Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Inside Obama's Christian Crusade

By Max Blumenthal, TheNation.com. Posted July 2, 2008.


Obama has made a major effort to woo evangelicals, but at what cost to church-state separation?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Max Blumenthal

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg



On June 10, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama convened a meeting in a law office in downtown Chicago with a wide array of about thirty evangelical leaders, in an unprecedented effort to win their support. Obama insisted that the meeting remain entirely off the record, forbidding participants from disclosing his statements to the press. His campaign has kept the names of attendees a closely guarded secret. But through interviews with participants and overlooked statements in obscure publications of the Christian press, a first-hand picture of the meeting emerges, starkly at odds with the news reports that accepted the formal version at face value.

News accounts about the meeting stated that Obama impressed his audience with his sincerity, depth of theological knowledge and communication skills. But according to those present, he did little to assuage the hostility that many of the assembled -- particularly the conservative white evangelicals -- harbor toward him and his liberal positions on social issues. Those differences reached a crescendo when the Rev. Franklin Graham directly confronted Obama about his supposedly Muslim background and Christian authenticity.




Franklin Graham, son of the evangelical icon Billy Graham and head of the international Christian aid organization Samaritan's Purse, was seated next to Obama at the meeting. He peppered Obama with pointed questions, repeatedly demanding to know if the senator believed that "Jesus was the way to God or merely a way." Graham, who once incited an international controversy by calling Islam a "very evil and wicked religion," proceeded to inquire about the Muslim faith of Obama's father, suggesting that Obama himself may be a Muslim.



"They focused on abortion, gay marriage, and then Franklin Graham tried to get Senator Obama saved," said Rev. Eugene Rivers, an African-American pastor from Boston who attended the meeting. Rivers told the Religion News Service that Graham pointedly questioned Obama's "father's connections to Islam." Obama reportedly said of his father, "The least of things he was was Islamic."




Graham's spokesman, Mark DeMoss, denies that Graham asked Obama about his father's Muslim faith. DeMoss did, however, confirm that Graham questioned whether the candidate believed Jesus was the only way to Heaven. "Jesus is the only way for me. I'm not in a position to judge other people," Obama responded, according to Rivers.



Stephen Strang, a right-wing Pentecostal, was among those invited to Obama's meeting. He is the multimillionaire publisher of Charisma, an evangelical magazine, and a signatory of the World Evangelical Alliance statement urging evangelization of Jews. In naming him one of the twenty-five "most influential evangelicals in America," Time called Strang "a Bush favorite ever since his homegrown Christian publishing house, Strang Communications, released The Faith of George W. Bush, the first spiritual biography of the President, in 2003." "We didn't write it to help Bush, but it no doubt helped elect him," declares Strang. He is also a close associate of controversial End Times theology proponent Pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain recently rejected after a firestorm of criticism. Strang is a member of the board of Hagee's organization, Christians United For Israel, and a publisher of Hagee's book on Israel. Strang told me that several participants, not just Graham, expressed concern about the Muslim background of certain Obama family members. Obama replied that he had hardly known his father, who left his family when Obama was 2, and he sought to downplay the notion that his stepfather, an Indonesian Muslim, was active in his faith. "I remember [Obama] saying, 'We never went to the mosque when we lived in Indonesia,' " Strang said.



Strang told me that as the meeting drew to a close, one evangelical leader who supported Obama ("a friend" Strang refused to name) stood and "lectured" the other attendees about the faith of Obama's opponent, Republican Senator John McCain. The pro-Obama preacher railed about McCain's divorce as evidence of his lack of religious commitment, and added that McCain has demonstrated discomfort with public expressions of faith. "He also said that McCain swore on the Senate floor," Strang recounted. "He seemed to be saying that if Christians can support a flawed candidate like McCain, the implication was, why couldn't they support a candidate with flawed policies like Obama?"



Strang recalled that Obama did not rebuke the minister for his personal and pointed remarks about McCain. Instead, according to Strang, Obama simply smiled and said he would not make any attempt to undermine his opponent's faith.




Strang said he found Obama's outreach to evangelicals refreshing. "Obama was very clear that he wanted to involve people of faith in the process and he seemed to say that he would be inviting people like this to the White House," said Strang, who was invited twice to the White House by George W. Bush and once by his father. "He was very sincere and I think he scored some points." But Strang was not persuaded. He is a strong supporter of McCain. "I support him 99 percent. How I vote is based on whether the candidate is for or against life, period," Strang said. Nonetheless, he is publishing in August, in time for the Democratic convention, a new book, The Faith of Barack Obama, by Stephen Mansfield, the author of The Faith of George W. Bush.






Besides Strang, Graham and Rivers, attendees at the meeting included conservative Christianity Today editor David Neff, Evangelical Lutheran Church President Mark Hanson, conservative legal scholar and Reagan Justice Department official Doug Kmiec -- who has been denied communion for his support for Obama -- and T.D. Jakes, the Dallas-based African-American Pentecostal mega-church pastor who has supplanted the black church's traditional social justice teachings with "prosperity gospel" theology, preaching faith as the way to the promised land of wealth and status.




"I'm not against marching," Jakes told PBS in 2007. "But in the '60s, the challenge of the black church was to march. And there are times now perhaps that we may need to march. But there's more facing us than social justice. There's personal responsibility, motivating and equipping people to live the best lives that they can."



"Obama is said to consult Jakes on a weekly basis and called him a 'role model' of a Christian who puts his faith into social action," Sarah Posner reported in her book, God's Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters.




Another influential African-American prosperity gospel pastor, Kirbyjon Caldwell, attended the June 10 meeting with Obama. "It is unscriptural not to own land," the preacher has declared. Caldwell, a former bond dealer who founded the country's largest Methodist congregation, the Houston-based Windsor Village, has been among George W. Bush's most vocal and visible black backers. He introduced Bush at the 2000 Republican National Convention, delivered the benedictions at his 2001 and 2005 inaugural ceremonies and presided over the wedding ceremony of Jenna Bush. Bush has rewarded Caldwell's good works by lavishing his missions with federal faith-based grants.






But almost as soon as Obama declared his campaign for the presidency, Caldwell broke from the GOP, delivering a roaring endorsement for the Democrat from Illinois, hailing him for his "character, confidence and courage." "For the last twelve months, I've been talking to people who are part of the [Obama] campaign very, very regularly," Caldwell said recently.




Caldwell's endorsement did not come without controversy. Just days after Obama delivered a speech criticizing homophobia in the black church, some gay bloggers revealed that Caldwell's own Windsor Village church hosted a ministry that, according to its website, was "created to provide Christ centered instruction for those seeking freedom from homosexuality." Caldwell denied any knowledge of the ministry, though he refused to condemn it. Yet when the revelation spread from the blogosphere to the mainstream media, and proof surfaced that the ministry was an integral component of Windsor Village, Caldwell's congregation scrubbed all mention of it from its website.






Behind Obama's religious outreach effort is a group of avowedly Christian political consultants who insist that white evangelicals can be persuaded to vote Democratic if candidates overtly display their religiosity. Among these consultants is Obama campaign aide Joshua DuBois, an African-American lay minister who organized his candidate's recent meeting with evangelical leaders. DuBois himself has sidestepped questions about Obama's pro-choice politics and support for same-sex civil unions. As a paid member of the candidate's staff, DuBois has refused to state his own position on abortion. Instead, he emphasizes the appeal of the senator's social gospel message.




"There are folks who are concerned about abortion, they're concerned about gay marriage," DuBois told David Brody, a reporter for Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, "but at the same time, they're concerned about health care, they're concerned about poverty, they're concerned about the war in Iraq. So I wouldn't necessarily put [Christian voters] into the two camps like that."






Mara Vanderslice has been called the "faith guru" by The Hill in Washington, DC. Her consulting firm, Common Good Strategies, recently formed a political action committee, the Matthew 25 Network, to advocate on Obama's behalf. In the past, Vanderslice has advised her clients not only to downplay their support for abortion rights and gay rights but also never to use the phrase "separation of church and state." Hired by Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, she ultimately found herself sidelined. "She was a little bit overzealous," the late Father Robert Drinan, a liberal Catholic legend and Kerry adviser, told the New York Times. Vanderslice claimed results two years later in the Congressional midterms. Her clients, she said, citing exit polling, garnered 10 percent more of the evangelical vote than two years before. Whether Democratic gains among so-called "values voters" were a result of Vanderslice's inspired appeals, or simply a reflection of the nationwide backlash against the Republican Congress and Bush's policies, does not deter her from taking credit.






As Obama has emerged, he has embraced Vanderslice's tactics. In 2006, during a speech before the Call to Renewal conference, a gathering of moderate evangelicals convened by Rev. Jim Wallis, Obama sought to break with Democratic orthodoxy by attacking unnamed "secularists." "But what I am suggesting is this -- secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square," Obama declared. "Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."



Obama tries to present himself as a breed apart from other Democrats, like Kerry -- a liberal Catholic who was uncomfortable trumpeting his religion like an evangelical. He hopes his sermonizing before audiences such as Call To Renewal will provide reasons for the Christian right to abandon its hostility to the Democrats and rally to him.


The Backlash Builds






In mid-June, Obama's aide Joshua DuBois called Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for the Christian-right mega-ministry Focus on the Family, to request a meeting at Focus headquarters in Colorado Springs. Minnery is the top political adviser to James Dobson, founder and CEO of Focus on the Family, far and away the most influential leader of the Christian right. DuBois's request for a meeting with Dobson was apparently not freelancing but approved by the highest level of the Obama campaign and encouraged by his new religious consultants.



There are few less conciliatory and more divisive figures in American political life than James Dobson. He has vowed never to vote for a politician who does not oppose all forms of abortion, and has attacked conservative Republican lawmakers for making even the slightest compromises on social issues. Through his daily radio broadcast -- the third most popular program in the United States -- Dobson has likened stem cell research to Nazi experiments, equated the Supreme Court with the Ku Klux Klan and warned that gay marriage will lead to "marriage between daddies and little girls.... between a man and his donkey." Dobson has never exhibited any sign that he would moderate his draconian stands or partisan attacks.



DuBois's entreaty to Dobson was surprising in light of Obama's harsh criticism of the Focus leader. In his 2006 Call to Renewal speech, Obama compared Dobson to the Rev. Al Sharpton, another polarizing figure whom Dobson has publicly attacked. "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama proclaimed. "And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?"




That statement provided the basis for a red-faced radio tirade by Dobson on June 24 -- only days after Minnery fielded DuBois's meeting request. With Minnery seated at his side during his broadcast, Dobson lashed out at Obama, questioning the sincerity of his Christian convictions and accusing him of offering a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution. "I think [Obama's] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson fumed. "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."




The same day, in Tupelo, Mississippi, the far-right Rev. Don Wildmon echoed his ally Dobson's attacks. From the studios of the American Family Association's radio outlet, Wildmon homed in on Obama's declaration that America is "no longer just a Christian nation." "Go back to Rodney King -- can't we all get along?" Wildmon drawled sarcastically, referring to the black man whose beating by Los Angeles cops provoked citywide riots in 1992. "This is where [Obama's] coming from."






That afternoon, another close Dobson ally, Gary Bauer, an evangelical presidential candidate for the Republican nomination in 2000, fired off an e-mail promoting Dobson's broadcast. "Anyone who takes his or her faith seriously should be deeply concerned about the possible election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States," Bauer wrote. "Obama is ... the most proabortion candidate for president the Democrats have ever nominated."




Since McCain distanced himself from right-wing pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley, Bauer has emerged as McCain's most influential Christian- right backer. Dobson, for his part, remains suspicious of the insufficiently antigay Arizona senator, who has criticized the religious right in the past. Bauer's now daily e-mail blasts invariably contain appeals on McCain's behalf. In his attack on Obama, Bauer declared, "There is only one candidate who can prevent [Obama] from becoming president. That candidate is John McCain, who yesterday at California State University at Fresno once again attacked Barack Obama's proabortion extremism."




The timing of the Christian right's wave of attacks on Obama suggests movement-wide coordination. Dobson, Wildmon and Bauer are leading members of the Arlington Group, a weekly conference that brings together most of the major Christian-right outfits to devise political strategy. Their barrage against Obama was only an opening volley. As their campaign intensifies, the Arlington Group is likely to tighten its coordination, targeting the movement's message on Obama's character.



The Obama campaign's effort to neutralize Dobson has swiftly turned into open warfare. Within hours of Dobson's broadcast, a website appeared called "James Dobson Doesn't Speak For Me," featuring point-by-point refutations of his denunciation. Originally registered by Alyssa Martin, an Obama campaign intern working directly under DuBois, the registration was quietly transfered to Caldwell, the erstwhile Bush supporter now identified on the site as the de facto leaderof a "coalition of pastors" supporting Obama. Meanwhile, Vanderslice has begun raising money to buy ads in Colorado Springs (the home of Focus on the Family) highlighting Dobson's record of extreme statements.



While Obama is working to cut into the GOP's evangelical base, McCain is quietly touring the country, meeting with Christian leaders. On June 27, McCain met with Dobson's point man in Ohio, Phil Burress. "We realized that he's with us on the majority of the issues we care about," Burress said afterward. Three days later, McCain was off to the mountaintop retreat of the Graham family, where he met with both Franklin and Billy. If a

Washington Post/ABC News poll taken in June is any indication, McCain has cause for confidence; he trounced Obama among white evangelical voters by a margin of 68 to 22 percent. But there remains a question of turnout for McCain .




"McCain won't have any trouble convincing evangelicals he's on their side," Warren Smith, the editor of Evangelical Press News Service, says. "The only reason they're holding back their support is to see how much they can get out of him."



For the Obama campaign, there may be little to lose by plumping for conservative Christian votes. As Smith remarked to me, "If Obama can't make any inroads with these [evangelical] folks, at least he can say he tried, which allows him to at least create the illusion of new politics. If he can do some good with them, well, great."



With little to lose and everything to gain, Obama has lifted high the cross. But are there invisible strings attached? In victory, his newfound God squad may also want to see how much faith-based benefit they might get out of him. Already, Obama has pledged to reauthorize Bush's faith-based initiative through his new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "It will be a critical part of my Administration," he has vowed. But Obama should know by now that pastors can have their own agendas, too.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: evangelicals, barack obama

Max Blumenthal is a Puffin Foundation writing fellow at the Nation Institute based in New York City. His work has appeared in The Nation, Salon, The American Prospect and the Washington Monthly. He is a research fellow for Media Matters for America.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Obama's Dangerous Game
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jul 2, 2008 1:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is playing political Russian roulette with his new, Clintoneque triangulation. With his right wing stands on this issue, as well as the death penalty and hawkish foreign policy pronouncements, he risks alienating his progressive base. He and his advisers think we have no one else for whom to vote, but we have two other choices: Nader and nobody. Many progressives and young voters might just be so disgusted they will stay home.

Will he gain votes from McCain? Unlikely, because on the two issues that matter most to them, abortion and gay rights, he's not in line with them.

In any case, the issues that matter most to the American people as a whole, the economy, the war, energy prices, health care and the environment, are the ones Obama should be discussing. He's much more in the mainstream than McCain on all of them.

Obama presents himself as the candidate of change, but the more he relies on the advice of Washington insiders and panders to the lunatic fringe, trashing important parts of the First, Fourth and Eighth Amendments, the more he alienates those who have supported him and cools our enthusiasm. It's a dangerous game for him, and for our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama's Dangerous Game Posted by: StillStanding
» RE: Obama's Dangerous Game Posted by: mnascimento
» RE: Obama's Dangerous Game Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Obama's Dangerous Game Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» Obama is not triangulating, he is zeroing in Posted by: Libertarian Paternalist
» Tom Bradley II ??? Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Obama's Dangerous Game Posted by: wwsword
Pastor Obama????
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 2, 2008 2:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somehow Carter got the evangelicals to help him win the election - although he was and is a "preacher". I tend to shy away from politicians that champion the causes of religion. They should make an environment suitable for them to champion their own causes.

This might at least show the public he isn't a muslim once and for all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pastor Obama???? Posted by: kungfuma
» RE: Pastor Obama???? Posted by: carbon-based
I Give Up!
Posted by: GriGri on Jul 2, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great. We're just about to get rid of a sociopath who courted the religious right only to elect an opportunist, or worse, a zealot. During the primaries I campaigned for Senator Obama. Well, I freely admit it: I am a Class-A dupe. I'm following Richard Pryor's advice and voting None of the Above come November! And I could care less what anyone rates this comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Give Up! Posted by: Erin
» RE: I Give Up! Posted by: kungfuma
» RE: I Give Up! Posted by: kungfuma
» Correction.. Posted by: carbon-based
» Yes daddy! n/m Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Correction.. Posted by: opalescentscales
» RE: Correction.. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Correction.. Posted by: ranchero42
» RE: I Give Up! Posted by: opalescentscales
Hilarious
Posted by: kenhymes on Jul 2, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the InterLeft remakes a guy who never claimed to be anything but a free market centrist into a progresive. Then, everyone cries foul when he finally ges a chance to speak at length on his policy agenda, which by the way has been sitting on his website for anyone to read all along.

I have nothing against Obama. I think he's a decent guy, who's done a fair amount of local advocacy, and his platform, while full of things I disagree with, is light-years better than either McCain's or the nightmare of ignorance we've been living through for eight years. Many on the left seem to think that unless he's magically delicious, better than F.D.R., we should all hunt him down with pitchforks. Has no one ever heard of politics? It's a big country, any national candidate is always going to be a compromise.

The place to work on uncompromising progressivism is in your own town, in your own state if you're lucky. That's where change makes the biggest difference for struggling people anyway. It's always been the best model for the left, and that work has national repercussions. But the left is totally dreaming if it thinks that at anytime soon there's going to be a national party or candidate that mirrors the politics and social values of local change organizations and activists. I'll settle for habeas corpus and a draw down of the troops, and generally a lack of active destruction of every hopeful thing about the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hilarious Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Hilarious Posted by: opalescentscales
» RE: Hilarious Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Hilarious Posted by: meranting
Obamarama3
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Jul 2, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This guy has no clue. If he is groping for issues to bond him to the American voters, try: unlawful war in Iraq; shattered economy; devalued dollar; inflation; gas prices; food prices; unemployment; foreclosures; homelessness; lack of healthcare; despair; division; hatred and no consensus on any matter of concern to working Americans and their families. What the hell is it going to take to get the Dipocrits to wake up and nominate Dennis Kucinich despite the primaries and post-primaries pandering that dominates Obamarama? And where might I add do these sub rosa "evangelicals" [I prefer who gives a damn assholes] stand on any of the foregoing issues or is it the usual: inerrant word; Jesus is the way; what would Jesus do; Ten Commandments; gaybashing; racial division and faith-based federal programming. Compared to these hucksters, Obama included, anything other than their form of "Christianity" looks like a better alternative, particularly when we know that their "God" is blowing in the ears of the "born again" psychopath George W. Bush.

Hey shamalamma, obamarama....where's Rev. Wright when he is so needed to square up this drifter.

Only Obama and the Dipocrits could snatch defeat from a dead certain victory in November but it is happening folks and not even Bob Barr can stem the tide of defeat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O'same? there's some difference in the details
Posted by: Richard House on Jul 2, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's stand on faith-based initiatives has a big difference from Bush's stance.

Obama said. "Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs." If the churches don't like this they don't have to take the money.

What's really disappointing is Obama's support on granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

change on faith
Posted by: Quasar on Jul 2, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Obama that government can't do everything and that faith-based orgs can have a greater role addressing things like poverty, homelessness, teen pregnancy, drug abuse etc. I work for non-profit, community-based orgs but know of many in the faith-based community who already do an awful lot of "good works" and I have worked with many devout Christians who also work for community-based non-profits. So I understand what Obama is trying to do by saying that Christians need to walk the walk. And I get that this country is largely a country of Christians - good or bad - and that this initiative can only help sway those folks to his side.

What I don't get is that Bush's faith-based initiative is a sham; a conduit to channel federal dollars to his religious right wing supporters like Pat Robertson and therefore is not the template Obama should be looking at no matter how much he is going to "change" it.

He needs an entirely different template, one that does not include tax dollars.

Nor do I agree with his rationalization for maintaining the separation between church and state; because I don't see how you can make federal tax dollars available to faith-based orgs and then tell them not to be faith-based in how they use those dollars. The genius of the separation is that it allows religious people to practice their faith without interference from the gov't. Seems simple enough.

Finally, community-based non-profits who already provide most of the core social services for lower-income populations in communities across the country have a hard enough time raising the money they need just to keep the lights on. They need more dollars, more capacity, more networks: NOT more competition for already scarce dollars.

Obama's plan may sound righteous to some but it means more hard times for those that actually do the work that he intends to support. this plan will, in fact, undermine that work.

So this is what change looks like? Work with community-based non-profits senator not against them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama needs to reach out to non-religious right evangelicals
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 2, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the eighties and nineties, evangelicals who weren't interested in right-wing politics didn't have the resources or the organization to fight the right-wing televangelists. I think that there is a greater willingness on the part of these evangelicals today to openly combat the Republican operatives in their midsts. Examples of this include the National Association of Evangelicals assertion that climate change and poverty are moral issues that Christians must address, the outspokenness of high profile megachurch pastors like Rick Warren on these kinds of issues, and the inability of fundamentalists to crush personalities and movements within the evangelical world that seek to redefine evangelical theology in more enlightened terms (for example, Brian McLaren and the emerging church movement).

Obama can never win the James Dobsons and Franklin Grahams (whose apple, tragically, has fallen far from his wiser father's tree) - but if he can get the backing of folks like Warren and the NAE, he can smash the hold that the religious right has on the evangelical world (which is 26% of Americans, after all) and put the final nails in their coffin.

Some astute adviser to Obama who is able to distinguish the various shades of evangelicals needs to make this Obama's strategy, if it ain't already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does Anybody Recall These Statements?
Posted by: Roger Király on Jul 2, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Article VI of the US Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6:5-6

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Does Anybody Recall These Statements? Posted by: opalescentscales
» RE: No. Posted by: Longdream
whats really disappointing
Posted by: kungfuma on Jul 2, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is Obamas stand on equality. Equality is Equality period otherwise... you guessed it:It AINT equality Obama! Equality is at the base of every issue and this country is painfully infantile in its' progress.
America home of the free and the brave-what a joke. Home of the homophobic xenophobic war cowards

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just not my tax dollars !
Posted by: rafey on Jul 2, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am all for it, so long as my tax dollars are not involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How disappointing
Posted by: sawdust on Jul 2, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My enthusiasm for, hope once surrounding and confidence in this Obama guy has fizzled out competelely in the last 72 hours. He has wobbly knees on Iraq, waffled on FISA and now is coddling the Evangelicals.

The religious right, which has been sucked up to and used flagrantly by the Bush and Reagan administrations, is a poison pill. It has infiltrated and insidiously embedded itself in the very fabric of our culture and society. It has biased our thinking, cheapened our morals, corrupted our ethics and left ugly stains of ambivalence and bigotry on Democracy.

I'm voting Green or Libertarian or something else that I can feel good about. It looks like my vote will be thrown away, anyway, so I may as well throw it somewhere where it makes me feel at least slightly and temporarily happy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How disappointing Posted by: opalescentscales
Why do Obama-bots think that Obama's appeasement of the right will end
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jul 2, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
once he is elected?

Wouldn't he need to appease the right once in office in order to 'govern' effectively?

Wouldn't he need to appease the right to get reelected?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

appeasement
Posted by: kungfuma on Jul 2, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wasnt he criticized recently by the right for being an appeaser?appeasement to the left,appeasement to the right, do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around THAT'S what its all about

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: appeasement? Posted by: Longdream
Has anybody actually read his speech
Posted by: masterofbadenglish on Jul 2, 2008 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are some excerpts:

"You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who've come together around a common faith, they're usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they're particularly well-placed to offer help. As I've said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together - Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike - to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square. But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups. President Clinton signed legislation that opened the door for faith-based groups to play a role in a number of areas, including helping people move from welfare to work. Al Gore proposed a partnership between Washington and faith-based groups to provide more support for the least of these. And President Bush came into office with a promise to "rally the armies of compassion," establishing a new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

But what we saw instead was that the Office never fulfilled its promise. Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded. Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests. As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed.

Well, I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership - not a photo-op. That's what it will be when I'm President. I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart - it will be a critical part of my administration.

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

Well, that will change when I'm President. I will empower the nonprofit religious and community groups that do understand how this process works to train the thousands of groups that don't. We'll "train the trainers" by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services and secular nonprofits like Public/Private Ventures the support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs. Every house of worship that wants to run an effective program and that's willing to abide by our constitution - from the largest mega-churches and synagogues to the smallest store-front churches and mosques - can and will have access to the information and support they need to run that program.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Has anybody actually read his speech Posted by: masterofbadenglish
» RE: Wiccan Social Services Posted by: C-Dawg
» RE: Wiccan Social Services Posted by: Crazy H
Guilt by Association, Again
Posted by: C-Dawg on Jul 2, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not enough that the asinine, pandering, superficial mainstream media use the guilt-by-association tactic at every opportunity (see: Rev. Wright fiasco), now AlterNet is weighing in.

Read my lips: I don't care if Obama meets with Mahmoud Ahmadinajab or James Dobson--talking and listening don't connote endorsement. So what if people of every evangelical stripe are present? So what if you can dig up all manner of crap on those in attendance? Obama has already said he would meet with everybody--even enemies. Enough with the conspiratorial, nefarious castigating of perceived motives. Obama's responses to the people at this function are definitely better than I would have managed.

What matters is what Obama does with the talks. I'm not for Obama's recent AIPAC stance nor the Supreme Court rape case commentary--those disappoint me--but I also recognize that voting maturity is much like employment maturity: I don't like everything about my job; I still show up for work. And while there I work to improve my environment.

Brilliant and flawed, Barack Obama is still by far our best option available. Those who advocate staying home in November or voting "none of the above" are making their point, but it's a thumb-sucking point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: just one "speciment" Posted by: C-Dawg
» RE: can't refute the facts? Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: Nope, you can't. Posted by: Longdream
ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jul 2, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does this look familiar/?
Why does he have to co opt the republican agenda to get elected.?Like Clinton Obama is becoming more Republican each day to win votes.At least with MC Cain you know what he is up to up front. No good.Why on earth would he OK the immunity provision of the wire tap laws? What kind of progressive is he anyway, unbelievable!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Have Got To Be Kidding
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Jul 2, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know that I am one of those stupid Americans that another article on this web site complains about. Help me out here. Senator Obama had to throw Reverend Wright under the bus because he had his own opinions. And yet now, he secretly (or not so secretly) convenes with Franklin Graham (cracker) spiritual advisor to born again Bush? This only serves to prove that organized religion is nothing but reckless evil nonsense, that the Illinois Senator chooses to embrace, revealing he is certainly not as intelligent as many claim him to be. So this was a secret meeting eh, off the blooming record so to speak. Apparently Obama's call for transparency has also been thrown under the bus. To paraphrase William Faulkner: American Politics, don't you just love it? It is better than Ben Hur.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guilt by association is a cheap shot
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 2, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Obama addressed the reactionary religious right. Of course he did. No one gets to be president (and working hard at that is necessary) without presenting oneself as all things to all people. We live in a democracy, for pete's aake, where presidents are bought and sold just like chewing gum.

I could have found this article helpful if the journalist had made some effort to make some connections. I could have found this article honest if the writer had told us that no connections can be documented. Association is not a connection, except for the mentally lazy. You know: like those who condemn someone because they don't approve of his relatives or his pastor. What a contagion of idiots! Makes opinion easy to arrive at, however. And keeping it easy is what both the author of this piece and the leaders commented upon do best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Observer
Posted by: Harbans on Jul 2, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is trying to put all the eggas in his basket.
He is a man of all seasons.
He can sing any song, that you like.

He makes different statements, because he foorgets old ones. Wonder, if his memory span is too short.
Now he is planning to run Bush's third term -- starting with faith based initiative(?); watch what else is he going to pick up from Bush basket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Faulty Observer Posted by: Longdream
Keep politics out of religion
Posted by: HughScott on Jul 2, 2008 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several faith-based charities in my community that do good work but are underfunded by the federal goverment because they are associated with the Catholic Church instead of evangelical congregations.

Will Obama change that? I believe so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bull-pucky Posted by: Jasonix
Fundamental flaw
Posted by: crazy carlos on Jul 2, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Obama, you are risking your core supporters to gain nothing that the rah-rah right wing preachers can or will deliver. The old addage comes to mind: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" (pun intended). You have made a major league blunder. You have "table" issues comming out your ears and you are fucking around with nitwits carrying around dynimite to blow you up with. DUMB!
Crazy Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion Is Big Business
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jul 2, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I despair at the influence, financial resources and power that religion wields over US government. Religion has become big business in this country. It's easy to sell people on the idea that God and the Bible have all the answers and that you should place yourself in the hands of religious leaders and churches. When times are bad and there is a scary world out there, people turn their individual responsiblity over to a higher power. Religion and churches supply easy answers and discourage critical thinking, facts, analyis, and objectivity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion Is Big Business Posted by: sawdust
» RE: check this out Posted by: solrev
» RE: check this out Posted by: Sojourner
Pandering
Posted by: solrev on Jul 2, 2008 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can understand Obama pandering to evangelicals about his personal beliefs trying to establish his true character, however when he starts flip flopping on policy one needs to worry. He begins to look more and more like a typical forked tongue Illinois politician. The one thing I liked about him was his approach to foreign policy, now I am not so sure. The FISA vote is a little disheartening also. Maybe he is just trying to project strength in the grand war on terrorism, which means to me he has bought into the grand war and is just another snake in the grass. Even though I would have never walked across the street to vote for someone who chants about special interests and health insurance in the same speech, I had the audacity to hope. The health insurance lobby already owns him and he is going to fill their pockets with my money, welcome to the revolution of 2012.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is all part of Obama's core strategy against McCain
Posted by: PaulC on Jul 2, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This morning I listened to an NPR piece comparing Obama and McCain on their ability to be "bipartisan" and a light went off in my head - I finally understood what Obama is up to with his courting of the right of late.

The NPR piece was trying to reach a conclusion regarding which candidate was better qualified to be President based upon his ability to be bipartisan and "get things done".

McCain's only perceived advantage over Obama is his alleged "experience", yet that actually can have a negative connotation regarding being a Washington insider. McCain has to turn this into something valuable, and the tact he will adopt is that he has demonstrated the ability to reach across the aisle while Obama only promises to do so.

Indeed, the NPR correspondent gave it to McCain that he was a "maverick" - did not even question if that were true or what his actual voting record might be.

Did anyone read the recent Alternet piece by Ari Berman "McCain the reformer? You've got to be joking"? It took Berman 4 long pages of analysis to expose McCain as a fraud. No one in the media is going to go to this level of analysis to make the same determination when everyone else is simply assuming it is so.

So that leaves Obama twisting in the wind as an unexperienced leader figure potentially unable to unite as he claims a divided nation. This is to become McCain's central campaign theme and they will hit it very very hard in the coming months.

Obama's astute campaign team see this coming and are desperately seeking ways to reach across the aisle and across the political spectrum to quickly establish his credentials in this area before McCain's team can paint him into a corner and crush him in the media.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is what is happening with this recent spate of instances where Obama is reaching out to the right, even the far right if only to say he has tried.

This is a brilliant tactical move on his part and really shines a light on the difference between the political acumen of Obama versus the likes of Kerry and Dukakis. You have to get elected to do anything, and getting elected in a country with hate radio and 30 second soundbites the norm requires the ability to react strongly at a moment's notice to the attacks of your opponent.

Obama's campaign was roundly praised for a near flawless effort against a superiorly positioned opponent in Hillary Clinton. He even broke new ground in his effective use of the internet to mobilize and raise funds at a grassroots level.

What we are seeing now is simply a continuation of this very skilled politician making his way toward the White House. Anyone who believes he has this sewn up already and that he need not run a tight, responsive campaign is simply fooling themselves about how difficult this campaign is going to be. I recall reading a few months ago that non-party affiliated right wing groups have on the order of $250 million in hand already to wage gutter level warfare against Obama. Thank goodness he is no succer and is primed to act pro-actively when necessary to avert another Kerry-like swiftboating.


peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Change and trust Posted by: Quasar
» RE: Change and trust Posted by: Longdream
You got what you asked for
Posted by: Kym525 on Jul 2, 2008 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All during the primaries I heard many pundits, both conservative and progressive say that Obama needed to "tailor" his message so that ALL AMERICANS would understand where he was coming from. I read comment after comment on every thread her in alternet complaining about how Obama needed to "relate better" to the so-called "hard-working white" voter. There were a few of us Obama supporters who vigorously attacked such nonsense and believed his message was indeed getting through, and that there were just some folks who cared more about his skin color and his reverend than the issues.

Now, you all have your wish. He's gone directly towards the middle, trying to appeal to that voting group and you're all complaining. After all, now he's doing exactly what so many of you said he DIDN'T do before. He's reaching out and courting that all-important "hard-working, church-going" vote--in spite of the fact that most of them are going to vote for McCain anyway.

By the way, I agree with him wholeheartedly about the death penalty for child rape, and if you ever looked at his record, he has always been for stringent laws for molestation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You got what you asked for Posted by: YogiBear
Don't worry - it's not for real
Posted by: PGR88 on Jul 2, 2008 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is typically running to the center in the General Election. His contacts with "evangelicals" means nothing.

Also - expect Obama to soon come out with a new, legalistic Iraq position, as part of this re-creation of his image for the general election. There will be no pull-out and no timeline. Watch and see. what will his kool-aid minions say then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HAVEN'T WE ALL HAD ENOUGH OF THIS
Posted by: Quannah on Jul 2, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion blended with Politics over the past 8 years???

Hey Obama... ENOUGH ALREADY!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kowtowing to Extremists
Posted by: munchkinpup on Jul 2, 2008 5:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"In 2006, during a speech before the Call to Renewal conference, a gathering of moderate evangelicals convened by Rev. Jim Wallis, Obama sought to break with Democratic orthodoxy by attacking unnamed "secularists." "But what I am suggesting is this -- secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square," Obama declared. "Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

This statement of Obama's from his 2006 speech is alarming enough on it's own. First of all, secularism IS important in maintaining the separation of church and state. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a presidential candidate who would actually manage to say that the separation of church and state is an important part of American democracy.
For several years, we have seen a tremendous increase in the amount of money and influence the religious right has been allowed to exert over our government. And now we are seeing the end result of what happens when church/state separation is ignored.
I also noticed that none of the so called "religious leaders" Obama met with were women. Do patriarchal religions such as Christianity speak for all women as well as men?
What of the religious diversity Obama once claimed was important? Obama must have changed his mind. He and his campaign consultants are catering to psychotic extremists--people like Dobson and Graham should be exposed for the misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic hucksters they most certainly are. These are people who do not believe in a just and diverse America, inclusive of all faiths or no faith at all. Theirs is a very private club, and diversity is unacceptable.
The sheer amount of money these "church leaders" have managed to accumulate over decades of peddling their intolerance and their extremism is obscene, but no doubt the glue that runs the Religious Right-Nut Express.
I and many others were hoping for someone who could stand up to these vicious and intolerant religious con artists, but Obama has chosen to lie down in the mud with the worst of them. Nothing good will ever come of kowtowing to extremists, no matter how much rationalizing Obama supporters provide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake up Obama-bots, the neoliberal hack known as Obama shifts position on Iraq
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jul 3, 2008 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
surprise: you have been had

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seperation?
Posted by: zorba1 on Jul 3, 2008 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No where in the Constitution or the bill of rights does it mention seperation of church and state.
As a matter of fact it does say that government shall not interfer with the free exercise of religion.
The intent of our founding fathers who where deeply religious, was that government shall not recognize one religion over another.
If this came before the present supreme court today the ruling of seperation would most likely be shot down.
Our country was founded by deeply religious people, read the articles of confederation, the constitution and the bill of rights to see for yourselves.
Every poll taken consistently shows 75%+ people in this country call themselves christians.
This will increase over time due to the huge influx of catholic Hispanics.
Most Hispanics as most Europeans are Democratic and deeply involved with the church.
By the US governments own estimates our country will be 50% Hispanic by 2050.
Everything is changing, all demographics, political stucture, schools, our entire culture.
As Chaka said "Nothing will ever be the same again".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Seperation? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Seperation? Posted by: zorba1
There's law and then there's rights
Posted by: YogiBear on Jul 3, 2008 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But what I am suggesting is this -- secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square," Obama declared. "Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

Laws may be, Barrack, but our Constitution is not. It's libertarian through and through and you should make a point of it when you make these anti-secular statements.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is there anything left of the Obama of 6 months ago?
Posted by: Romans1 on Jul 3, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that Barak Obama has backed off of his original Iraq position, is there anything left of his original positions? Is there anything he has not hedged on?

Most importanty, when was he lying, then, now or both?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What were they thinking?
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat on Jul 3, 2008 8:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A narcissist will seek flattery anywhere, everywhere. Was it not clear to people that Obama floated on a sea of adulation that swelled his ego to galaxian proportions? Well, he got his money. He got his delegates. Now he can do what he wants. A first-class cynic, Obama preyed upon people's good faith and good-heartedness, and then ... oh Christ, it hardly matters anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, come on, willya?
Posted by: Longdream on Jul 3, 2008 10:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cut out the scenery chewing. Get off that self-centered bandwagon you all need to climb up on because Obama, when he speaks about his plans, isn't saying what you expected to hear.

You don't need to take your damned pulse every time he opens his mouth, or get a migraine when he approaches people who think differently from the way you do, or from how HE thinks, for that matter. It's what he said he was going to do, and what he's good at--he's a consensus-builder. Consensus. That means we bring people from both sides together to get something we all can live with. Get it?

If the only way you can calm down is to keep repeating, "It's a strategy. It's only a strategy", then fine. You do that in lieu of thinking like an adult, and admitting the possibility that he's saying and doing what he feels is right, what will work, and what will help, even if it doesn't conform to anyone's agenda.

To me, that only shows strength, inner direction and integrity. But if you are addicted to your hysteria, then go with it. Keep it up.

We wouldn't want re-taking the White House to be too easy, would we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dream on... Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: Dream on... Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Minor bullshit Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Oh, come on, willya? Posted by: manderso
What's wrong with Being A MUSLIM
Posted by: Jangeen@netzero.net on Jul 4, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the writer of this article, the Rev. B. Graham was asking whether the father of Obama is a MUSLIM. Well, Of course he is! Is there anything wrong with being a MUSLIM, Christian, Budist, Hindu, Jewish, Free Mason or Rastaferian?

Rev. B.Graham.: Please know and understand that, all the Prophets sent to humanity from ALLAH (GOD All-Mighty) are MUSLIMS, and their religion (Message) is ISLAM (Submission, Obedience, Sincerity, in Peace) to the WILL of the ONE and ONLY CREATOR.

All the noble Prophets namely .: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Issac, David , Solomon Moses, Joseph, John the Baptist, Jesus (Esa) and MUHAMMAD (Peace be Upon them all) were MUSLIMS. In fact the mother of Jesus (Mary) was a MUSLIM she prayed just like the MUSLIMS. In the garden Jesus Prayed like the MUSLIMS, when asking the Father in Heaven (GOD ALL-MIGHTY)to Protect him from been crucified. We're told according to the bible that: he went a little further and FELL DOWN ON HIS FACE (making the SUJOOD) prostration. How could anyone make prostration to the ALL-MIGHTY without being a MUSLIM, Sir?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ugh! *shakes head*
Posted by: Starfall Deception on Jul 4, 2008 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more I hear about this guy, the more I'm disgusted. I supported Hillary in the primaries, but when Obama got the nomination, I was happy. I still thought he'd make a great president. Now, I'm not so sure. I want to say, come November, I'm not gonna vote for either McCain or Obama. But I think I'm still gonna vote for Obama. He is the lesser evil of the two.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Almost feeling sorry for Obama after this article
Posted by: Dboy on Jul 6, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He peppered Obama with pointed questions, repeatedly demanding to know if the senator believed that "Jesus was the way to God or merely a way." --interrogation of Obama by Billy Graham's son

Here's are the kind of dirt-bags that Obama has to put up with. The above quote/question is nothing but an intolerance test-- If you are a bigot, if you are ignorant, if you are intolerant (enough), if you agree with the worst type of christian in America, THEN you might get our support. For Obama to win he has to swim through the filth of people like Billy Graham's son to get there. The problem with America is *Americans*.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Jesus Is My Dirtbag Posted by: edith
jesus schmemus
Posted by: edith on Jul 6, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what a phony.

1. he's not an "african american" with a white mom who raised him in white communities for the most part and in Ivy League colleges. African daddy fled back to Kenya right after O's birth. Kenya's not an American community last time I checked.

2.The Wright bozoland church bills itself as a United Church of Christ church. As a Harvard/Columbia grad, O should have known this too was phony. UCC is a descendent of the Congregationalist churches of New England-highly intellectual and based on Puritan and then Transcendentalist principles. Not the "black liberation" voodoo of Wright that O and his allegedly highly educated waved whooped and whirled to for 20 years. UCC my derriere!

3. So now Jesus is his savior and will be "wright" there (ha ha) at the National Security meetings. Will Jesus tell him to push the button and nuke Iran if AIPAC pulls its strings on its Jesus-freak African American(so-called, as the late great Malcolm X might say).

4.Barry Hussein, you are about as much a Christian and African American as George W. Bush. You both deserve to sink to the lowest rungs of Hell. (Oops, I don't believe in Hell, but since presumably W and Barry Hussein do, maybe it'll give em a little tickle in the cajones.)

5. Vote for Barr. Vote for Nader. Don't vote.
This whole gaggle of pols and both "major" parties should be ignored, boycotted and treated as illegitimate as Mugabe's prison-camp regime.

6. Can we pass an amendment to the Constitution that excludes anyone who attended Harvard or Yale from any public office in the United States?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jesus schmemus Posted by: AuntBec
» RE: jesus schmemus Posted by: AuntBec
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement