who, IIRC, wanted to "rid the world of evil," which seems even more megalomaniac now than it did then (a SOTU).

But not a whole lot better.

You know, I'd settle for a health care policy that wasn't broken. The rest is, as Obama says, "above my pay grade."

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

guy will say anything to get elected. He was spewing.

I love this job!

--and again with the "woman consulting their pastor" about an abortion--disgusting.

I gotta know RIGHT NOW before I might be religiously forced to vote for him by my Madrassa!

My Librul innerds are torn! Shadow Christianist??? Or Shadow Islamist???!

OH GOD! I MUST vote for Hillary Clinton! Write her in!

--mf

But, was I the only one that didn't read any sarcasm or snark in Monkeyfister's post? Sounded almost dead-serious, to me. Tell me I'm wrong.

BTW, I don't find this religious talk, from him, exceptionally different than what I've heard from most mainstream candidates running for president. And, to be honest, I don't think he means much of anything he says, which would scare me more than anything else. Obama's been cynically aiming at and targeting and angling for Evangelicals from Day One, and it shows.

But, maybe I'm just cynical and naive. *snark* But, more seriously, we have to start raising our game, here. I see the board drifting towards a discouraging staleness and predictability. I'm starting to sympathize with Bringiton, and that scares me.

There is in fact an increasing religiosity in mainstream political rhetoric and policy.

George W. Bush has established it as the new normal, which will be his most powerful legacy. For this reason he will grow in stature over time, with Democratic help, as his crimes fade in the public memory.

Just because Christianist pandering has shockingly become the new norm for all the 2008 candidates, we should not be blinded to that fact. It frightens me to see how quickly we allow ourselves to become jaded to dramatic erosion of our constitutional freedoms. It was obvious with the praise of Romney's religion speech during the primary that the media and both party's were applauding the new status quo, even as a few editorials nervously mumbled about how radically secular JFK's speeches would seem in contrast today.

The Democrats have until this year been the anchor preventing an uncontrolled swing toward religious bigotry, which is the only way to describe this level of Christianist pandering and exclusionism. Obama is promising to serve as the radiant symbol which ends the role of the Democratic party to guard our government's secularism.

It doesn't matter one whit if Obama personally feels his Christianity. He has stated loudly and plainly his intention to increase Christianist powerbrokers' influence on government policy. We can, like the OFB, project onto this our hopeful wishes for benign Christian goodwill all we want, but the reality is that this is an unconstitutional double-edged sword which threatens less benign policies that affect women, gays, the poor, and our planet. It is a tiger we are holding by the tail.

At a time when so few are speaking up about the shifts in our party and our government, our few voices become increasingly important.

Talking up fear of being forced into madrassas just promotes an inane and bigoted right-wing meme.

We are in fact witnessing the birth of a new, far more religious, politics. It's outrageous to submit to this unquestioningly as the new status quo.

I was a loud proponent in 2000 and 2004 that Democrats stop yielding the label of "values voters" to the GOP. We are, or were, the party of the most universal and important values. But the Dems are taking the shallowest, cheapest route with its glossy crucifix-embellished brochures. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.