here, I still feel that way.

I don’t really care about him as a candidate/politician one way or the other; I haven’t got a horse in the race as yet. But I do have a problem with the recent shift at FDL into criticizing commenters for having and expressing opinions that differ, especially if they differ from the posters. I’ve been contemplating getting involved in Pach’s netroots stuff here in Ohio, but I am seriously thinking twice about it if I’m not allowed to write a simple comment that is suggesting we be a little reflective about we’re saying. And not one bit of what I was saying about religious progressives was even addressed. I don’t mind being disagreed with, but I do mind that there’s an FDL frame of “big happy family,” yet there can be some serious flaming of some who comment here, even on a regular basis. I’m no troll, and I certainly don’t need to be treated like one. I get enough shit from the rightwingers I work with and teach when I argue with them. I’m out there trying to change hearts and minds on a personal, one-to-one basis, and taking personal risks to do it. I work in superconservative Cincinnati, yet I do fight, every day. It’d be nice to find a place to express my opinion openly and have a healthy, reasonable dialog with other like-minded folks without being slammed. I’m beginning to wonder if this is really that place after all.

Everyone,

You are sad and very pathetic. Whatever you may think of Bill Clinton, he handed a surplus to President Bush and he gave it away like it was nothing. I didn’t always agree with everything he did but he did what had to be done with the 1993 budget he submitted to Congress that turned the Country around. The Bible states “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. Quit turning on each other and turn to each other and stand up for what is right. Clinton did the right thing for this Country and the facts are proving him out to be right. Move on People! You’re giving the GOP just what they want, arguing amongst yourselves and confusion and tearing down Bill Clinton which is what they want. They don’t want anyone bigger than Ronald Reagan. That’s how Karl Rove wins everytime!!!!!! Think, people, think. This is all KARL ROVE!!!!!!

/bjl

BlueUU:

Fair enough. I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing with my reading of the speech. You make your case, I make mine, and everyone else does the same.

There’s always this line where if a front pager engages in the argument over opinions in the comments, some people see that as discouraging argument.

I dunno: I always saw it as respect for argument. No one is deleting dissenting comments here. I edited one where someone told me to do something obscene but left the rest of the comment up. If anything, had that comment been directed at anyone other than me, it would have been dumped in its entirety.

Because I am sensitive to the way people feel squelched when I engage with them in argument because of hthis “front pager” status accorded me, I have been more liberal in allowing some things to be said to or about me personally than I would otherwise allow to be said about others. Maybe that’s a mistake, because when I respond to slurs and insinuations with an assertion, for example, that an argument is “shallow,” then I get blamed for the change in tone.

But no one is being squelched for their opinion, as I think the variety of comments and opinions amply demonstrate. And as in my comment 153 at 4:11 PM, some arguments are imputed to my writing that do not exist in the least.

As for the Roots Project groups, the best way to see how things go in the groups is either to ask members about it or to sign up on a trial basis. It’s not as if anyone gets trapped inside. Everyone has the power to opt out at any time: the link to do so is in every message they get from me or from each other.

Hope that helps. I’m glad you;re here and hope you do feel at home here. Even families argue. The point is, we come together to take care of each other and back each other up.

sion @ 150– Obama is active at his church, Trinity UCC in Chicago.

BlueUU:

Let me give you an example: how do you think the site should handle comments like the one by Barbara Long at 6:12. She begins with a personal attack on everyone here. Then she goes on to express a dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion is fine, the personal attack is not.

Should the comment be deleted? Should it be edited? I’m leaving it up in full on purpose, at least for now. If anything, I’m being very lenient with the comment moderation, and so I respectfully reject your notion that I or anyone else around here is squelching dissent.

God, I’m sick of all this religion talk. Last week Biden said that a winning Democratic platform must focus on “faith and security”; that’s a fucking Republican platform! Arrrgh!

“Faith” means you’re too lazy or stupid to care about the facts relating to a belief that you are predisposed to accept. Once you’ve accepted “faith” as an avenue to understanding, then you find yourself in need of someone more wise an powerful than you to provide “security” from all the devils, Islamofascists, and blood-sucking lerprechauns that you’ve naively invited into your brain.

Clay Fink @ 1:04 pm (#107) – Sorry I missed this before. Good points. The problem I see is that’s exactly how it goes with some believers – if you tell them they need more than religious belief if they want to tell you how to run your life, you don’t respect them.

It’s more than once I’ve bitten back the response – “I have nothing against your religion. It’s you I don’t respect.” The idea that all they have to do is declare what their faith tells them and that should be enough for everybody deserves no respect.

Sir Loin:

I disagree. People of faith have a home in the progressive movement.

BlueUU: I added the sermon link I referred to in the original post above the fold, from RevDeb. It happens to be addressed to a UU congregation.

I don’t comprehend any argument expressed here in the comments or by Obama that progressives are hostile to people of faith. That’s been my point all along. When I lash out at Obama, I’m defending these community members, as if they were my family.

I’m a stone, hardcore atheist yet I work with people of faith in politics and activism constantly and cooperatively. My mother used to worry about me not being religious but I reassured her that I probably dealt with more ministers and priests in a week than she did all year long …

What I’m about to write comes from someone who is about as secularist as one could be and from someone who believes that we have been moving dangerously toward an “American Theocracy” recently. To prevent this we certainly need to elect more progressive candidates.

But this post, and most of the comments have gone way too far. Okay, Barak Obama is not as progressive as many of us would like him to be, and he may be supporting Lieberman (but not everything revolves around holy Joe) After a careful reading of Obama’s speech I really can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Do I agree with his premise that democrats need to be more vocal about their religion, well in a perfect world I wouldn’t. But will it help some democrats to speak more openly about how their values are based on their religious faith? In some districts and in some states, yes it will.

America is not going to be transformed overnite into a “progressive heaven” even if some of us believe very strongly that is our eventual goal. Attacking Obama for not being the ideal progressive may make us feel good, but I fail to see what it accomplishes. He’s going to be around for a while and will certainly support many progressive issues and causes. We need to be a little more practical about who we make out to be the enemy.

He’s not Lieberman!

Sweet Jesus (pardon the expression), I am thrilled to have someone state what I have long thought about St. Bill and (more recently) about Obama.

well, I just think he’s focusing on people who aren’t going to like Democrats no matter WHAT they do. sure, he can do whatever he wants. he thinks the Democrats should target evangelicals, I think they should target people who believe in the same things THEY do. many will be evangelicals, many won’t.

I just think this sort of targeting makes a lot of people’s B.S. detectors go off.

badick @ 7:25 pm (#169) – From my perspective, Obama stepped way over the line. I don’t care what his religious views are. If this had been a Republican politician saying what Obama did, I wouldn’t have hesitated to call him on it. I feel no compunction about doing the same to Obama just because he might, at some point in the future, happen to support the same thing I do. We are living in a country that’s becoming a theocracy, and “progressives” like Obama are enabling it as much as Orin Hatch is.

In short, we’re not going to be working together very much, and when I hear condescending nonsense from him, he’s going to get the same earful as someone who works for the other party.

Blech. I doubt he’ll be as bad as Lieberman. But he is obviously very full of himself. He might someday be a good politician. But he’ll be a bad one on the way. He’ll do more harm than good until someone knocks some sense into him.

Here is a humorous take on the ‘progressive’ mind, that shows how screwed up they really are.

This is one of the more important threads to have come up recently. This issue has to be hashed out between those who take themselves to be religious, those like myself who don’t, and those who don’t have a real opinion either way. I think it’s important that people present the walk in atheist “moccasins,” as it was put above.

But I do think a careful reading of the whole speech, not just the objectionable “complete thoughts” (Parachutec), puts Obama in a more positive light than most here have allowed. People have stated defensible reasons for being angry– I’m not disputing those. But here are a couple of points where I think Obama provides better material.

1) He sets the stage by talking about his campaign against Keyes, recognizing that not every GOP firebreather will be so easily defeated. And he finds that his response was inadequate, so he’s looking for a defense of the VERY point raised in the posting– namely that there is a religious left that need not apologize to the Falwells of the world. But how does one go about it? That’s the question, and no amount of Lieberman scoffing answers that question. It doesn’t mean you have to defend “under God” in the pledge (a mistake, in my mind), but Obama is rightly pressing the point. We on the left are not ipso facto irreligious, immoral, etc. But to admit that the religious Left has been trumped rhetorically is not to repeat Rove’s talking point: it is to take the first step toward defeating it.

2) His mention of “inerrancy of Scripture” is important. He points out how to wedge those evangelicals who use “Scripture” to consolidate a right-wing identity by pointing out the partiality and inconsistency of those who do so. Not everyone has to use “Scripture” to justify their principles, but those who do believe in its importance have to have a way to combat the right-wing brand of literalism.

3) The appeal to “common laws or basic reason” as a ground for negotiating religious and secular claims. Abraham’s “faith-based” initiative of infanticide is not admissible in a pluralistic democracy. The fact is that Obama provides the means to critique his own positions on some issues.

For fifty years sociologists have been talking about the oncoming secularization of America. Guess what, folks– it’s not happening the way they said it would. In many ways I mourn that, but I cannot fantasize that it’s the case. I want religious folks who are on my side to develop some better means to defeat their right-wing “brethren.” A lot of Obama’s task is desperately needed.

test

Yadda, yadda, I’m sick of St. Barack of Obama. Let me tell you what the fearless brilliant perfect Barack Obama did in the last Chicago election. He had two close friends running in races. One was Alexi Giannoulias, whose family paid for most of Obama’s last race. The payback was supporting young Alexi, who’s barely out of college, for Illinois Treasurer. The other was Forest Claypool, the most reform-minded county commissioner in history, perpetual thorn in the side of crooked hack John Stroger and his patronage army of no-show do-nothing county workers, a man who when he suffered a stroke knew that the last place he wanted to be taken if he wanted to survive was the public hospital named for himself.

Oh, did I mention that Stroger was black and Claypool’s white? And that the supposedly progressive SEIU, future of labor, came out in favor of Stroger and protecting bullshit public jobs instead? So guess which white candidate St. Barack endorsed in the election? That’s right, the 26-year-old kid with the money. And guess which white candidate St. Barack was afraid to endorse because it might have meant going against a labor union and a fellow black politician (no matter how sleazy?) That’s right, he shafted Claypool. Even after Stroger’s stroke put him out of commission, permanently. St. Barack would rather endorse a brain-dead black crook than a white reformer.

So if anybody’s expecting anything different out of the great black hope, you can stop. Obama’s just another Chicago sleazeball like all the rest.

Oop, let me clarify one thing:

“The other was Forest Claypool, the most reform-minded county commissioner in history, perpetual thorn in the side of crooked hack John Stroger and his patronage army of no-show do-nothing county workers, a man [STROGER, NOT CLAYPOOL] who when he suffered a stroke knew that the last place he wanted to be taken if he wanted to survive was the public hospital named for himself.”

All saints are guilty until proven innocent, on that I agree with Orwell. To draw a constructive point from a speech is not beatification. So I will continue to pick out good parts to encourage and cultivate and not let up at all on the bad points. From what you say Obama should have supported Claypool, and made a mistake in pursuit political leverage and money.

Not every black politician has to be “the great black hope” to be listened to. That is a relic of messianism that is best dispensed with. If we wait for a politician who will never disappoint us, we will continue to suffer through ones who almost always will.

Before everyone here a FDL starts claiming to be religiously tolerant, lets remember the arguments for throwing Joe Lieberman under the bus and, now, apparently, Barack Obama.

Jane’s constant references to “Rape Gurney” Lieberman go straight to his support of Catholic hospitals’ refusal to administer abortificants. Essentially her argument is that the right to act upon religious beliefs (it’s there in the First Amendment — look for the words “free exercise”) should be overridden when that right clashes with her assessment of reproductive necessity. Similar arguments were presented here when it came to pharmacists and the distribution of RU-486 and other contraceptives.

There’s a strong anti-religious bias throughout this site and it has every right to be that. But to then claim the mantle of the religious left or tolerance is simply bizarre and dishonest. And to whack away at Obama for the tiniest bit of FDL unorthodoxy makes the sclerotic fundamentalism of Jerry Falwell seem downright broad-minded.

I don’t want prayer in my kid’s schools.
I don’t think I’m intolerant, I don’t think it’s appropriate. Joe loves Iraq, Hillary thinks flag burning is a big deal, Obama thinks I should lighten up on school prayer.

well, opinions are like a-holes.
TPM Cafe and Obama can think whatever they want. I still take that ‘church and state’ stuff pretty seriously.
now more than ever.

John Hufman:

Um, bullshit.

Jane’s criticism is that Joe claims to be pro choice and wants pro-choice support when he sells out the right to choose and reproductive freedom. Not just with his rape gurney comments, but with greasing the skids for Alito.

You can choose to construe that as religious hostility on this site if you choose, but should you do so, you are clearly in Jeff Goldstein fantasy land.

re Pachacutec 157:

“African Americans don’t vote for right wing talking points or get snookered by politicians, especially other African American ones, who make common cause with right wingers.”

To imply that African Americans will judge the sum total of the man based on such narrow, litmus test-based, unthinking and basically incorrect descriptions, esp. “right-wing talking points,” goes to show you know nothing about the African American community, nor what is important to us when we choose leaders to support.

The reason Obama did get our votes, and the reason he’ll be reelected to his senate seat, if he decides to run again, is because we know he is nothing like the knee-jerk, hysterical and uninformed description you have so unthinkingly applied to him. Calling the man out of his name is uncalled for.

Obama is also a politician, and he knows that in order to win in a state as racially, ethnically and politically diverse as Illinois he could not run strictly from the knee-jerk white left. Yet he did get a lot of white support. But black folk ain’t mad at him for that.

Its politics for Christ (yes) sake! What is there not to get about that? He made a play. Black folk get it; unfortunately you and a lot of other people on this thread don’t.

“What is your depth of relevant experience in the African American community?”

Suffice it to say that I’ve been black for the last 50 years, and been involved in black organizations in DC and Chicago, from the National NAACP, Washington Urban League, and quite a few others that I am sure would draw yet another blank if I named them. You can try that mess with some of these pretenders, but you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

That you would even mentioned Steve Gilliard’s name in the same sentence as Alan Keyes exposes you as butt-naked in terms of knowing what’s up with the African American community. And as black pols competing vor white votes, well, unless they are running for a position in an overwhelmingly predominate black district, THEY HAVE TO COMPETE FOR WHITE VOTES!!!

Listen, this is national politics, not running for high school class president. You keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. That you have to be schooled like this shows you haven’t even earned the right to stand within 500 yards of Obama, let alone criticize him.

“African American people of faith know the difference, which is why they vote for Dems.”

Talking about patronizing, what are you trying to say here? That’s the very reason why Obama got our votes the first time, and why he’ll get our votes again.

The bottom line for me is this: I can accept your disagreement with Obama on this issue, but I won’t accept you denigrating the man and reducing all he is and has been, and has done for the people of Illinois, particularly black folk, as someone who spouts “right-wing talking points.” Obama is an asset to the democratic party, just as he is a jewel in the crown of the black community.

If you did have any knowledge of the black community, you’d realized you’ve just pissed off most of us. If you were to come to Chicago; to Austin, Englewood, Harvey and other places where real black folk dwell, and spout this ridiculous nonsense, the best you could hope for is that it would only be your feelings that would end up getting hurt.

Clark: I repsect you experience and perspective as an African American. Perhaps I am jaded: I have too often heard people with no experience in the African American community spout off about it, and I’m glad you;re not one of them.

I think you misunderstood my mentioning of Steve, as the points I have been making about the approaches to politics of many in the AA community are ones he has also made, and he has used Keyes as an example. That was my context. It was not clear perhaps in the way I expressed it, and I regret that.

I hope you will reconsider the threats of violence in your comment, but as perhaps you misunderstood me, no sweat. I know from street and I don’t get wiggy easily.

Of course AA pols have to compete for white votes. That’s irrlevant to what I actually wrote. I’d also like to know where you think I wrote that Obama would not win reelection.

I called Obama an idiot for his statements. I don’t retract them. That does not negate what good he has done. Nor does that abslove him of the harm he is doing to progressive and yes, African American power by repeating Rove’s talking points, no mater how many caveats and rhetorical curlicues he wraps them in.

Pach–

My concern was that we all disagree when we need to respectfully, not just among the community but within the larger left-of-center group. I didn’t say I felt squelched, but attacked. Do comments need deleting when they attack others? I think leaving them up is best; it’d be nice if people would think before they hit send, but it is a spontaneous medium, after all. I was trying to make the point that maybe we should be reasonable and passionate rather than just passionate. What you said earlier about the person who posts jumping in is interesting to me; I guess I’d say that like it or not, you all who run this blog have some power/authority, certainly more than the commenters, and so your responses to comments on a post feel more weighted than those of others. As this thread grows, I think there are any number of really good examples of fair and honest disagreements–about religion, about Obama, etc. Which is a very good thing, in my view.

I think religion raises the hackles of lefties because we’ve been beaten to death–abused, to be direct about it–for being atheists (and note I don’t have one bit of problem with anyone being an atheist) and for being religiously liberal, as well as just plain ol’ liberal. Maybe we’re all so pissed and jumping on each other because we’re sick of being tarred and feathered as infidels and heathens and Godless, to quote the Evil One. While I see what you’re saying about Obama’s speech–that there are progressive religious folks, and you feel he’s ignored that fact–I don’t read it in quite the same way you do. I think he’s claiming to be a religious progressive himself. I don’t think he’s saying that progressives need to get religion, just that some progressives are uncomfortable with religion and shy away from it, when that’s politically unwise given the wide profession of faith by Americans. This is a point I agree with. There are some on the left, perhaps many, who are dismissive of people of faith as Kool-Aid drinkers (the comments on AlterNet anytime there’s a religion-oriented posts are a good example. Seriously, everything there, religious or not, devolves into a flame war within about five comments). In any case, religion is an issue the left will have to grapple with, and at least Obama is raising it, even if not everyone agrees with it. It’s going to have to be one of the frames. In fact, I’d say if we can turn it around and use it in an anti-war, anti-poverty, egalitarian way, we might be able to kick some fundamentalist ass in the next few elections.

I really appreciate your responses and I think I understand what you’re saying. And thanks much for the link to RevDeb’s sermon, which I will gladly read right after I post this. And once I’m done teaching summer school come Auguest, I’ll see what I can add to the Ohio netroots. Keep in mind that I live in Boehner’s district and work in Jean Schmidt’s, though, so I’m not sure how much help I can be–pretty entrenched red-meat Repubs around here.

Kim

BlueUU:

¡mucho gusto!

As for being in red territory, building progressive movement infrastructure is quite possible anywhere. We’ve adopted 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Fight the Right as our Roots Project Feild manual and hosted its author for a Roots Project exclusive conference call just this week. That book inlcudes powerful actions that don’t rely on having dem representatives, as you know.

I think where we differ is that I see your position about the lft as the conventinal wisdom perpetuated by the right wing, but not as the reality. It’s that front I’m fighting, and defending, on behalf of people like you and RevDeb and millions of others. And I want Obama to get that. If I thought he was talenetless or hopeless, as I have been accused of thinking, I would not bother. But that’s not what I think.

Cheers!

i agree with 180 and earlier commenter:

folks:
your self-hate is showing.

are there any netroots people who remember a democratic party that was *inclusive* and taken to ripping talking points off the base of the statue of liberty?

o ye of little faith.

wild will got wild – pulleease say you didnt expect it from day one. you pulled the handle for bill after he ‘didn’t inhale’ or remember jennifer flowers.

i didnt pull for him then, but i would today.

lieberman is a shill – couldn’t be more obvious.

you didn’t like obama’s speech. you don’t wish to be lectured any more about respecting religious people …even though your party – every party – is full of religious people.

now tell me how many nanoseconds you would hesitate to replace the SHRUB with ANY of these capitulating ‘losers’ if you could.

lieberman, no, he’s the uber-shrub.

but bush has thoroughly filled you with hate – self-hate. they win again?

What utter tripe. The left has shown nothing but disdain for people of faith, save for the occasional mangled biblical verse on the stump or stop by a predominantly African American church to carpet bag votes. I doubt any late genuflections at this point will help the Dems with evangelicals. Clinton isn’t the only problem, do you think a Southern Baptist or Latino Catholic thinks Kerry, Gore, Lieberman, Edwards or Dean can relate to their worldview? As long as the Democratic party embraces abortion on demand they will be at odds with evangelicals and orthodox Jews and Christians.

Everyone who argues that the left is hostile to people of faith has to ignore the existence of African Americans as the most solid backbone of the left’s coalition.

El Duderino @ 9:36 pm (#188) -You come here after people have written thousands of words and pronounce it all “utter tripe”. In fact, you haven’t even read what’s here because considerable of it directly contradicts what you just wrote. Instead, you assume you just know our minds, and that our minds just hate religion.

I repeat my earlier statement, because you are the sort of people it applies to. I don’t have a problem with your religion, I have a problem with you. You haven’t bothered to even try to understand the people who have written things here. [Edited final two sentences out for ad hominem attack - Site Host]

Cujo:

Dude, you made a nice argument but the name calling was not needed.

This tends to be the place in thye life of a thread when trolls come out, so I’m gonn clamp down on name calling, no matter what the source, whether the opinions expressed agree with mine or not.

Thanks, all!

Pachacutec @ 9:45 pm (#191) Apologies. Remove it if you wish, I can rephrase.

Pach:

There were no “threats of violence” in what I said, just statement of fact. But I stand by every word I said, because its the truth.

Obama has been involved in the community long before he was a state senator. Him and his wife are good people. He is known for his good works, then and now. People respect the man and would be very upset by your characterizations.

Whatever you may think of the reasons as to why Obama made that call, and used those words, rest assured it was not to sell out his constituents nor the democratic party. He hasn’t shown us that he’s forgotten where he came from.

Obama is right. Democrats do need to reach out to people of faith, if for no other reason than the political calculus demands it. True, Obama could have chosen his words better, but to say he’s doing Rove’s work and imply that somehow he is now a tool for the GOP is wrong, its insulting and it is so unneccesary to what we’re trying to accomplish here.

What I don’t get is this: why do we on the left have to insult people and denigrate them when we disagree, particularly when we’re on the same side? And, once having done that, how do you expect to move the people around to your view, once having insulted them? What’s up with the harsh language, and then, once having gone there, why the dismay when it gets ratcheted up? Why come out the gate with both barrels blazing at that level, and expect anything other than noise from the chorus? Why would you think that, once having essentially called the people who support him chumps and suckers, have them embrace those who did, if that was all the grist they gave them to chew on?

The left could benefit from a simple lesson: you catch more flies with sugar than you do with sh*t.

“I know from street and I don’t get wiggy easily.”

Oh please.

There was no threat of violence in clark’s post. It was an observation about what would likely incite violence, not a personal commitment to deliver it.

Not that it would be an incitement to insinuate that Obama was courting slave masters out of sheer idiocy:

“Idiots like Obama still think the path to power is to spin Karl Rove’s lies into oratorical gold to gin up support from people who would rather see him in shackles than see him in national office.”

This is a “complete thought” that just reinforces the Rovian line to white evangelicals: liberals just think of you as evil racist white trash, whereas the GOP respects you and recognizes your value(s).

clark:

We’re getting closer.

I don’t impute malice to Obama, as some here do. I think he basically means well. I don’t begrudge him his ambition. But I do seriously criticize his strategic judgment. Whether he means harm or not, he is giving aid and cover to the right wing with his words. Now, maybe that’s a cynical pragmatic play on his part, a choice made to gain power to “do good” later couple dwith a conscious political strategy to diss the base to personal advantage, or maybe it’s well-meaning tomfoolery. Either way, it’s really bad, in my view.

Now as to tone: this may surprise you, but by nature, I’m an accomodator. The left has been civil and rational for decades. It’s gotten us crushed, and ignored. NPR never inspired or motivated anybody. The left is famous for its taste for the capillaries, and that’s why majorities don’t trust us to lead or fight for common people and the common good.

I’ve learned to be harsh and combative for the simple reason that it works. It gets your argument heard. You argue for cooler tones on pragmatic grounds, and I argue for starker, harsher tones on the same grounds. That’s politics in the current age, like it or not.

The progressive blogosphere has begun to accrue power by using the strategy I’m using here, and it’s not time to stop, because we’re still outsiders fighting for the common good and the many people who desperately need us to turn the country around. It’s no exaggeration to say lives depend on it, and in the case of the climate crisis Taylor wrote about today, the survival of the species may depend on it.

clark @ 9:55 pm (#193) – Since I’m clearly one of the hostile voices here, I’ll answer. How hostile a conversation gets is often a function of how much or little respect is shown the other side. For my part, when someone, like Obama, on the one hand feels like I ought to be respecting his religion more, and yet on the other side says that I have no business complaining about the government supporting a particular view of religion at the exclusion of others, I don’t feel like I’m talking to someone who respects my views. I’m talking to someone who’s just demanding that I respect his.

You can disagree with my premises if you want, but I’m still angry, and it’s my point of view (the hostile one) that we’re talking about here. There is more than one way to start a conversation, and to me “listen up, I don’t care what you think, here’s what I think” is one that’s guaranteed to earn my hostility.

Catalonian: I stand by every word. Why don’t you run that argument by Steve Gilliard?

Barak has a tremendous amount of charisma and no common sense. Like Al Gore in 2000, he does not understand the Republican party. He thinks he’s nice they won’t be mean to him.

Fuck him. Obama is part of the problem. What is this crap with repeating rightwing talking points? What national Democrat has objected to the phrase “under god” in the pledge of allegiance? Has their even been one?

More Baptists and more Catholics identify as Democratic than Republican. More Pubs identify as Christian, but more Independents identify as atheist.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty…..s/aris.pdf

I plead ignorance– run it by Steve Gilliard on what particular point, and with what expected response? Is there a specific article where he broaches this (I couldn’t find a link earlier in the thread)?

I get Bowers’s triangulation point, and basically agree.

first let me say
#193 if you’re black, can you please stop using the term ‘denigrate’ in this discussion? i’m black too, friend. i say “ouch” every time i read it (’pronigrate’ would work for me, but i don’t think that’s what you mean .. or an official word … yet).

i agree that we have all been missing a major point: compromise is central to the soul of the democratic party. without compromise there would be no diversity, no freedom, no ‘melting pot’, etc. etc.

as the party that has been getting whopped-up on, we have come to view compromise as a sin, and seek to beat the sinners. the easiest sinners to beat so far have been the ones we’ve accepted as family. pity.

we should be able to see that this instinct to change our own beliefs and behavior, while predictable under the circumstances, is nothing more than a reaction to the devilish treatment we have received at the hands of scoundrels.

anyone notice any historic parallels in this situation?

after reading the liberal sites’ premature bashings of cynthia mckinney and jefferson (D-LA), and the associated racist remarks, i became a bit disheartened. not because i expected ‘liberals’ to be free of racism (please!), but because it became clear that i really had understood hilary’s “plantation” remark after all.

so welcome to the plantation, folks.

don’t bother resenting the ones in the ‘big house’. it won’t get you out of the fields.

but have some faith, people. the bible has been used to promote evil before. i believe that backfired.

if the man respects religion, i respect him. if he likes to lecture people about religion, he’ll have to talk in church.

meanwhile, can’t we direct our energy away from auto-accusations and take the straightest path: shamelessly doing the right thing and believing in it?

it might work.

Cujo359:

I asked those questions for my own benefit, not as a hand-wringing gesture of surrender. Because to me, the degree to which it is indulged makes little sense in the scheme of things. I do disagree with your premise on the merits, as that is not what Obama is saying to you. Nevertheless, I am less concerned with your anger as I am with responding to insults in this tete a tete, for the reasons I previously stated. I won’t start out there, but I have no problem wiping the gutter clean, with someone else’s a**. My point is, I’m not going to let what I see as unfounded and gratuitous insult on a good man stand unaddressed. Suffice it to say then, that I have no respect for your viewpoint.

Pachacutec:

As you can see with my response above, the anger has a threshold where it crosses over into sheer ridiculousness. It tends to obscure the point at hand, which is why I say insult amongst erstwhile allies, is mostly counterproductive.

I disagree with your reason as to why the progressive blogosphere has gained power. That has happened because it has provided a medium of expression for the popular point of view. A view that would traditionally (anbd should be) be put on display by the MSM, if they were doing their jobs. The blogosphere has caught on as an alternative to that.

The anger and insult, in damn near all cases, quickly reaches a point where it is all volume and a lot of preaching to the choir. The right blogosphere has cornered the market on volume, and in my opinion, we should not want to mimic that.

A lot of democrats look at the blogosphere and don’t get it, for that reason. They see all this nastiness and personal insults and think, WTF? I’m not getting involved in that.

I just don’t think this is a choice between being nasty towards our own, vs. not being able to make a sane argument.

N.D. Pinney @ 200:

Yeah I’m black, dammit, and I meant what I said. Here’s the definition of the term:

1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.

2. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.

This word succinctly (did that hurt too?) describes what I see happening in this thread. They are attacking the character of the man, more so than disagreement with his positions. That is what I am saying I will not stand for.

BTW, what the heck does my being black have to do with use of the word denigrate, when that word describes what I mean to say?

Or would you feel more at home if I was speaking ebonically?

I’ve been a liberal for a long time, and there IS a hostility toward religion now that is something new on the left. Maybe it’s just on the blogs, I don’t know. The intensity of it is palpable. It is usually directed at a strawman, a caricature that I don’t recognize at all as someone who believes in a grown-up, non-dogmatic, non-literal spirituality. And I’m adamant about separation of church and state. The leftist religion-haters do seem unable to distinguish the Religious Right from the religious left. Ironically, the religion-haters are very literal-minded, debunking things that liberal spiritual people do not even believe.

clark at 200:

speaking ebonically? no, but sorry that i assumed you recognized the latin verb root “to blacken”.

i won’t apologize for failing to associate “blackening” something with “belittling” it. apparently you feel very strongly that the association is appropriate.

i don’t agree.

there are english terms that i – as a person of color – simply do not use because of the connotation. this is one of them.

yes, it is racist of me to expect a black person to be more aware of such things. but i would be surprised, for example, if a black person used the term “hug the tar baby” in a press conference to connote a similarly belittling expression, and expected the audience to ignore the connotation.

ah well. if you hear the “ouch” next time you write it, it _will_ be me.

clark @ 10:44 pm (#201) – I asked those questions for my own benefit, not as a hand-wringing gesture of surrender.

I did not think otherwise, and have no idea why you’d think I did. You asked why the hostility, I told you.

My point is, I’m not going to let what I see as unfounded and gratuitous insult on a good man stand unaddressed. Suffice it to say then, that I have no respect for your viewpoint.

Trust me, I’m used to that, and it’s not going to bother me. I’ve spent a lifetime listening to people insulting and denigrating my religious views, and calling them un-American. Frankly, when I hear someone doing it I’m not going to stop and think about whether they’ll be offended by my reply. Did you ever stop and think how someone who didn’t believe in a god or gods might feel when one “pundit” calls all the people whose views she doesn’t like “godless”, as an insult, and then godless, also as an insult? I doubt it. So let me lay it out for you in a way you understand – why should I care what you think of my opinion? Half this country wants to wipe a gutter with my ass. So get in line, tough guy, and I hope you like the company while you wait your turn.

If you want respect, show it. Otherwise, you can be pissed right along with Obama and all the others who made the mistake of telling me what my religious beliefs should be if I wanted to live here at a time when I could answer.

DeanOR @ 11:03 pm (#203) – Please cite some examples. It’s hard to answer for what is, essentially, just a phantom of a strawman. Certainly there’s some hostility to religion, but read my previous posts if you want to understand why. There’s been plenty of hostility in the other direction and it’s been there for a long, long time. You want examples, besides “under God?”, Ann Coulter, “godless Communism” and all the synonyms? Sorry, fresh out just this second, but I’m sure a google search with that phrase will come up with at least a few million.

my 11:37 pm (#205) – That should read: “and then someone calls her godless, also as an insult?”

Oh man!!!

Guys – what’s with this anti-obama nonsense? Do ya’ll live in a bubble? Obama hit the nail on the head in a huge way. This was not “bs”, it’s exactly and absolutely true, and unless you find a way to deal with the religeous right in a way that they can understand, you can forget about their vote, ’cause it’s going straight to W.

Man, trying to rev up for a post on this is like studying for a research paper.

I read Obama’s speech and Bowers’ (on MyDD) criticism. I have to say Bowers’ was a lot more to the point for me than the Pach’s flamethrower here.

As a UU, Obama’s speech touches on issues that come up in many UU congregations. Many people who come to Unitarian Universalism are escaping other religions and bring their hostilities along with them. Some congregations never mention Jesus or God. We can’t resist any joke about fundamentalists. Many in our congregation can still feel the sting of a lay sermon that commended our tolerance for almost everyone EXCEPT Republicans and Conservatives (yes, socially liberal ones do exist.) My congregation has a deist/mystical bent but there is more than one atheist and humanist helping out every Sunday. We work to respect differences, find common ground, and accomplish some good things.

My point is that I agree with Obama. However, the whole “triangulation” thing – how do you even discuss this without mentioning “hostility to religion”? When you have progressives leaving dogma for more liberal pastures, how do you get them to stop talking smack about what they left behind? It’s human nature. Isn’t it fun to talk about how backward your fundy neighbors are? Isn’t this the same as your fundy neighbors talking about how you and your kids won’t reach heaven?

Whether or not Obama is a shill is beside the point.

Nick Aster @ 11:56 pm (#208) – I think it’s unwise, for many reasons, to try to deal with the religious right on that level. I think Pachacutec dealt with many, but I’ll just reiterate:

* Most of them won’t vote Democratic anyway. The ones who are totally anti-abortion (as opposed to the ones with a more nuanced opinion), the ones who are anti-gay won’t vote Democratic, period.

* Many of these people have good economic reasons to not like the Republican party. Has the Democratic party given them a good alternative? I don’t think they have. The Dems have largely abandoned the unions, and seem to be courting business in a big way. They don’t seem too concerned about consumers, at least not when we’re not looking. I realize there are some exceptions to those statements, but in general I think they have merit

* The Democratic party is the party of religious minorities. Appealing to people whose principal concern appears to be their religion, and more importantly, making sure that everybody believes in their religion, is a big mistake as far as the rest of us are concerned.

So why not try to persuade some of these folks that they’re better off financially if they vote Democratic? Some will, some won’t, but the Dems aren’t going to appeal to the majority of the religious right, anyway. I’d rather give them a platform that will appeal to those who want to vote their financial self-interest, and the ones who are concerned about the world their children will live in beyond what religion they all practice.

Paul @ 12:23 am (#209) – I think I’ve answered you already in my last comment, so fire away based on that.

As a boy, my family went to a Unitarian church for a while, and I must say I was very confused at the time. Not a Christian church, clearly, but what was it? Couldn’t ever figure it out, and it was something I didn’t feel the need for. Still UU’s seem to have a tolerance for other religious preferences in common, and so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that so many of you overlook what I find the more troubling aspects of Obama’s speech.

But I do recognize the value of showing that we’re OK with religion. I think it’s terrific that people of faith can find religious reasons for saving the environment or helping the less fortunate. That’s really not the problem. It’s intolerance that’s the problem, and as there is with other forms of intolerance, there are both subtle and not-so-subtle versions of it.

For the record, I object to the words “under God” in the pledge. In fact, I object to the whole damn thing.

DeanOR @ 12:46 am (#212) – I used to not say those words, back when I was in school and was pretty much forced to say the thing whether I wanted to or not. Yet another annoying thing about the pledge. Ironically, a couple of years ago my ex-congressman, Jim McDermott (he’s still there, I’m in a different district), led the pledge for a session of Congress and said it the way I always did, without “under God”. Should have heard the kvetching about that one by the local pundits.

Cujo359 at 210 211:

What is the basis for implying that Obama is trying to make “sure that everybody believes in their religion”?

The excerpts that I read were calling for religious (and other) tolerance, which is a fundamental part of any pluralistic society.

Playing the religious card is dangerous and unwise, but trying to hide it would be obtuse. Obama is not obtuse. If he is, I pray I’ll be as obtuse one day.

‘financial self-interest’ is what keeps shrub and friends in power. (well, ok. that and the double-speak about us being “godless” … for being intolerant of the fundies).

the man is simply calling for civility on a searing-hot issue, which has been wrongly relegated a central role in modern politics. Did you not read “separation of church and state” in his remarks?

i’m sure that’s why clark and paul and a few others of us are having trouble figuring out why – besides plain orneriness – he should be attacked here.

i personally think the attack on clinton was just as misplaced. it’s over. he’s done. you’ve counted your money. move on.

the impotence of liberal politics is *not* anyone else’s fault besides liberals. Obama gave a speech at a “faith-based movement to overcome poverty”. Funny, but I have never once seen any netroots drive to address poverty. I don’t think I ever will. Netroots people cannot be effective without mucking around in grimy issues like religion, poverty, and politics. It is otherwise just another e-toy for the disaffected middleclass (have a look at netroots win-loss scorecard. not very inspiring).

You say:
“It’s intolerance that’s the problem, and as there is with other forms of intolerance, there are both subtle and not-so-subtle versions of it.”

One form of intolerance appears on this page, in the baseless assault on some well-meaning, well-qualified, hard-working public servants .. and a few pot shots at “religion”.

I for one don’t sleep better at night dreaming that netroots is looking out for my “financial interests”. I don’t think you will want to accept people that do into your tent, either.

I also share a bit of Clark’s rage because – as I have noted – black politicians are no more than sacrificial lambs to ‘netroots’ sites. If it makes you feel better to shoot down and alienate the most loyal party members – have at it. Party may be ending quite different than you expected, though.

N. D. Pinney Now @ 1:16 am (#214) – What is the basis for implying that Obama is trying to make “sure that everybody believes in their religion”?

See my comment at 11:59am (#74) and the later interpretation of the quote at 3:50 pm (#149). I’ve explained that as well as I’m able, unless you have a question about something I’ve said there. And you’ll notice that I mentioned in my 7:46 pm (#172) that the way Obama was doing this was as an enabler. His rhetoric, in other words, just makes it easier for the overtly intolerant to flourish.

Did you not read “separation of church and state” in his remarks?

Yes, and I also read his statements that contradict that concept. He’s trying to have it both ways.

the impotence of liberal politics is *not* anyone else’s fault besides liberals.

On that, at least, we agree.

Funny, but I have never once seen any netroots drive to address poverty.

Funny, I don’t see black politicians concerning themselves with the problems of non-believers, either. I guess there’s some truth to the idea that we each have our priorities, no? And I’ll bet if I actually looked, I’d be more likely to find a netroots-like organization trying to end poverty than I would be to find a black politician who says that being an atheist is as valid a choice as being a Christian, while in a church on a Sunday.

(have a look at netroots win-loss scorecard. not very inspiring).

Unless you look at what we’ve been up against, which is much of the rest of the Democratic establishment, and you realize we’ve really only been at this for a few short years. So far, I agree there’s been a lot of talk and not much to show for it, but I suspect we’ll get more effective over time.

I for one don’t sleep better at night dreaming that netroots is looking out for my “financial interests”. I don’t think you will want to accept people that do into your tent, either.

I think that depends on what you mean by “looking out”. What I meant by that is trying to re-establish fairer tax policies, make our trade agreements more aggressive in enforcing worker’s rights and environmental laws in some of our trading partners that function as low-cost manufacturing sites, and trying to do a better job of educating people in poor communities. Oh, and it would be nice if vocational training was more widely available, too, wouldn’t it?

There are both moral and practical reasons to do all of those things.

black politicians are no more than sacrificial lambs to ‘netroots sites.

I don’t know why you have that impression, and I certainly don’t share it.

Obama’s a fucking Oreo. He’s worse than Colin Powell.

148 and 214…what you said.

Good morning!

A friend points out to me that if Rove were runnng the Dems, he would have the party working its butt off to appeal to single women. When Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, Rove went nuts to get out the evangelical vote, because it’s their base. The Dems totally rock with single women, and what do we do? We believe the establishment media when it tells us we have to reach out to. .. the other party’s base. Thus, we lose. If we got another few hundred thousand single women to go to the polls, and played to their issues, we’d be running everything.

Second, here’s Lincoln at Cooper Union, dealing with the ancestors of the same southern evangelicals some here and Obama believe we should somehow appease. His words are as applicable today as then:

http://showcase.netins.net/web…..cooper.htm

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery.” But we do let them alone – have never disturbed them – so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

Paul–

I am UU, also, and I agree with what you’re saying. Maybe Cujo’s comments show one of the differences here; I think within UU congregations we’ve been having that fight about people bringing their hostilities into their UU experience for a long while and are therefore used to how it is possible to be pluralistic in religion and yet still attempt to be respectful–except for fundamentalists, where, you’re right, we’re not so good.

As far as fundies go, I have a lot of close contact with them. I see the damage they do: I have a student, possibly the most brilliant student of English I have ever seen, who is the gay son of a Baptist minister. His parents tried to get me fired last year because somehow I’m corrupting him. I’m a straight woman, so it wasn’t a sexuality thing; no, I was infecting him with my liberal godlessness. It has been a tough thing to deal with, and this kid is a good friend now, almost like one of my own children. I see the damage they do. Yet as a UU I truly struggle with balancing trying to be respectful of their right to their faith and yet seeing the incredible harm they do in trying to inflict it on others. I agree that UUs see that as the only thing we can make fun of, and I really call that into question at my church–in fact, I’ve preached about it (we have a half-time minister, so there are opportunities for lay-led sermons).

I guess that’s where my stake in this whole argument has come from; this is a personal subject to me as a religious progressive who has had to defend herself against direct right-wing attacks. I’ve thought long and hard about this for a year, since the firing attempt thing happened. It matters to me to live up to my UU ideals, so I’ve been gnawing on how to fight back without dropping down to their level of hysteria and shrieking witch-hunting. I felt so strongly about it that I started blogging about how I try to live out my UU values. I don’t post as regulary as I should, and I’m not blogwhoring here (see? no link!). I think I had hoped to start an honest and respectful conversation about religious pluralism. I’m still muddling through how to do that; I guess this is another attempt at same. My point is that this issue is one that is deep for me.

There are many of my students who ID as Christian but hold far more liberal positions than the stereotype, who are cynical about all politicians and concerned about the shape the world is in, yet feel powerless to do anything. In fact, I’d say that the Right has hijacked the idea of Christianity into a pretty narrow and dangerous position, even for their own so-called success–it feels to me like they are alienating their own in many ways. I’d be happy to talk more about this if anyone wants to have a conversation about it. I’m really interested in interfaith work; currently, I’m part of my church’s Welcoming Congregation work (for those who don’t know, it’s a UU program about making congrgations specifically and consciously inclusive, sensitive and welcoming to GLBTQ folks). The minister and I were talking a few weeks back about how we can make a bridge to the more moderate Christians on these issues–so that we can form a supportive community via the churches for rapid response next time there’s an ugly issue in our town, so we can form into a something of an alliance against the other side and take back “family values” and morality and spirituality.

Although I still don’t agree with Pach’s original post’s tone, I do think this has morphed into a useful discussion, so thanks, Pach, for getting us started. I like RevDeb’s sermon. I think we are absolutely going to have to deal with religion, without kowtowing to the rightwing and without marginalizing the atheists. Maybe the frame we need to use is about values–surely we can reclaim that term without offending people.

Kim

Dinosaur @216–

Nice. He’s biracial. Is that your point? I doubt it.

I disagree with your reason as to why the progressive blogosphere has gained power. That has happened because it has provided a medium of expression for the popular point of view. A view that would traditionally (anbd should be) be put on display by the MSM, if they were doing their jobs. The blogosphere has caught on as an alternative to that.

We’ve gained that audience, and thus gained power, not only by being right on the merits, but by speaking truth to power, and doing so with passion and aggression.

Establishment pols and media elites are actually incentivized to ignore populist passion. It doesn’t pay, literally. We’ve been filling the void. There are plenty of sites that take a more think-tanky approach, and they do fine at what they do.

We’re a site for aggressive passion, among other things. What’s the result? We have an activist community that works in the grassroots and raises money for candidates at a rate well above the proportional size of our readership, relative to other progressive blogs. That’s how you gain power: being part of a movement of many people taking action. That’s what brings about political change. Writing polite disquisitions rife with nuance gets you noticed and timidly considered by well-meaning NPR listeners who will never, ever understand how to build a movement. Those people have proven their political ineptitude. It’s people like the ones at this site and a number of others who have internalized the lessons of what it means to fight so you can win.

BlueUU: We talk and write about values here a lot:

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ly-values/

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ood-start/

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ers-crowd/

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..onna-come/

Those are just a few quick samples of what you find if you use the search feature here with the keywords “values” “common” “good”.

Why Does Obama Use Right Wing Frames?

Because Left Wing Frames don’t win national elections.

Pach — I’m late to this post and haven’t read all the comments, but the Democratic challenger to Jack Kingston, uber Bush enforcer (the one who called Cindy Sheehan a nutcase) in Georgia’s 1st District is Pastor Jim Nelson, a retired military officer (”band of brothers”) and Methodist Minister. Although it is not his district, I would be interested in TRex’s analysis of this race.

I read Obama’s speech and have no idea why some of you are so flipped out. I have been saying the same thing Obama said since prior to the war. Frankly, I am glad he said it and said it now.

The harsh reality hasn’t hit Obama yet. He can run for king of purple all he wants to but those people he’s a courtin’ wouldn’t vote for him in a million years.

Something about skin pigmentation of a darker hue.

He was talking to DEMOCRATS.

True. You can pass as the legislation you want to but nothing beats a good old-fashioned wish.

The Democrats have won a plurality in four presidential elections since the progressive coup against Johnson in 1968.

In the first, they ran a Southern Evangelical Protestant who served in the Navy as a nuclear engineer. They ran him against the guy who pardoned Nixon, during a lousy economy. A bare majority was won.

The second, third, and fourth times, they ran tickets consisting of a pair of DLC members, again headed by a Southerner. No majority of the popular vote was managed any of those three times.

McGovern? Landslide loss. Carter, running for re-election as a revealed progressive? Big loss. Mondale? Crushing landslide loss. Dukakis? Big loss.

Kerry? Kerry in 2004 was a candidate who ran on fighting in Iraq better, not pulling out; and who endorsed state constiutional bans on gay mariage (including an endorsement in Missouri of one that barred creation of domestic partnerships). He managed to have merely a close loss.

You see, Americans are not progressives, by and large. Americans, when polled, say the news media is liberal not because they’ve been brainwashed to believe that, but because relative to the average American, the news media is liberal. You can say “corporate media” all you like — just remember that it is a liberal media relative to the country you’re trying to win elections in.

Remember 1932? The election FDR won against Hoover? The New Deal coalition was dependent on the Solid South — a group of people so reactionary that they voted Democratic to punish the Republicans for running Abraham Lincoln seven decades years earlier. John Nance Garner, the number two man on the ticket, gave campaign speeches in the South attacking Hoover not as a do-nothing, but as a socialist interventionist who caused the Great Depression by messing with the free market.

That reactionary South, which voted against Republicans for no more reason than party affiliation, was an absolutely necessary well of votes for the progressive victories of 1932-1964. The rise of conservativism in the U.S. since Goldwater’s defeat is not the lies of think tanks and organized influence. It’s merely the tale of how the Confederacy stopped voting for progressives merely because of the (D) after their names,

Now, the Democrats no longer have that blind well of votes. Without them, that leaves only the progressives — and there have never been enough to win elections on their own. The result is that politics have shifted rightward.

The progressive left has seen the rightward shift of politics in the last forty years, of course. The premise of the Kos-headed progressive movement is that progressives can reverse the shift by using the tactics that the Right used to move it rightward.

But there is no Republican Party group equivalent to the Southern Democrats of 1932-1964. The result of the party change by those voters was that politics moved rightward to match where the overall opinion of the people of the United States was the whole time. And since the center of politics was not moved right by conservative political tactics, the adopt-tactics approach is doomed to fail.

The choice reality actually presents the Democratic Party is to either move rightward to catch the leftmost 1968 Nixon Republicans, or lose elections. The DLC and Bill Clinton chose the former.

What will you choose?

Arizona taxpayers have spent nearly four billion dollars on the war in Iraq. Four billion fucking dollars in taxes, so that Dick Cheney can enrich himself through investments in Halliburton, (the contractor that Dick Cheney gave a multi-billion dollar no bid contract to.) Last year Dick Cheney received twenty-two million dollars from his investments in Halliburton. The only people who continue to support the murderous war in Iraq are people making money off of it.

“…no hell below us. Above us only sky.” John Lennon, “Imagine.” I am one of those liberals who was looking forward to the day when the Swaggerts, Robertsons, Falwells, Watsons, Dobsons and others of their ilk would be recognized for the one talent that they actually possess, and it isn’t god talking to them or moral leadership; it is the use of spiritual uncertainty to extract money from people. A great deal of money, in fact.

It is the ability to get people to give their money voluntarily that impresses the Treasury robbing, taxpayer swindling, consumer price gouging, Medicare fraud, war profiteering and financial transaction spying administration.

The system of bribery, (faith based initiative,) works quite well for religion con men that peddle right wing politics in exchange for taxpayer funded government largesse. The corruption involved in such a process is one good reason for the separation of church and state.

It is not difficult to convince the proven susceptible that god wants GWB corrupting American principles and law, and that people who oppose Bush’s crimes against the people of our nation are tools of Satan.

How about Al Gore as an adult role model in the area of politics, religion, and language? He was just on The View discussing Inconvenient Truth. He said we need to view it as a moral issue. Then someone mentioned some evangelicals committing to environmentalism. Gore said, if I recall correctly, “that certainly resonates with my faith tradition”. I think he even quoted the Bible about caring for the earth, but that may have someone else. That was the end of the religion topic. I don’t think he was pandering to fundamentalists, who as someone said are never going to vote with us anyway. I think he was just being a real person, who actually knows something about religion, unafraid to talk about its relevance and comfortable with it and not abandoning the separation clause. Obama, listen up!
And Pachacutec, he didn’t find it necessary to be “harsh” or “aggressive” (assertive, yes) to get attention or call a fellow Democrat an “idiot”. I think that to do those things is to adopt the tactics of the Right, tactics which many Americans are fed up with. Actually, he sounded like NPR on a good day.

This thread just won’t die, will it? Rawstory has posted a story about Obama’s appearance on Good Morning America. There’s a transcript of the interview at the link.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0629.html

Gene–so’s your comment doesn’t kill it off :-)

I’m glad we’re still on this. May we return to it again.

For the record, Obama is on the side of the angels re: net neutrality. His judgment does not always suck.

DeanOR:

Different parts of a political movement perform different roles. Statesmen speak as statesmen, though our right wing visitors (here to applaud Obama and the fruitless, self-defeating effort of progressives to court the right wing base)find many occasions to bash Gore for speaking bluntly.

We in this part of the ecosystem speak aggressively and build a movement that creates the conditions for leading statemens to rpesent themselves as above it all, because we’ve already done the hard work for them. We’re like right wing radio, only we’re addicted to truth serum, not oxycotin.

Diversity of tactics, my friend.

Oh yes…blame bill clinton…the only democrat to win the presidency since 1976..but let’s blame him! Brilliant. Hell, let’s blame Carter…didn’t he say “god” in public…oh yeah, and is the only Democrat in my life time to win a majority of the popular vote.

Nah…let’s continue to embrace John Kerry and his 48%…that’s the ticket to victory!

I listened to this speech on my ipod and I must say, he did an AMAZING job and the most articulate job to date on explaining what needs to be done by progressives and religious people to bring them closer together. I think listening is believing in this instance.

How far to the right are Americans supposed to go? Are we to move rightward so that in a decade we are all fascists and holy rollers? It isn’t as if the right wing has the answers to America’s problems.

The reality is that they are forced to operate in secret and cover up their mistakes because the right wing movement is based almost entirely on deceit and illusion? They have to spin the words of philosophers in order to make them agree with their peculiar and unacceptable point of view.

Why do superstition and prejudice have to become acceptable in order for progressives to thrive? Where are the arguments that support the progressive point of view for civilization building? History supports this view, not the direction of the aggressive right wing barbarians motivated by a lust for power and and a need for superstition to manipulate the masses.

The theocracy that America is fighting against has a right wing view of the world. As much as we are willing to fight it there, we must be willing to fight it here.

When conformity is chosen it is freedom; when it is ordered it is tyranny

Do people find it difficult to tolerate the intolerant?
Not often enough.

Mainstream media: journalists look for favor from the establishment, and it does not make a difference to them whether it leans to the right or left, (it’s relatively safe to gamble on the winner,) but the corporate owners that they work for are right wing.

Clintonism (third way politics) and Clinton nostalgia (the desire for another charismatic Souther Clinton clone) is a serious problem for the party. It keeps the party, including many progressives, looking backward, rather than forward based on a cold eyed assessment of the present.

That’s a big reason why I framed this the way I did. Clinton is the past. Progressives are about the future.