I know he probably didn't say that, but this kind of thing seems over the top.

If you believed in God, you believed in Unicorns.  You believed in Santa Claus.  It was considered that one could define a psychological disorder by which one could be diagnosed.

Anyway.  Bottom line.  Atheists > Theists.

My guess is they have made a special case for Obama in this regard.

But the rest I'm beginning to think is to float idea after idea and see if it sticks.  Will the media/blogosphere pick it up?  Does it fly?  What kind of traction does it get?  More than just spin, it's product research.

I know this will sound slightly paranoid, but I think that's why TL gets dive-bombed with tpm every day.  I don't mean the regular posters who strongly argue their support.  But the ones who show up, throw out a bunch eerily similar memes and disappear.  

It's like there's no strong strategy because in this no-lose year, the plan was to coast to the GE.  

My first reaction to this article was 1) I have no idea about Evangelicals, whether this is likely or not; and 2) hasn't almost all the polling on Catholics shown they aren't big fans?  But now I think it's out there to see if people will pick it up and go with it, and maybe even to market-test whether more emphasis on religion will alienate pro-choice supporters or the reverse.

Can't the guy win on policy?  Certainly, he can't win on experience.

The Promised Land?  With Obama as what, the savior?  The One to lead us all out of the wilderness?

I guess I've never understood why there has to be an overt invocation of religion in order to attract voters who care about things like poverty and health care and oppression - isn't attention to those things, advocating to make the lives of those less fortunate better, working for justice and freedom, in and of itself appealing enough that we have to make it about faith and religion?

Are we working on building a party and doing the right things because they are the right things, or is there a movement being built that centers around one particular person?

As others have noted above, there has been some non-trivial movement within the evangelical community to broaden the values debate to issues other than abortion, such as climate change, torture, poverty, AIDS, war, etc. -- and there are many more values issues that line up with the democratic platform than the republican platform.

How about a little outreach to those of us who want to end the war in Iraq?

Can you spare a few moments?
Can you drop a few crumbs in our direction?

Where is this headed - you ask?

It's not as if we haven't been warned.

If we don't start pressuring Obama to start representing progressives, he never will. We are an interest group too, but he thinks he has us in his pocket because McCain is the bogeyman.

Religion has no place in politics.  It's the worst kind of pandering.  Once again, it confirms my suspicions that the new kind of politics is just the old kind of pandering.  What does this man stand for, anyway?  Aside from getting votes at any cost.

I'm disgusted that a Democratic candidate is pandering in this manner.  Whether he believes it or not is irrelevant.  GWB, from many accounts, is not truly religious, but uses religion for political gain.  

A more cohesive criticism:

I understand the importance of "civil religion" in effective leadership.  But this is just pandering and identity politics.  It's B.S.  Civil religion isn't about bringing Christians to the fore - it's about, in the words of Bob Bellah, subordinating "the nation to ethical principles that transcend it in terms of which it should be judged."  It's about affirming the principles of the Constitution and progressively extending them, to gays, to African-Americans, to immigrants, to the poor.

In my opinion, Obama has conceded too much to the Christian right perspective in his campaign, through his flyers and emphasis on faith and accepting their dialog.  And he's already saying, it's okay if you can't vote for me due to your traditional issues(well, according to CBN).  So then why even bother?  "The social gospel" is not the bedrock of all American churches - the Protestant ethic evolved into "God blessed me with riches.  I don't have to feel bad."  His campaign isn't setting itself up well to really fight that attitude.

Obama sat in a ranting racist church for 20 years and that is excused. If McCain had sat in such a place, he wouldn't be allowed to run. Double standard you bet. And don't throw Hagee in the mix, McCain didn't go to his church and sing his praises for 20 years. I don't care if they were 30 second snippets, they were "just hate filled words" and kids have been expelled from school for less.

Who knows what Obama really believes? Nary a contradiction passes from his lips offer his supporters. They are blinded by his halo and deafened by his oral cadence.  Everything you know about Obama can fit in a brochure.  He's a movement remember. His message is more messianic then Bush's ever thought of being from verse to halo. Obama's got it boiled it down to political science with a splash of no change needed, just do what you predecessor did. How's that the new politics!  I don't like it when politics is driven by religious fervor, it steps outside reasonable thought and common sense. It is very disturbing that he is  going after the youth vote on the pretext of religious outreach when in reality its nothing more than a political operation to bait voters and workers. This program is to engage and mold minds and link that energy to an Obama mindset. The big question- what is Obama's mindset about religion other than winning the presidency? Given Obama's questionable Christian alliances, I would not feel comfortable offering up one of my children for his brigade.

I'm already suspicious of Obama's habit of trying to please every audience he sees.

He went on FOX and said that the GOP is better than the Dems on a whole host of issues.

He praised Ronald Reagan in front of a conservative editorial board.

He was pro-Palestinian in Chicago, but then told AIPAC that Jerusalem must remain undivided under Israeli control, and then for good measure, backed away from that the next day.

He let Donnie McClurkin represent him in South Carolina.

He told his San Francisco donors that small-town people cling to religion, but then sent out leaflets in SC and KY featuring a cross the size of Stonehenge.

I spent years in the evangelical church and evangelicals teach that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, you are going to hell.

These "biblical" teachings led to disregard for non Christians, after all, they are not God's children. Not until they repent and accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

Our goal was to pass laws that are biblical, in other words, creating a theocracy. This scares the sh*t out of me now.

Obama is turning the Democratic party into the G.O.P.

How will these evangelicals who come into Obama's movement treat those non saved people?

How will they want Obama to treat gays, jews, atheists, the pro choice, etc?

Who will Obama throw under the bus to get these people whose religion leave no room for anyone who does not believe like they do?

Their belief system demands they don't associate with such sinners. I know, I was one of them.

The Joshua Generation Project? Scary. He has lost my vote forever. Pure and simple.

Not all Catholics think that the choice vs. life debate should be #1 when deciding who to vote for.  The Pope has been against the war in Iraq from the beginning, so neither candidate is 100% of what the Catholic church asks for.

He has mentioned that women should discuss their pregnancy options with their families and pastors.

How progressive is that, again?

There are progressive people of faith. I am one of them and we have much more in common with the Democratic party than with the Republican party. The problem for a lot of progressive evangelicals is that the Dem party has totally ignored them on a national level and so they vote republican even though they may have more in common with democratic principles than republican ones. They want to see how a candidate relates to issues of faith in their own lives, even if they are agnostic/atheist, because for them faith is an important issue in their own life. To me it doesnt matter what a candidate's religion is (even if they are agnostic/atheist), but (some) evangelicals want to at least see how a candidate relates to the issue of faith for himself/herself and can be swayed to vote for the democrat.

From your link:

[T]he Obama campaign understands that the issue of abortion is a problem for some voters of faith. They respect that and understand if some just simply can't come on board because of that. However, they look at this project as a way of broadening the values discussion. Poverty, Darfur, Climate Change and yes, even the war are issues younger Evangelicals may be able to see eye to eye on with the Obama campaign.

Separation is important, but people of faith have a role to play in helping to rebuild our communities and repair some of the damage that's been done by Bush. Obama does have a strong faith story, and he's not afraid to speak to Christians, telling them why their faith should lead them to be Democratic; Gore and Kerry were too afraid to, and thus ceded far too much to Bush.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a card carrying atheist, and church and state should remain far, far apart. My view of this is that many people, through their religion, hold personal values that align perfectly with Democratic values. Being against pointless wars seems to be a good fit for Catholics, for example. So this isn't a "we're caving in to the Religious Right on abortion to scrape up some votes" approach, and more of a "we believe in charity / caring for the less fortunate / not bombing innocent people in other countries" approach.

I think it makes perfect sense. Most of the country still believes in a god and many of those people learn their morals and values from their religion. Just because the right has replaced the word "morals" with "anti-abortion" doesn't mean we should cede that ground to them. Plenty of religious people will see that our party values align quite nicely with many of their religious values, and that's okay with me.

Seems to me his position is  very clear on separation of church and state.   Of course is could backfire.  Piss off the secularists.  Piss off the democrats that think he is pandering to the religious.  I really like the position.  My parents and their friends are from a long line of christian activists.  Wonderful people, care about the poor, church was supportive of gay marriage before any state was etc.  Hillary supposedly got her social activism start from the church, my childhood church was all antiwar (vietnam, i am old) and pro civil liberties, pro integration, feminist etc.  

Why would a Catholic support a pro-choice candidate?

Because he/she is a Democrat.

Hillary Clinton's key demographic in Pennsylvania and Ohio was working class Catholics.  If you subtract them from Hillary's total, Obama wins each state easily.  Obama needs these voters in the fall to win, just as Hillary would.  And I assume that you consider Hillary pro-choice.

for real! do any of these people actually read, or do they just pick up on something, with no clue as to the actual context? or maybe (which i'm inclined to believe is the case) they can't distinguish between the old and new testaments, and just assume the "bible" is, well, um, the "bible"?