before people recognize that Obama is, in his own way, as far removed from the Enlightenment values of the Founding Fathers as the religious right.

I said it before, Obama’s view on the Democratic Party’s relationship to evangelism should scare the Sam Hill out of Americans who believe in a secular government.

… I want to start banging my head against the wall.

Bringiton writes: “I will not tolerate the spreading of falsehoods that benefit the cause of the VRWC.”

Well said.

And the people Obama’s reaching out to are doing what? Not propagating falsehoods that benefit the VRWC?

Aaaagh!

NOTE I guess my question “And we get?” is answered…

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

The OBorg. Is. Not. Progressive. And we get bupkis. It’s all about the bellyfeel.

I just did a post about Obama throwing Al Sharpton under the bus.

And now T.D. Jakes gets some love?

Ha ha!!!!

The ambiguous actions of the Obama campaign make it hard to say, “oh, no, he’d *never* do that”. The truth we see from the Obama campaign might not play the same chord as Diamond’s work, but it’s in the same key.

What’s the difference between the lie of Obama coming from authoritarian left roots, and the truth of Obama asking for support from the rigidly authoritarian right? Even when we call out the truth in front of our faces, Obama will say we are lying — and his supporters will believe him. Truth and lie sound the same. And, his supporters must believe him. Where else do they have to go?

And at work, with no internet at home, but I wonder how any of the Amy Sullivan opposing bloggers, who also support Obama, are reacting to this news?

I really want to know if anyone is going to be honest enough to point out this is bad, and goes against what “progressives” have been pushing, since oh about forever.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

or not, or rather, not giving it enough noo-ance.

obama really screwed the pooch, black community wise, when he threw his pastor under the bus and left his church. but lucky for him, lots of Folks, and folks, don’t live or keep up with chi-town local events. so, it makes a lot of sense for him to ’replace’ wright with loosers like Jakes and the rest of those hucksters. there will be much photo-op and suchlike as a result, material to use later in the election season when he needs to challenge the faux news line that he’s a Secret Muslim.

honestly, i sort of respect this sort of play. he’s obviously not a “christian,” or anything i can respect, but the boy knows how to play to game, and/or is being told how by the masters. (heh) what’s the bottom line? we want a “democrat” in the WH. here’s the lesson that gives me Hope. remember three or so years ago? who else would’ve believed that the Presumptive Nom would condescend to be on the phone with Lowly Lambert of Toxic Correntish fame? well, a similar day is coming for His Nibs. if/when he assumes office, the first thing he’s going to have to do is toss the rest of his liberal and progressive supporters off he bus. and he will, because that will be politically easier than standing up the wall st and MIC backers who put him in there. sigh. a progressives job is never done. anyway, as i told a Purity Troll today: all this we can agree upon, but the last point. which is: at least we have a chance to influence an obama admin. no such luck with McStain.

try to keep that in mind, ok?

Odds of me winning the Lotto > any chance to influence Obama.*

Just my opinion.

*unless I were attempting to sell him on some bullshit right-wing claptrap, at which point he might hear me out ala involving himself with TD Jakes.

I don’t know why you think there is any reason to trust Obama….

personally, I trust McCain far more (and I really wish people would stop with these juvenile ’McStain” and ’McSame’ mames). Just as with Clinton, McCain has been running for President for eight years — and McCain recognized that in order to get the GOP nomination, he had to shelve his “maverick” impulses and vote the Bush/GOP line.

With Obama, who knows what he will do? IMHO, he’s more likely to submit someone like Kmiec for the Supreme Court.

Remember, we have congressional elections in 2010, and another presidential election in 2012 — and Obama in the white house is likely to be a LONG TERM disaster for the Democratic Party for decades. He’ll discredit the Democratic brand, because people are looking for competent leadership, and are willing to vote for ANY Democrat, and the Democratic Party leadership foisted Obama on them — a violation of people’s trust.

unless he just continues the DOJ’s Bush policies of only helping Christians in the Civil Rights Division?

he won’t even take a firm stand on ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell— http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/…

—that never includes liberals of faith or us reform Jews or Buddhists or Muslims, etc…

— http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/10/…

they’ll demand and get what they want on judges, like they did with the GOP—they know that Obama needs their help to get in.

or-of course—he’s lying to them like he lies to the rest of us.

Hispanic Dems warn Obama he risks losing Latinos (because he hasn’t put out anything on a path to legalization, and won’t commit to making it a priority)

us godless heathens.

unlike a huge number of christians i run into, i have never, ever tried to convert anybody to lack of faith in the supernatural. this election has made me wish that a staunch belief in atheism was a requirement for office.

I don’t have a problem with Obama meeting moderate or even conservative religious figures. Just like I don’t have a problem with him opening up diplomatic discussions with Iran or Venezuela. If anything, he may be able to move their positions more into the mainstream. Too many on the left and the right want to shut down dialog before it can even begin.

yours is a very important comment, what with all the “loyalty” lingo rolling around the internet now.

there can be very negative consequences for foolish, unquestioning loyalty.

for emphasis, let me repeat what paul said:

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on Wed, 2008-06-11 17:03.

I don’t know why you think there is any reason to trust Obama….

personally, I trust McCain far more (and I really wish people would stop with these juvenile ’McStain” and ’McSame’ mames). Just as with Clinton, McCain has been running for President for eight years — and McCain recognized that in order to get the GOP nomination, he had to shelve his “maverick” impulses and vote the Bush/GOP line.

With Obama, who knows what he will do? IMHO, he’s more likely to submit someone like Kmiec for the Supreme Court.

Remember, we have congressional elections in 2010, and another presidential election in 2012 — and Obama in the white house is likely to be a LONG TERM disaster for the Democratic Party for decades. He’ll discredit the Democratic brand, because people are looking for competent leadership, and are willing to vote for ANY Democrat, and the Democratic Party leadership foisted Obama on them — a violation of people’s trust.

with Congress in 06.

make any and all Democratic goals a priority. He has promised nothing to any Democratic or Liberal interest group—but he pledges things to these hateful asses????

And I can’t see how anybody could.

Sure, Obama threw me off the bus, but McCain would throw me off the bus, then back the bus over my body, and set me on fire.

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

… and it’s hard to think of the religious leaders there as “moderate,” and they’re conservative only as far as they’re Christianist political operatives.

And symbolism counts. How is this different from McCain and Bush “opening a dialog” at Bob Jones University?

NOTE Actually, this can be reduced to one word: Ohio.

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

Hillary was cudgeled REPEATEDLY for sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife, for benefiting from a Rupert Murdoch fundraiser, for appearing on Fox News, and more — and there have been many other guilt-by-association gambits.

Obama never gets held to that standard, with the one exception of the McClurkin thing. Pandagon should be all over this. I haven’t been by there lately, but I’m not counting on it.

How is this different from McCain and Bush “opening a dialog” at Bob Jones University?

It’s expected that the gooper authoritarians are all good with christianists. It’s when the our side decides that maybe anti-choice and anti-gay isn’t so bad if we get a few votes that’s deeply despairing. That moves the overton window and all.

I would speculate that Obama’s meeting served to raise the profile (among religious organizations) of issues like health care, poverty, genocide etc… This is a good thing. These are issues for which the religious right can help shift the Overton window leftward. Obama is trying to help facilitate this move.

I would argue that the Overton window is fairly inelastic among these groups regarding abortion and, to a lesser extent, gay rights. But refocusing religious agenda priorities to health care and poverty would be a major coup for progressives.

I think this can be done by Obama without concessions on abortion and gay rights. His message to them is “You know I don’t stand with you on choice and gay rights, but we can find a common ground to work together on other issues.”

So, this meeting becomes a question of whether its ok to be diplomatic with anti-gay bigots and lifers to reach progressive end in other areas… or whether these groups need to be ostracized completely from the Democratic party. Cello nails this point, and I agree with him/her. We would all be very lonely if we just engaged with those 100% in agreement with us.

Side note to Amberglow, re: DADT. The post you link to hinges its entire “Obama is flimsy on DADT” argument on this excerpt (emphasis mine):

In a recent interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, Democrat Barack Obama stopped short of promising to lead the way for change, saying only that he can “reasonably see” a repeal of the current ban if elected president.

Wanna know what The Advocate’s question was?

Advocate interview:

If you were elected, what do you plan to do for the LGBT community — what can you reasonably get done?

Obama wasn’t reflecting soft support of a DADT repeal. He was reflecting the fucking question. Be careful you don’t fall so far behind, you think you’re ahead.

But what do they want in exchange?

That’s my problem. Obama has already shown some flimsy rhetoric when it comes to choice and LGBT rights, so if he is trying to get them to help with things like healthcare(big IF), what do they want in return(it is politics after all)?

If he had a long time established record of fighting for LGBT or repro rights, it would be different. But he doesn’t have that, he has a short term record of placing politically safe votes.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

What do they want?

Maybe relevence. I think much of the religious right is coming to realize that they have been a pawn of the Republican party - just a tool to use en route to enriching millionaires and billionaires (the only constituent that the party is truly loyal to). The establishment basically trashed them (via Huckabee) and showed a bit too much of their true colors.

Maybe opportunism. The winds are definitely blowing to the left.

Maybe salvation. Perhaps their souls need saving after complicitly supporting the party of unjust war, torture and other negligence of basic human needs. OK, maybe not.

Who knows? But you ain’t gonna find out without sitting down with them, are you?

he “Stopped short of promising” when it comes to our needs, but even without needing to be questioned, he promises the haters that faith will be a priority.

It’s reasonable to give us ENDA and to open the military to us—and to give us all the rights we are due.

Besides a certain morally casual attitude about reproductive choice and equal rights for LGBT:

Money.

And I believe that, for the most part, we can facilitate the excellent work that’s done by faith-based institutions when it comes to substance abuse treatment or prison ministries…. I think much of this work can be done in a way that doesn’t conflict with church and state.

He can offer to continue giving Federal money to church organizations, and all the nastiness that flows from that, like allowing government contractors to discriminate in hiring practices.

Amber: “Stopped short of promising” was a characterization of the AP article, based on the “reasonable” quote, ignoring the context of the question. Its not evidence; its shoddy reporting. “Reasonable” in Obama’s answer modified the chances of legislative sucess - not the legitimacy of the policies. I don’t think the characterizations of Obama’s remark/position in the riverdaughter post or AP article are intellectually honest.

Cenobite: From your link:

Rather, the problem with Bush’s approach is that he identified safeguards in the system, and eliminated them. It led to an initiative in which made it easy for religious groups to proselytize with public funds.
Obama’s approach — which I’d like to hear him emphasize a little more often — would seem to return to the model that was in place before Bush took office: faith-based groups are eligible to compete for government contracts, as they have been for years, but only while “maintaining” the separation of church and state, and while preventing ministries from proselytizing while performing a state-sponsored public service.

While the merits of gov’t sponsored faith-based programs are debatable, I don’t think Obama’s position poses a serious threat to separation of church and state. But you do have a point on money. Certainly a potential goal of the religious groups.

Morally casual on reproductive choice? Seriously?

Morally casual on reproductive choice? Seriously?

Would have voted to confirm Justice Roberts until it was pointed out to him that it would be a bad idea politically.

Not because Justice Roberts was a foe of reproductive choice and should be opposed on those grounds. So yeah, his support is pretty casual.

don’t exactly paint a picture of moral courage.

I am looking at every other act of political cowardice he has committed.

As much as people may have disagreed with a lot of Clinton’s votes, she rarely ducked one, because it would hurt her political chances later.

You also pointed some of his advisors in another thread about this topic, and I’ll respond a few of my thoughts here.

One of his advisors talks about how the courts are there to protect the powerless, a concept I agree with, until I remember the powerless helpless baby rhetoric of the forced birth community. Rhetoric Obama has only been too happy to poach for his campaign.

That’s why many of us don’t trust him. The battle of repro rights has been won and lost because of language. When the language was how many women admitting that they had abortions, even when it was illegal, Repro rights won. When the language changed to the poor defenseless babies, the forced birthers won. He uses their language, and we know that helps them win. He wants our trust, he needs to use our language.

UPDATE: Also, What Melissa Said. They haven’t been protecting our rights, regardless, WTF does Roe matter.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!