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 www.ftc.gov or the FCC at 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