home

Obama and McCain Agree to Jointly Appear at Megachurch Event

For months, John McCain and Barack Obama have been unable to agree on town hall forum debates. Today, however, they agreed on their first joint appearance -- at a megachurch.

The Rev. Rick Warren has persuaded the candidates to attend a forum at his Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, Calif., on Aug. 16. In an interview, Mr. Warren said over the weekend that the presidential candidates would appear together for a moment but that he would interview them in succession at his megachurch.

....He said that both had readily agreed, perhaps reflecting how each candidate is courting the evangelical audience to whom Mr. Warren ministers.

Warren says he is friends with both candidates and there will be "no gotcha" questions.

As far as I'm concerned, I've heard more than enough already about the candidates' faith and religion. [More...]

I don't think evangelicals as a group belong in politics. It's fine for individual evangelicals to line up with a candidate or party because they share their views on issues, but as an organizing force, out to imprint their views on a party, particularly the Democratic party, they are pure danger.

We should keep religion and morality out of politics. It's a private matter that should stay private. What's next, debates at churches? Televising prayer breakfasts instead of congressional hearings? This is a slippery slope.

< NYTimes Confirms: Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plan | Guantanamo Trial of Salim Hamdan Begins Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Kill me now (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:05:29 AM EST
    I mean, really. Who am I supposed to vote for, again?

    Geez yall (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:03:42 AM EST
    this ain't exactly the end of the world. Are they going to discuss that by the way? LOL

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:25:02 AM EST
    it isn't the "end of the world" but you would think that after the Teri Schiavo incident that both parties would get a clue to the fact that voters are sick of evangelical government.

    Parent
    Oh ye of little faith (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:52:08 AM EST
    the Democrat of course.

    Parent
    This is either pandering or (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:13:15 AM EST
    the real candidates. Personally, if I was a non-Christian, (Bad Catholic) I would be annoyed that politics and religion were holding hands together and they were not included. You would think that after the last six months of 'minister' troubles, that Obama would stay clear of this. But instead he goes along, just as he had before. There  was nothing learned from the previous lessons. This is a man who believes in his own publicity.  

    Maybe Obama is trying, in part, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:27:37 AM EST
    to make up for his past pastor issues?

    Doesn't change how I feel about it. Keep the freakin' religion out of politics!

    Didn't Obama turn down another group that McCain agreed to? I want to say it had to do with the armed services?

    Parent

    An idea. (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:17:43 AM EST
    They should just run as each other's vice-presidential candidate.


    Interesting set-up... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by EL seattle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:46:28 AM EST
    Mr. Warren said over the weekend that the presidential candidates would appear together for a moment but that he would interview them in succession at his megachurch.

    Maybe there'll be a sound-proof booth on the stage like in a game show, where candidate #2 will wait and watch and get ready for his interview.

    They can all sing Kumbaya and agree (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:51:51 AM EST
    a woman's right to choose, same sex marriage, same sex partner adoption, and birth control are the work of the devil.  

    You took the words (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:57:48 AM EST
    right out of my mouth.

    Parent
    If Warren sticks to his promise. . . (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:10:06 AM EST
    of no "gotcha" questions (depending on how he interprets that promise) it opens up the possibility that, while there's no chance of agreement on those issues, they might possibly agree to disagree.  That would be very substantial progress where the evangelical movement is concerned.

    If Warren is seen to attempt to balance conservative and liberal interests it's would help move the evangelicals in a good direction.  They'll never be our unquestioning allies but perhaps they'll no longer be unquestioning allies of the Republicans.

    Parent

    Religious Conservatives (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:10:15 AM EST
    are close to throwing in the towell on their attempts to bend the law to their will on social issues.  They will lose on gay marriage; they will also lose on Roe if Obama is elected.

    The Evangelicals, and remember there are probably at least 50 million people here in the U.S. that self idenitfy as Evangelicals, will be up for grabs.  They are reachable on social justice issues, on the environment, and on economic issues.  An Obama win will likely result in a permanent defeat of religious conservatives' efforts to legislate their agenda--they will continue to oppose abortion and gay marriage but recognize that they cannot change the law--they will frown on abortion just as they do adultery with the same effect on the law .....The non conservative religious folks will be completely open to voting on Democratics issues.

    Many think it is unseemly to hear candidates talk about religious issues--they should just shut up about it already....That is so shortsighted.  Candidates talk about their own personal lives all the time in order to humanize themselves and make a connection with voters....For some voters, they can vote on issues only; others want to hear more.

    Parent

    Warren has emphasized (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:06:27 AM EST
    AIDS.

    Warren is not overtly conservative like Dobson.

    Parent

    So let him (5.00 / 14) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:15:06 AM EST
    join the Democratic party as an individual because AIDS is important to him and the Dems are best on that. Leave his church at home.

    Parent
    That makes this all the more dangerous! (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by BernieO on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:33:18 AM EST
    By not appearing at a radical church it just makes the ever increasing mixing of politics and religion that more acceptable to mainstream Americans. How disgusting is it that a Democrat who is a "professor of constitutional law" is putting so much emphasis on this? Saint Barry is kicking us way down this slippery slope.

    The next time someone tells you that they don't see any problem with government funding of church-based programs (or vouchers for religious schools)ask them if that applies to Scientology, Wicca or programs run by churches like Wright's Trinity UCC. I have yet to find anyone who says that would be fine with them. Most usually say that the government should choose which churches are "qualified". When I ask if they are saying that the government should be the one deciding which religions are legitimate and point out that this would require amending the Bill of Rights, they are stymied. No one has ever told me that they would be OK with this. In fact one friend of my thirty-year old son recently told me that he never forgot me pointing this out to him when he was in college and that the more he thought about it the more he became a strong advocate of keeping goverment money out of religion.

    And this garbage about not being allowed to proselytize or discriminate in hiring! The more these programs spread the more impossible enforcing these rules will be.

    Liberals and the media are just twiddling the thumbs as these dangerous practices are being sold to a gullible public by the right. By the time they wake up it will be extremely hard to undo the damage. Just look how far the religious right got with their anti-evolution propaganda before scientists, the liberals and the media woke up a started to kind of fight back. It took years for them just to begin to point out that in science the word "theory" does not mean specualtion, hypothesis, but an principle with extremely strong evidence supporting it. The same has happened with the right's campaign to get the public to accept the idea that an embryo is a human person, not just a biological entity with the potential to become one, comparable to a seed or fertilized egg. (Ever hear anyone say they ate a three-chicken omelette for breakfast or crushed an oak tree after stepping on an acorn?) They have also succeeded in convincing a sizble minority that many kinds of birth control cause abortions and getting pharmacists and hospitals to refuse to give them to women. Why else would McCain have hemmed and hawed when asked to comment on the fairness of insurance paying for Viagra but not birth control? He knows he would infuriate his base. (Too bad Obama doesn't care about infuriating his.)

    We all need to speak up, write to the media, representatives, etc. about keeping religion out of politics whenever we can. We cannot count on He our "leaders" or our fatuous media to do it.

    Parent

    Hear hear! (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:54:23 AM EST
    Wonderful comment, and I'd like to augment it by giving a shout-out to the wonderful organization, National Center for Science Education, led by the indefatigable Eugenie Scott. They've fought hard, and continue to fight hard, against the insidious creep of religiosity into politics and education, and the blurring of language (e.g., 'just a theory') and use of propaganda that evangelicals and right-wing politicians are so adept at.

    Parent
    The religiosisty in (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    politics and education has been there since the beginning....

    Obama can't attend a church event?....  He is still fighing the Muslim image.

    People can talk about what they want to talk about--especially in a non government setting on private property.  The separation of church and state means not allowing the government to endorse religion.  Even under the Lemmon test, which has several qualifications to it, there is nothing to prevent a candidate from expressing his or her religious views....

    Even Hillary Clinton went to a very public Rick Warren event....

    The separation of church and state that is being suggested goes well beyond what any liberal of the 1960s would advocate; and appears close to violating one clause of the First Amendment, the Free Speech clause, in order to enforce another clause, the Freedom of Religion clause....

    Parent

    Whatever you say (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM EST
    If you want to be an apologist for evangelical philosophy and its role in the democratic agenda, you go with that.

    Next, we'll hear about how this was a nation founded in christianity, and the unjust war on christmas.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:20:02 AM EST
    I believe in the Treaty of Tripoli...and think O'Reilly has a genius for self-promotion by creating wars that do not exist...

    But I don't have an allergy to expressions of religious belief or believe in "don't ask, don't tell" for people of faith.

    I have never heard of the phrase "evangelical philosophy."

    Parent

    Of course it doesn't (none / 0) (#114)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    there is nothing to prevent a candidate from expressing his or her religious views....

    What it does do as influence people. That's the whole rationale right.

    How many times did you hear that God told George Bush to invade Iraq? How many times did he state that he was being led by Jesus? How often was it stated by Ashcroft and other administration officials that many decisions were influenced by morality: Abstinence Only programs, safe sex education, birth control, morning after pill, covering the Spirit of Justice.

    What do you think gave fundamentalists the power they acquired during Bush's administration?

    Yes, a politician can talk of his own faith with boundaries....that is keep it out of government, that includes campaigning as a true believer. They have a responsibility to represent all Americans.

    I also think that Obama and McCain should be careful here. Both have enough hypocrisies when it comes to religion and behavior.

    Parent

    Americans United for Separation (none / 0) (#113)
    by BernieO on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    of Church and State has done great work challenging, ofteh successfully, these kinds of infringements in the courts. They also deserve and need our support. Their website has great information about the activities of the religious right as does their monthly publication, Church and State.

    Parent
    And if Obama gets the support of evangelicals? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    What then? Will they magically turn into progressives? I've felt for the longest time that evangelicals are sort of the super duper notch in the belts of certain Dems like Howard Dean and Obama. They'll do anything to get them just to prove that they can.

    Parent
    That's a rigged phony 'test' the Dems won't win (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    It's the classic GOP ruse to use their phony two-headed coin for the toss, or loaded dice for the crapshoot.

    It goes back to the designated witches marked for hanging or burning being tossed into the drink to ascertain righteousness: if s/he's NOT a witch, s/he helpfully drowns. If the sinner floats, however, she's a witch and must be pilloried by the community.

    of course, Dems could be smart and protect the Constitution rather than get into the preachifying business, but that would mean doing the unthinkable and getting up off their @sses and performing the ONE job for which they were elected (and continues to appear to be the last one they're ever interested in doing.)

    Parent

    Some Evangelicals ARE Progressive (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:36:46 AM EST
    This web site

    link

    describes trends among younger evangelicals away from people like those religious right poster boys, Dobson and Robertson and their narrowed emphasis on abortion and gays and toward policy on poverty, affordable health care, the environment and HIV/AIDS.

    Interestingly, it also seems to indicate that if Obama and Dean are trying to win evangelicals it isn't really news since we already know they are trying to 'unify' the party and bring some disaffected Clinton supporters back to the fold. Apparently, evangelicals (at least in TN and MO) went hugely for her.

    I'm old enough to recall two things about political discourse in the public square:

    One, in the sixties, when I first started being old enough to listen, religion (with the exception of JFK's election) was never, ever a part of the conversation. I wish we'd get back to that, but I'm afraid the genie's out of the bottle and 'lifestyle values' issues like reproductive rights and sexual orientation etc. keep the faith based fear mongering on the right too profitable.

    The other phenomenon was the religious progressives' fierce participation and visibility: in the civil rights, anti poverty and anti war movements, people of faith led the way often and got harassed, arrested, imprisoned and worse. There are some mumblings among the progressive faith based groups about standing up as people of conscience and challenging the pre-eminence of the religious right. This could get interesting if they do.

    Parent

    Gee, I wonder if they'd like (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:56:43 AM EST
    to appear at Saturday morning Sabbath services and pander to the Jews too.

    I'm as sick of religion in American politics as I could possibly be.

    To be fair. . . (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:53:56 AM EST
    they've already pandered at the AIPAC conference.

    The question is whether they'll pander equally to muslims.  I say no.  Anyone want to cover my bet?

    Parent

    AIPAC is in no way (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:53:37 AM EST
    comparable.  It is not a religious group per se, it is a political advocacy group for Israel.


    Parent
    I know exactly what AIPAC is. . . (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:32:04 AM EST
    and have actually spoken against the AIPAC as secret infiltrator crowd at Daily Kos.

    But there's no question that Obama and McCain were pandering the tuchuses off when they spoke to AIPAC and they intended to reach, if not solely then in large part, Jewish Americans.

    Parent

    No. It was an attempt to (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by dk on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    reach certain Jewish Americans (and many non-Jewish Americans, by the way), who support the goals of AIPAC.  As a Jewish American who certainly does not support the goals of AIPAC, I can assure you that their supplication at the altar of AIPAC did nothing to make either candidate look better in my mind.

    Parent
    When any politician seeks to pander (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by tree on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:53:06 AM EST
    to Jews, they pander to AIPAC on Israel. There's an assumption that pledging your undying support for Israel no matter what it does is the one and only important pander for Jews. Its not true in the aggregate, but AIPAC controls a lot of money and influence so in the end pandering to AIPAC equals pandering to Jews in the minds of most politicians. And in some cases the pander gets double points for being a pander to certain evangelical groups as well. See Hagee at AIPAC, and Christians United For Israel for an example.

    Parent
    AIPAC is a small but powerful chip (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:11:06 AM EST
    of the American Jewish population. It does not represent the whole of American Jewry.

    Appearing at an AIPAC conference is NOT the same as appearing before the congregation at temple. I can say with certainty that I, my family and my other Jewish friends would not look kindly on any politician coming into our place of worship to pander for our votes.

    In fact, I would probably walk out of the service and make a complaint to the rabbi.

    Parent

    Quite A Twist (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:17:46 AM EST
    Now Obama (and McCain) are speaking at a service? ANd in case you missed it both Obama and Hillary campaigned at many synagogues, not during services, though, so you wouldn't have to walk out.


    Parent
    Hey, twist this (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST
    I don't want politicians campaigning in my temple, at any time during the week, services or not. Just because they all do it doesn't make it appropriate.

    Got it?


    Parent

    Write Hillary A Letter (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    And give her a piece of your mind. How dare she..

    And write to the rest of your reps while you are at it.

    Parent

    There is a big difference (none / 0) (#105)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    between what Hillary did there in 2005 and what Obama and McCain are doing now.

    For one, notice the mention of no television cameras being allowed.

    No cameras were allowed by the public, so people with camera phones had to put them back in their car.

     Also notice it was in honor of someone, not a campaign debate.

    I then discovered that Hillary was coming at the invitation of Stuart Eizenstat who worked in the Carter and Clinton administrations. The lecture she presented was endowed by his family in honor of his father and uncle.

     Also notice she didn't speak of religious issues. She spoke mostly of national security issues with a little healtcare and Darfur throw in. She even kept the rhetoric to a minimum.

    Surely you can find a better example...

    Parent

    lol (1.00 / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    Security issues not religious? Have you not noticed that Israel is our 51st state.

    My point is that there is little outcry about this particular issue when the players and the setting is changed. Seems like a big double standard to me, not a principal.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:28:06 AM EST
    Obama has pandered to muslims in MI. He appeared with some Imam in a mosque. Of course, since he's thrown them under the bus. So you're probably right in the future tense.

    Parent
    TO Be Fair?? (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:40:48 AM EST
    This is no different from courting the Jewish Vote, be it through AIPAC, the Jewish Press, or visits to individual synagogues.

    Somehow though, pandering to evangelical christians in not kosher. Go figure?

    Parent

    Evangelical christians (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:50:38 AM EST
    hold many stated views that are antithetical to liberal or progressive values:  anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science, etc. I don't understand why it is surprising that we would be uneasy or unhappy to have the democratic nominee suddenly pandering to them just as republican ones have in the past. It is a disturbing development in the democratic party in the minds of many progressives.

    Parent
    Orthodox Jews OK Though? (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    If your argument is that it is poor for Obama to campaign to religious groups, but not all religious groups, only the ones you do not like, it is a very weak argument. Laughable in fact.

    Parent
    Thanks for inventing arguments for me (none / 0) (#93)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    You're almost as good as Larry at that.

    No, that's not what I said. I don't think he should campaign to any extremist religious groups that devalue human rights. And evangelicals hold extremist views that devalue human rights.

    Parent

    And AIPAC Doesn't Devalue Human Rights? (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:13:38 AM EST
    You are not being very convincing here. Particularly with the extremest religious groups label for religions that you do not like.

    Last I checked evangelicals were pretty mainstream in the US.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#106)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    I'm not convincing you. Woe is me.

    You go with the evangelicals. I'll stay away.

    LOL.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    But, I will renege on your offer.  I am not keen on joining any religious groups, fan clubs, or cults.

    Maybe that is why I have so few friends, lol...

    Parent

    I hate all pandering equally..... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    ...unless its done to me. But that happens so rarely that I don't have to appear hypocritical except once every blue moon or so.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:49:03 AM EST
    So true. The eye cannot see itself.

    Parent
    Warren is the new Billy Graham (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:00:30 AM EST
    All Presidential candidates will want to appear with him....Hillary did during the Primaries.

    I think they do... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:41:23 AM EST
    ... televise prayer breakfasts. At least I think I've seen one on C-SPAN.

    It's hard for me to believe that one of these two men is going to be president. We might as well choose our leaders via American Idol.

    TVW in 'the other Washington' (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:24:28 AM EST
    (our state version of C-SPAN) has televised the Governor's Prayer Breakfasts.

    Hard to keep your breakfast down when you stop by for a looksee...gawdalmighty.  It's almost a requirement for state electeds to attend...a political requirement.

    Sheesh...

    Parent

    A real post-partisanship (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by koshembos on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:07:13 AM EST
    Finally we understand what post-partisanship means. It's a theocracy where everyone goes to church. That was the progressiveness a large segment of the Netroots has supported with, what turned out to be, religious fanaticism. We also have strong dedication to a full blown war in Afghanistan.

    Bush is the real winner; there will be a Bush 3rd term no matter who wins.

    I can't (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:15:54 AM EST
    decide who is worse with this issue. I'd have to say on a personal level Obama is worse because of his choice of TUCC for 20 years. However, as a president which one would outdo Bush with the evangelicals? I can't decide.

    Did McCain suggest that he would (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:23:47 AM EST
    have a Secretary of Faith as part of his cabinet? I know Obama did, but did McCain make a like suggestion and I missed it?

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:30:28 AM EST
    have a point there. Why do we need a secretary of faith? All of this has gone way too far. I think the candidates ignore the fact that there are many mainstream christians like me who are tired fo having evangelical christianity rammed down our throats. Obama missed his calling. He should have been an evangelical minister.

    Parent
    Keep religion out of politics (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by sleepingdogs on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:47:47 AM EST
    AND keep politics out of religion.  No good will come from this.  I LEFT the evangelical church because of the strong pressure to vote for GWB and to support the war and to oppose gay marriage.  Grant to Caesar that which is Caesar's.  
    After this joint appearance, how can Rick Warren not appear to give some kind of endorsement?  Certainly his followers will ask him for his opinion and if given, they will likely follow it.  Neither religion nor politics should attempt to steer the other.  

    Rick Warren is actually not awful. . . (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:59:25 AM EST
    and whether or not evangelicals should be in politics they are.  Warren's invited Obama before (and taken flack for it).  I've got no problem with Obama talking to these folks, at least not until I hear what he has to say.

    If AIDS compassion, environmentalism (or "creation care" as they call it), and care for the poor can challenge abortion and gay rights as major issues for the evangelicals it will go a long way towards restoring some political balance in this country and also help to end the existence of the evangelicals as a unilateral voting block.

    Rick Warren is anti-choice, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:31:47 AM EST
    and anti-gay. Don't fool yourself. He's just another crackpot snake-oil salesman getting rich off the sheeple.

    This embracing of the evangelicals disgusts me. Someone send Obama some Flannery O'Connor to read.

    I'm beginning to wonder.... does Obama believe in evolution?

    Parent

    Yes. (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:57:19 AM EST
    Obama believes in education.  Sheesh.

    And I've no doubt that Warren is anti-Choice and anti-gay.  The question is whether he's willing to support someone who doesn't believe those things, or at least to withhold his support from someone who does because of other factors.

    If I read your comment correctly, are you suggesting that not only must Democrats be pro-choice and pro-rights but they must categorically and explicitly reject votes from people who aren't not withstanding that those people may otherwise prefer the Democratic platform?

    I understand the "if you lie down with dogs you get fleas" philosophy.  It's true that if a Democratic majority relies too heavily on anti-choice voters that its choice message may get somewhat blunted.  When someone can convince me (or someone sensible can even claim with a straight face) that there's a solid pro-choice, pro-gay rights, liberal majority in this country that will be the time to start considering moral purity tests to see whose votes we'll deign to accept.

    In the meantime, if we can at least loosen the stranglehold of the GOP on the evangelical vote, that's a good thing I say.

    Parent

    Do you have any proof (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:04:20 AM EST
    that Obama believes in evolution? I'm being serious here, not snarky. I always just assumed he did, but he is beginning to worry me with all the evangelical love. Has he ever spoken about the evolution/creation wars in general or specific? That would be nice to know and would give me some reassurance. For example, did he speak about the recent Lousiana school board's attempts to force the teaching of creationism in biology classes?

    As for the rest of your comment, it's just word-twisting. I never said anything about rejecting votes from anti-choice voters. I'm with Jeralyn - keep religion away from politics.

    Parent

    This is what Obama's response to (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:23:05 AM EST
    "Do you believe in evolution?" was:

    "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."

    I'm not sure how ringing an endorsement that is. How grounded are angels?

    Parent

    Hmmmm. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:28:05 AM EST
    Well, that's OK I guess... if he meant that evolution is scientifically grounded, and that he believes in science, and that he would fight against intelligent design in biology classes, etc.

    Thanks for the quote. :)

    Parent

    This time I would have appreciated (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:31:13 AM EST
    a less poetic answer. Something like, "I believe in evolution and believe it should be taught in every school in this country. I support science education in our public schools and do not consider intelligent design to be science." No room to maneuver. I tried to find an answer like that one, but could only find comparisons to angels.  8^)

    Parent
    Well, I sure like your quote better than his (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:36:29 AM EST
    But something tells me my thinking on this is in the minority of the new democratic party.

    Parent
    Sorry, this was just more political speak. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Radix on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:13:51 AM EST
    The phrase, "in my experience", leaves his answer open. He could have just said, "science is more grounded than Angles", this would have been a definitive statement, the other is mere speculation.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:36:04 AM EST
    there is a pro choice majority in this country. Even here in GA the suppport for the right to choose runs about 55% hence even with the GOP controlling the entire government down here they won't touch the issue. They just nibble around the edges with "waiting periods" or some other restrictions.

    I imagine the country is still largely anti gay though. Perhaps they aren't as vocal.

    The problem with your statement is that you seem to think that we need to compromise instead of convincing them that we are right. Once Obama's Il Senate record is put out there for comsumption, these voters are probably going to run for the hills.

    Parent

    New poll on gays in the military (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:00:03 AM EST
    says something really astounding like 75 percent of the public supports letting gays serve openly in the military.  If I remember right, even a slight majority of evangelicals.

    Sorry, don't have a link, but it should be google-able.

    The country is unmistakably moving away from pro-life anti-gay attitudes.  There is no rhyme or reason for the Dem. Party or any of its major candidates to go courting the diminishing numbers who still hold those beliefs.


    Parent

    That's (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM EST
    good news. And it does seem that both parties are stuck in the past thinking that evangelicals are the way to win elections. As a poster above states, that movement is pretty much done. I can't figure out why Obama and the losers in congress seem to think that becoming Bush circa 2004 is the way to win an election. I guess they are just so out of touch with average americans that they can only look to 2004 for answers.

    Parent
    You can't loosen a stranglehold (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:39:47 AM EST
    by rushing to jump inside it yourself.

    With Bush leaving there was a possibility of lessening the hold evangelicals have on all politics.  Well, there was a chance when this was still a Dems-can't-lose year.  (funny I don't hear that around so much these days).

    Their power in politics is far out of proportion with their numbers and has already blurred separation of church and state far too much if people feel comfortable with the presumptive Democratic nominee jumping into bed with them.  

    The only constituency Obama has stood up to and told to go to h*ll is the Democratic base.  There's no reason whatsoever to think that he'll stand up to further evangelical incursion into government.  Mixing religion and government is the one issue he hasn't flip flopped on and it's the only one that seems to be native to him and not based on polling.

    Parent

    I'm the Democratic base. . . (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:44:13 AM EST
    and I don't feel Obama's told me to go hell any more than Clinton did with her AUMF vote.  Which is to say, I wish they'd both do better sometimes.

    You can't loosen the evangelical stranglehold without being willing to talk to them.  If Obama appears at Rick Warren's church and renounces his pro-Choice position, comes out against equal rights for gays (notwithstanding his mainstream Democratic but nonetheless wrong position on marriage equality), against birth control and for teaching creationism then I think you could fairly label him as "jumping in".

    But simply going to talk to them, as Clinton has also done, isn't jumping in.  It's talking.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dk on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:05:15 AM EST
    that sounds really nice, but is it really that simple?  I mean, isn't there some line taht a politician shouldn't cross?  I mean, should he go to an event sponsored by neo-nazis or the KKK to "talk"?  Should he have virulently homophobic evangelical ministers appear on stage at his campaign rallies?

    I mean, if your whole argument is that a president, or presidential candidate, must "talk to" everyone, are you willing to make that a categorical rule?  Or are there ever limits, in your opinion?

    Parent

    If there is such a line. . . (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    then Rick Warren is on the right side of it and neither Obama nor Clinton should be criticized for appearing at his events.

    In general I believe in talking to the widest possible variety of people.  Limits?  I'm sure there are, especially if your goal is just to create a situation to test whether limits exist or not.

    Talking to people doesn't mean saying what they want to hear for the sake of baseless agreement.  But in building coalitions the appropriate posture is to stress points of agreement while agreeing to disagree about other things.

    Parent

    First of all, I guess I (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by dk on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:24:54 AM EST
    disagree with you that it is appropriate to tell other people whether they should, or shouldn't, criticize politicians.  

    Perhaps it is political reality in this country that politicians must go and speak at venues sponsored by group who devalue the humanity of other people.  If you think that is necessary in order to talk to people who disagree with you on the issues, that is your opinion.  I think there are other ways to talk to all people, and include everyone who agrees to obey to laws, in the body politic, without offering a secular governmental stamp of legitimacy to their organizations, or in offering marketing advantages to various religions over others, and various demagogues over others.  I'm sure Rick Warren will go to town on this, advertising for years about how he is so important that he got Obama and McCain to come to him.  How much money will he raise for himself?  How many more members will he sucker into joining his church?  Do we really want American presidents to be offering free advertising to these people?  

    I just think you're creating a false dichotomy by saying that you have to do this kind of stuff to achieve the goal of bringing in all points of view to public discourse.

    Parent

    Talk to evangelicals, sure (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    but just don't talk to them at their church, with their minister as the m.c.

    Do you really not see the difference -- and the dangers?

    Parent

    How About a Papal Conclave? (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    If Pope Benedict XVI invited his "long time friends", John McCain and Barack Obama, to a Vatican Hall meeting held in the Sistine Chapel, moderated by College of Cardinals, to assure no gotcha questions, would there be an issue?  The head of Opus Dei could present the collective questions on behalf of the flock.

    Parent
    How about coming to Salem (none / 0) (#117)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:18:17 PM EST
    and meeting with the covens?

    Parent
    Yes, Dems must be pro-choice (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:05:30 AM EST
    and pro-rights.  That's what the party platform defines as a Dem.

    And that's the problem, since the DLCC put up candidates like Casey -- and Obama, as he weasels around the party platform.  The problem is the big tent, so big that the Dems don't stand by their own platform, their own self-definition.

    So I solved the problem by not being a Dem anymore.    I'm just getting ahead of them, as I fully expect that the New Dems, the Obama Dems, will finally stop being so dishonest and will just rewrite the platform.  Others may opt to stay in a dishonest (and corrupt) organization, but do it with your eyes open.  At least, don't deny that Dems are denying how they define themselves.

    Parent

    Larry was that a typo in your first sentence.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    ...cause evolution and education are not the same thing, as our friends in Kansas found out.

    Parent
    Thank you. . . (none / 0) (#85)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:46:22 AM EST
    yes that was a typo (I've been preoccupied with education issues this week).

    Parent
    Which of these areas are going to become (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:33:48 AM EST
    the biggest "profit centers" rather than church sponsored charitable programs? And how are the individual groups going to spend the funds normally spent on what will now be government funded programs? On Aids, "creation care" and helping the poor or for promoting "cure the gays" programs, anti-abortion lobbying and replacing science with religious dogma?

    Parent
    This has nothing to do with how nice (5.00 / 10) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:14:09 AM EST
    the people at Rick Warren's church are, or what good works are done by religious organizations all over the country.  No specialness attaches to the outreach and support by these organizations as a result of their religious affiliation, and the fact that the government is also engaged in assisting those in need does not mean the wall that separates them should come down.

    I get that Rick Warren's church is a gold mine of votes - so why not have the two campaigns rent a private venue in the area which would be open to all who wished to attend, regardless of their religious affiliation, and would be absent the sense of obligation that the candidates would feel to one particular pastor and one particular congregation?  You know, remind people that this is not about religion, but about government.

    It's really long past time for people to be reminded that sometimes people - and the government - can do the right and moral thing because it is the right and moral thing to do, and that it does not have to be driven by religion or faith.  They also need reminding that once we start expecting government to subscribe to religious tenets as the reason why it does or does not do certain things, we set up conflict between and among those religions for which one will control the government's decision-making process.  And we set up conditions for the belief that the only way to make sure the government is following the right kind of religious thinking is to elect someone who can make sure their brand of religion is the one that controls.

    Oh, sure - I can hear it now - how ridiculous it is to get so militant over the wall between church and state - but I would remind people that the same what's-the-harm mindset has produced conditions that have resulted in significant and ongoing erosion of our constitutional rights.

    I'm not surprised by this development, but I am disappointed that the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party does not understand the need to stop blurring the lines between religion and government, or to stand up to the forces that want to go all the way to erasing them.


    There is something wrong (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:23:10 AM EST
    in having campaign events at churches. Period.

    "What's the most difficult decision you've (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:35:24 AM EST
    had to make, and how did you make it?"

    Per Warren, this is the type of question he'll ask.  Nothing but the two guys trying to out-God each other in their answers I'd bet.  If this isn't a religious event, why can't it be held at a place other than Warren's church?


    Well, that should elicit plenty (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:10:44 AM EST
    of amusingly self-serving answers from both candidates, in the 'had to decide whether to save the puppy or the kitten from the fire' variety.

    Parent
    Even more self-serving, (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 02:40:06 PM EST
    some would bet that Obama's answer would be on the order of "trying to decide whether to run for President and save the world...or not."

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:55:37 AM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, I've heard more than enough already about the candidates' faith and religion.

    I totally agree. Part of the reason I'm a Democrat is because I want separation between the public and the private which includes not blurring the lines between politics and religion. This latest trend of having the Democratic Party try to cozy up to the organized evangelical political arm as well as perceived 'values voters' just turns me off.

    Let's hear more about positions on issues; that will tell me what I need to know about the candidates' values.

    Obama's next career (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:06:32 AM EST
    Isn't Warren more of one of those motivational speaker ministers, rather than a real religious type?

    I think Obama is just gathering information for an alternative career in case he loses this election.

    Why are politicians micromanaging people's souls? (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Ellie on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:42:12 AM EST
    While not giving a d@mn about fighting like He!l to secure people's neutral human rights and the integrity of the public space?

    The more public servants cloak themselves in religious garb and language to show off their "moral" cred, the more that relitiion can be used, by both "sides", as an excuse to persecute the "wrong" kind of people extra-judicially and outside the constitution.

    The GOoPers (by claiming "higher authority" and "cultural" equality) can impede people's access to the full constitutional protections they have already earned.

    The chicken wing of the Dems can blame their own pandering and ineffectuality on the "staight man's burden" of those revolting, divisive, ever-controversial "special interest groups" that draw the disdain and disgust of the right and discomfit the harrumphing moral media to have to speak of indelicacies!

    HEY, here's a novel idea: someone in this oily moral posedown give a d@mn about protecting the fourth f*cking amendment!

    I'm still disgusted over Obama's preachifying all over the place about morals, raining down on the unwashed masses like a little used fire hose suddenly turned on full and spouting every which way but Constitutional.

    From the way he's been wending his rhetoric around it the past couple of weeks you'd think he was going after the fertilized egg vote.

    I see a compromise.... (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:45:39 AM EST
    how about a second town hall in front of the Humanist Society?

    I don't mind the candidates talking to the Jesus Patrol...they do have to govern for us all.  I just wish they'd send some love the non-believers way and not play favorites...wouldn't that be nice?

    So if Obama wins (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:00:13 AM EST
    the election on this kind of behavior, do you think the Democratic Party will ever go back to supporting church-state separation?  I don't.

    I hope like heck that the "old" Democratic Party forms as a new third party.

    What's up with backing Rick Warren on anything? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Nettle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:16:05 AM EST
    So he does AIDS work.  Kind of scary for a guy that's antigay.  Where does he get off recolonizing Africa, anyway, regardless of whether he's coming to "save" them or strip their resources?

    We all saw what happened when Pat Robertson cozied up to the diamond industry in Africa in the name of Geezuz.  Is Warren all that different?

    Domestic and foreign policy should skip the religious scripts.


    I know, yuck. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    All I have to say is here are two outstanding novels:

    The Poisonwood Bible - Barbara Kingsolver
    At Play in the Fields of the Lord - Peter Matthieson

    Since when are progressives in bed with proselytizers?

    Parent

    yeah, thanks for that (none / 0) (#79)
    by Nettle on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    Maybe I'll reread Poisonwood this summer and in fact haven't read that one of Matthieson's.  Lot's of my catholic family got into Poisonwood Bible and maybe its a catholic thing but they're sure not into Rick Warren.  Maybe its a false idol sort of thing for them.

    Parent
    Have it in a church (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by splashy on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    But not a debate run by a group such as The League of Women Voters.

    This is just wrong, in so many ways.

    Our contributions are going towards: (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:07:24 AM EST
    Obama is determined to make Democratic Party find God. This has been his theme (as well as Harold Ford of the DLC) from the beginning. The problem I see with this is there seems to be only two areas that there's any agreement on, poverty and climate change. Those two issues won't over ride the major social differences that exist. And to think that Obama will be able to bridge this gap is naive. Inclusive is one thing, but even a diluted Dem Party should stand for something.

    Here's an interesting link for anyone interested in this issue. It shows where our DNC funds are going.

    http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/21/wingnutty-affirmation-conference-exposed/

    Ugh (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:16:58 AM EST
    Honestly, I don't think this is a comfortable environment for either candidate.

    The question becomes - which of the two (none / 0) (#12)
    by Rhouse on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:27:18 AM EST
    will feel more uncomfortable in the mega-church / religious environment?

    Parent
    I prefer to sit back and think about who's (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:28:58 AM EST
    doing whose bidding. Grin and bear it is the order of the day.

    Parent
    This is so 2003. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:31:13 AM EST
    We're not in 2003 any more, Toto. The game has changed.

    Make no mistake, Obama is very popular among some conservative Christians, at least on a libertarian/christian blog that I check in on almost daily. But as a movement, it's over, and they'll be the first to say so.

    Evangelicals are a spent force. Two terms of Geo Bush have disillusioned them. On top of that, their churches are battling themselves from within.  The waaay-right wing financed Institute For Religion and Democracy plants "renewal" groups inside mainstream Protestant churches to advocate literal interpretations of the Bible (ie: sow dissension via wedge issues like gay marriage). The intention is to split off any liberals from denominations and thus neutralize them as a force in American politics.

    Obama might have a better chance with moderate to lib Evangelicals by approaching them the same way he approaches other religious voting blocs (Catholics, Jews, Muslims). I suspect having this Townhall in a Megachurch is sending the wrong signal to his intended audience.  

     

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    I'd give Obama the slight edge in the comfort factor -  McCain almost visibly squirms when talking about religious issues. As well he should - I don't think he is 100% at peace with the truce he made with evangelicals.

    Parent
    Alot of Americans, myself included, (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 09:57:37 AM EST
    would rather see our president a little uncomfortable talking about religious matters then completely at ease. it isn't something they should be talking about, it has no place in politics.

    I wonder if the more comfortable Obama seems the more it hurts him with non-evangelical voters?

    Parent

    It's not helping with us heathens. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:08:04 AM EST
    Well, the Obama Haters/Lovers (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:52:02 AM EST
    keep acting like he's more than human, so maybe he'll feel comfortable (or uncomfortable?) in this environment!   :D

    The comedians (none / 0) (#18)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 04:48:42 AM EST
    just got handed enough material for a couple shows here.  

    Didn't Hillary go to this church (none / 0) (#28)
    by masslib on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 06:55:51 AM EST
    to introduce her malaria program?  I think so.

    True (none / 0) (#71)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:00:41 AM EST
    but there is a big difference between her appearance there and this planned event.

    Parent
    Sorry to upset the apple cart, folks (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jim J on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:12:20 AM EST
    In my experience, people who go to megachurches are generally much more pleasant to be around than professional "progressives." Not many bloggers that I'm aware of go to third world countries for months to feed the poor either.

    Irrelevant (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    The Constitution does not include a 'nice to be around' provision.  There's no exception in the First Amendment that says that government establishment of religion is okey-dokey as long as they're lovely people.

    There's hundreds (probably more) charities which do go to developing countries each year which are absolutely secular and don't trade their charity and generosity for adoption of a particular religion.

    And don't burden real progressives with associations of bloggers.  Just because a bunch of ex-Republicans call themselves 'progressive' to suck up political power and run around meeting celebrities doesn't mean they are.

    Parent

    So what? We only want nice voters? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    What does your comment mean?  We don't want the votes of the Hell's Angels, unless they feed orphans?

    Parent
    That's nice for you, Jim.... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:41:01 AM EST
    ...personally I prefer to hang with edgy heathen types, but to each their own.

    Parent
    I'm with you.... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:42:13 PM EST
    I meet the best kinda people at Off Track Betting (OTB) parlors and in back alleys behind pubs smoking joints.

    I'm talking real salt of the earth:)

    I'd like to invite McCain and Obama to a town hall meeting in the grandstand at Belmont Park.  I'll make it worth their while, I'll give em' my lock of the card free of charge:)  Lets see 'em pander there....

    "My opponent supports the 50% tax rate on winners over 600 bucks, if elected I will work with congress to lower your tax burden when you hit that next big exacta.  Betting on longshots should be encouraged, as the formation of this great nation was the longshot of the 1770's"

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:37:47 AM EST
    on an individual basis you are probably right. It's when they become a group who follows the leaders.

    Parent
    It's over, Johnny. (none / 0) (#40)
    by JohnS on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:56:51 AM EST
    Every dog has it's day, and that day's over for Evangelicals as a force in politics, thanks to GWB (they're disillusioned, and the rest of America is frankly tired of hearing from/about them). Of course, the trad press is always the last to know this kind of thing (they're always covering the last election).

    Anyway, not surprised to see McCain desperately trying to play an audience that has largely checked out, but Obama? Please, I know about his awesome crossover appeal and how he likess to demonstrate it,  but what about the rest of us? After all, look what Evangelicals did for the GOP. Jeez, they're gonna be looking for solid results when they decide to commit themselves again to another party and another Dear Leader. Who the hell wants THAT. Certainly not the DEm base. Dissed again.

    "...the rest of America (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 02:23:04 PM EST
    is frankly tired of hearing from/about them" is exactly what I was thinking when I saw all the CNN press promos about their heavy-duty programming on Blacks in America.

    At what point do non-blacks say "Enough, already?"

    I saw the Sunday night program with Soledad O'Brien and various famous AAs on 'panels.' Pretty boring television as these things go. (More to come on Wed and Thurs nights).  

    I kept wondering what Hispanics were thinking about all this attention to blacks...Hispanics who, so far as I know, have never received such attention.

    Not to mention other minorities whose political involvement may matter to Democratic candidates.

    Parent

    This is the agreement that was negotiated? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:58:32 AM EST
    Pathetic!

    I'm no Obama fan (none / 0) (#102)
    by ChrisO on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    but there seems to be more than a whiff of hypocrisy here. I don't hear much of an outcry when candidates appear in reliably Democratic venues like Black churches, despite the fact that many of these churches are bastions of homophobia and anti-Semitism. Although most people seem to be wrapping their arguments in church v. state issues, it's clear that a lot of the objections being voiced here are based on the beliefs and practices of specific churches. If they were appearing in the largest Black church in Atlanta, I daresay we wouldn't be seeing anywhere near this much opposition from Dems. And if Rev. Wright hadn't become news, I'm sure Obama could appear at the Trinity United Chruch of Christ with nary a peep from anyone here.

    If a church wants to become (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:22 PM EST
    a political forum and host candidates for office and give them access to their pulpits, it's OK with this heathen, but they should surrender their tax-exempt status.

    Parent
    Well, I'm no hypocrite. (none / 0) (#116)
    by dk on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:58:30 PM EST
    I have always thought that politicians should stay out of religous sponsored events, and that applies to all politicians in all circumstances.  

    If Democratic politicians stopped hanging out in black churches, maybe Democrats would quit giving black evangelicals the idea that it's ok for them to homophobes and misogynists.  Frankly, I see the hypocrisy more on the side of Obama supporters who railed on evangelicals for years and years but suddenly support the idea of Obama pandering to them.  

    Parent

    The latest Pew poll... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    ...of political leanings by religion shows that, for all his outreach to evangelicals, he's about even with Kerry and Gore in the number of evangelicals supporting him at this point in the campaign.

    Given Obama's extraordinary outreach to evangelicals this past year, his static ranking among evangelicals is underwhelming.

    (The link feature isn't working for me, but it's a short URL: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=322)

    Oh, yuck. (none / 0) (#118)
    by mabelle55 on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 02:58:50 AM EST
    This really is a slippery slope. I posted about Obama's FB initiative on my own blog and this is just an extension of that crapola.

    And as far as I'm concerned, Obama is nothing special and never has been. He's a politician, pure and simple, who moved left during the primaries and is now tacking back to his own comfort zone, which IS NOT a comfort for me - especially on this faith-based idiocy. That's just the latest, though, in Obama's less than stellar moves (and dangerous and unprincipled, in a couple of cases).

    Frankly, I'm not sure I can vote for him. And I'm so disenchanted with the Democratic Party for its own abysmal behavior (over the last 8 years,  during the primaries, and in its latest written edicts to former Clinton supporters) that I'm considering supporting good down ticket Dems this time and sitting it out on POTUS/VP.

    The faith-based "megachurch" pander may actually be the last straw for me...