The [W]Right Church

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:22:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Digby draws larger lessons for Democrats from the Wright Fiasco:

Amy Sullivan, one of the primary proponents of putting religiosity at the center of Democratic politics doesn't seem to know what to make of the problems Wright has caused for Obama. Apparently, she never considered the possible downsides of hewing so closely to religion that people think it's definitional. She and he friends didn't seem to realize that all the blather about secular Democrats was never about religion, but about social conservatism. You get no points for going to the "wrong kind" of church. You'd think they would have figured that out a long time ago.

Indeed. In my first post at TalkLeft, I discussed the dangers of Obama's Dem bashing on religion. Walter Shapiro argues that the chickens have come home to roost:

"The single biggest gap in party affiliation among white Americans is ... between those who attend church regularly and those who don't. Democrats, meanwhile, are scrambling to 'get religion,' even as a core segment of our constituency remains stubbornly secular."

-- Barack Obama, from "The Audacity of Hope"

This is a week when the Illinois senator probably wishes that he could say, "I'm from the stubbornly secular wing of the Democratic Party." Back in the days when religion in presidential politics was mostly limited to greeting Billy Graham when he arrived for an Oval Office photo op, White House candidates did not have to worry about off-the-reservation reverends. But that was before the 2008 Democrats called out the image engineers to bridge the God Gap. In Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democrats boast the most overtly religious cross-on-their-sleeve presidential candidates since Jimmy Carter prayed alone.

Now Obama may be paying a political price (precise cost estimates will be available only after the May 6 North Carolina and Indiana primaries) for his embrace of wrong-way Rev. Jeremiah Wright. . . . In a sense, the Democrats have been lucky since they are blessed with two candidates who have been walking the pews of religion for decades -- from Obama's lyrical autobiographical account of joining the Trinity United Church of Christ to Clinton's public flirtation with the religiously based "politics of meaning" during her early White House years. But now the Democrats may be dealing with the dread consequences of answered prayers.

Indeed.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Why Obama Chose Wright | Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The [W]Right Church | 72 comments (72 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It seems to me that the problem with Wright (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:28:21 AM EST

isn't so much that he's a pastor, but that for many white Americans, he represents the "scary" wing of black politics.

actually (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:33:02 AM EST

I think he represents, to many, the melding of the two. which is all the more terrifying.


Yeah. (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:36:30 AM EST

To me Wright represents the kind of religion that makes people atheists and agnostics. I have issues with my natal religion, Catholicism. I've spent time correcting people online who think that "All Catholics do This or are like That.". So I've fought my own little struggle for tolerance and understanding.

Then along comes Wright, who appears to be against tolerance and understanding and for conspiracy theories and divisiveness. Don't trust the government! Don't trust the white people! They've done us wrong! Done us dirty!

Yeah, that makes White Folk just want to run up and give Wright a big ol' hug. Not. Martin Luther King Jr, he isn't.


you know (none / 0) (#13)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:41:16 AM EST

I have seen comments like this about MLK a lot.
I think some people forget just how militant he could be.
he was not a choirboy. he had some pretty hard things to say about this country and our government.
true things, btw.


Yes, but it was "WE must, together..." (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:55:34 AM EST

not using the White Man's Government as a rationale for distrust and rejection.

Parts of BLT just leave me cold. I'm a woman and I don't like militant "Fight Against the Patriarchy!" feminism. The Us versus Them meme always has negativism and division at its core, no matter how it's spun.


Interesting that you bring up the analogy (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:20:20 AM EST

to 'militant feminism'. I was thinking exactly the same the other day, although it's not the militance that bothers me (for BLT or feminism), but more the separatism and divisiveness.

I have some 'radical separatist feminist' (their name for themselves) friends - I disagree on the tactics of divisiveness and separatism to achieve the goal of eradicating sexism and argue with them frequently on this. It very quickly devolves into hatefulness towards men or, generically, 'the other'. Similarly, I can't stand Wright's constant dividing of 'us vs. them' - doesn't help towards the goals of racial equality. Many good people on all sides have common goals and want to work together on all these issues. Maybe I'm just an old hippie, but inclusiveness, not division, is the answer for me.


: I used to have similar (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM EST

discussions with gay friends who insisted on living in one or another gay ghetto. I never liked it and I dont think it is a good thing.
if we dont move out into the wrold and show people we are just like them we are never going to get anywhere.

Although he is massively entertaining. (none / 0) (#14)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:41:46 AM EST

Most Catholic priests doing mass today barely speak English. It's almost impossible to follow a sermon anymore if they are ESL. Although the Pope appears to speak English with an unusual degree of excellence.


Wright you mean (none / 0) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:44:44 AM EST

exactly right. he is an entertainer. just like Pat Robertson. they are two sides of the same coin.


: Yes Wright (none / 0) (#23)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:46:29 AM EST

he's a great laugh. Preachers are hilarious mostly.

Yes -- the Farrakhan side of black politics (none / 0) (#6)
by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:32:31 AM EST

Unashamedly secular! (none / 0) (#12)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM EST

That way you don't have to excommunicate yourself from your 20 year Priest.

It's a respectable place to be and it has all sorts of constitutional and philosophical and ecumenical justifications.


I'm not convinced. . . (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:29:48 AM EST

You get no points for going to the "wrong kind" of church.

of this point.

First off, I think Obama's gotten plenty of points -- and delegates -- in states where he used his "committed Christian" material. Those points aren't going away.

Secondly, in the heat of things Wright looks like a terrible mess for Obama. But we have to wait and see what effect it has on the electorate. The coverage I've seen so far seems positive.

At a certain point (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:45:27 AM EST

people will see the contradictions that Obama has stated.

The rightwing will ceratinly make sure of it.

We've been torturing them for years about their Falwells and Robertsons. They are after payback.


"coverage I've seen so far" (none / 0) (#9)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:34:53 AM EST

the coverage of the Pennsylvania speech was great.
how much good did that do him?
again, far to much cred to the MSM.


Right... (none / 0) (#32)
by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:00:01 AM EST

...Gennifer Flowers (et al), draft dodging, and drug use all conspired to derail Bill Clinton's campaign for a while, and people thought he was done for. Obvioulsy Perot got involved, but still. These sort of all-heat, no-light controversies are rarely as all-consuming as they appear when the media is in its frenzy.

Obviously the boilerplate reply will be "Obama is no Bill Clinton," because that's easy to say and requires no argument. But Obama's done pretty well against the Clintons, well enough to get some respect as a campaigner from any fairminded person. So that stock reply isn't persuasive given our present situation.

Additionally, Bill's campaign appeared to flail around in the spring of 1992 as well. These sort of things aren't easy for anyone, and contrary to common wisdom no one makes it look easy. They just make you forget after the fact how hard they had to work.

I really doubt, however, that the coverage is positive in any real way. There's no positive way to spin either a 20-year involvement in a church that people fear OR a 20-year involvement in a church for political reasons. Wright is a problem for Obama if covered.


By positive. . . (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:04:12 AM EST

I mean putting the most positive light on the events of yesterday. They paint Obama as making a strong and heartfelt break from Wright based on surprising revelations Wright raised in speeches over the past few days. They make no mention of the inconsistencies in his story or the political expedience of the timing.


Bill was a shamelss (none / 0) (#36)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:05:07 AM EST

populist though.

He also won half the southern states.

Dream on with a repeat of that.


: That's true... (none / 0) (#38)
by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:10:17 AM EST

...again I'll invoke Perot's influence on the electoral map outcome as an undervalued piece of 1992 and, to a lesser extent, 1996.
But my point was more about the ephemeral nature of controversies.

I think (none / 0) (#71)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:27:19 PM EST

a lot of voters thought that he went to a traditional black evangelical church such as an African Methodist Episcopalian Church(AME) not some black liberation theology church.

Considering the fact that he lost PA by double the margin the campaign predicted on their spreadsheet, obviously Wright did some damage. The full extent of the damage is not know.

However, the part "you get no credit for going to the wrong church is right". Really Presidential candidates should stick to mainstream churches if they are going to talk about religion. Otherwise, it's a huge problem.


Giving Obama a break (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:34:38 AM EST

here, I don't think he really had any choice but to parade his church-going around, given his name and the pervasiveness of the Muslim rumors.

Of course, if he was really the millenial, post-racial uniter and healer he advertises himself to be, he would have chosen to confront the issue of the irrelevancy of religious faith and the right of Muslims to run for public office, but he's not brave enough to do that.

: How does that square with... (none / 0) (#41)
by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:16:06 AM EST

The fact he joined that particular church, whose ideology is resoundingly clear (it is not simply about Wright, but the church itself), 20 years ago and that Obama continues to emphasize his Muslim ties himself (as do his surrogates) as proof that he'll magically fix global ills?

You have to wonder... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by white n az on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:37:27 AM EST

about the guy who went to the church but never heard any of the sermons.

And I stay out of churches because I think that going to church to pick up women is too crass even for me.

If he met Rev. Write 20 years ago (none / 0) (#50)
by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:47:19 AM EST

and he credits Wright with convincing him to be a Christian, I wonder what he was, religion-wise, before then? I am a Christian, but I do not believe in organized religion. I am convinced that without exception, religions that supposedly base their preaching on the bible have basically picked and chose only those aspects of the bible they want to use and the way they want to interpret them for their members. And because most people do not really read the bible from cover to cover, preachers get away with many things.


: Obama was not raised in a faith (none / 0) (#53)
by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:51:38 AM EST

he said. Mother sounds like she was not just agnostic but decidedly anti-religion. So, interesting things to be thought about Obama rejecting that (and thus his mother? with only "dreams of his father"?)
More to the point on this, I have seen many friends who were not raised in a faith then having no point of comparison when deciding it's time to find one. And then they get caught up in some pretty odd ones and only see the contradictions too late, when their kids come home espousing what they're taught in Sunday School, which turns out to be the opposite of their parents' political beliefs.

LOL (none / 0) (#72)
by oldpro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:47:30 PM EST

As for 'never heard any of the sermons'...that cuts two ways. Not only is it not believable to most people but those who do believe it must get the impression that he's not a good listener...an important skill for a politician.


Oh, Democrats. You're either not religious (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by tigercourse on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:42:56 AM EST

enough (such as Dean, who probably hadn't cracked a bible in 40 years) or too darn religious (of the wrong kind).

Some day by gum we're gonna get it right.

The first time I took any real notice of Obama was the speech where he sniped at those who support secular government. The irony, it's so heavy I can't lift it!

: By his fruits shall ye know him. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:52:08 AM EST

The iony is thick there.
When the McLurkin episode occured I realized that Obama was too clingy to prominent black church leaders. I thought it was an expoitable point if there was a controvercial dispute in a black church. It's not quite over of course.
Consider the Rove attack--turn your opponents strength into a weak point.
Obama has destroyed Clinton with his black support that was formally hers. He's riden that pony to victory. A good GOP strategist will turn that into Obama's weak point.

: Dems are very religious today in blogsphere: (none / 0) (#66)
by feet on earth on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST

Through the teevee sreens throughout the USA:
A preacher commanded: ANALYZE THIS
WOW, THE PEPLE RESPONDED!!!
Bach to issues the Obama's supporters say. Sure, analyze this one: Healthcare.
There are 15 million reasons not to vote for Obama: one for each person who will be left put of his healthcare plan.
My mom and my sister died because of breast cancer, I am a breast cancer survivor proudly walking around with a chest not breasts due ti bilateral mastectomy.
I am with Elisabeth here.
Health, like air, food and water: vital. Without any of them you end up under a stone somewhere.

Will it stop nomination? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM EST

I appreciated when Clinton distanced herself from religion as a personal issue. I was uncomfortable when Obama so openly discussed it and when he sent out a religious mailer. But... will it stop him from getting the nomination? No. Despite all of the attention and even the multiple articles on Wright this morning (I was over at RCP) it will not stop him from getting the nom. My opinion is that race will trump religion and an article this morning agreed with that.....

Race Divide Means Supers Can't Pick Clinton - Gabor Steingart, Der Spiegel

Wow, I didn't need to read that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:55:03 AM EST

in the 'Audacity of Hope' called me "stubbornly secular". Kiss my firm unrestricted a$$ Obama!

: As it turns out (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:02:39 AM EST

Obama's piety is so self serving shallow you do have to wonder what the hell he is talking about.
secularism is a well founded and thoroughly respectable way to ensure equality of religion as outlined by the constitution.
Faux religiousity is just as problematic as the events of the last few days have proven.

The thing is (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:00:29 AM EST

I might have agreed with Obama's first statement above:

"The single biggest gap in party affiliation among white Americans is ... between those who attend church regularly and those who don't. Democrats, meanwhile, are scrambling to 'get religion,' even as a core segment of our constituency remains stubbornly secular."

if one could figure out a way to talk about the Democratic Party's relationship with religion without propping up the Republican Talking point that Democrats look down on people of faith.

Obviously, other bloggers are better able to discuss how this Rev. Wright business dovetails with Obama's previous rhetoric on religion and Democrats.

What I have to add to the mix, what I draw attention to is what Obama said about religion at a certain San Francisco fundraiser.

What I have learned about Obama is that he was never asking Democrats to have a more tolerant view of like minded less secular people, he was just trying to put himself in a position to use Religion the same way republicans do. To manipulate people into supporting him.

What I mean is, consider two ways of regarding religion:

Speaking less than kindly about it in an effort to justify separation of church and state.
Using it to manipulate people politically.

One of those things is actually more condescending and cynical than the other.

A long time ago, I kept referring to a poll that showed that voters considered Obama and Edwards more religious than Clinton. It was a perception issue. We know Clinton is religious. To say she is less religious than Edwards or Obama can be regarded by both secular progressives and Clinton supporters as a factually inaccurate statement.

All this meant is that Clinton, a religious person, did a better job than the other two of keeping her religion separate from her public life.

What would a political opponent do to attack that? Perhaps call her a secretive politician. I don't know.

defending religious equality (none / 0) (#40)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST

through public secularism is something that voters will understand.

It's pretty obvious that Obama is only nominally Christian. And to ad insult to injur he's pretending he's fulled with the holy spirit. He came very late in his life to religion. Largely for reasons of professional advancement. His church has a dodgy theology that seems barely Christian at all---more like nationalism. He either didn't attend his church or didn't listen to Wright. Or he agrees with the madman.

Then he publically broke with his reverend because his reverend was a political embarrassment.

People will notice this mess.

It would be much more sensible to defend a secular approach as a method to defend all denominations of Christianity and Judaism and if you are very brave--Islam, Buddism and Hinduism.

Just reiterate you'll defend everyone's right to worship. Rightwing evangelicals can understand that point and respect it.


What I found interesting (none / 0) (#47)
by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM EST

Is how, back then, Obama's statements on religion on sparked a resurgence of "Atheism Now!" diaries on the more "Progressive" blogs.

At the time one might have come across certain people talking about how Religious people cling to religion and how much more rational and better for society Atheists are.

Just another piece of the puzzle that is Obama and his curious movement.


I get turned off by Advocacy Athiesm (none / 0) (#51)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM EST

If you want to be the President just mention the amendmendment about religious equality.

Say that's what you'd like to defend.


Same here (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:03 AM EST

I'm an atheist, but I can't stand when people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins sometimes get condescending and insulting towards religious people. For me, the answer on religion is always tolerance and respect for all beliefs, as well as privacy.


Jefferson (none / 0) (#69)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:07:29 PM EST

merely wanted toleration. Franklin reminded him that he indended...ahem Mr Jefferson, to mean equality of religion.

I always like that exchange.


Just so you know... (none / 0) (#73)
by oldpro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:04:27 PM EST

I'm with the condescending and insulting bad boys on this subject.

Remaining private about your religion and personal beliefs is the best way to avoid being confronted about various believer stupidities by those of us who would never bring it up if you didn't.

In other words, "Shut up," she explained.


: LOL (none / 0) (#74)
by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST

OK, thanks for letting me know! I sympathize, but try to stay away from others' beliefs, which are obviously very meaningful to them even if outlandish to me!

Hm (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by chrisvee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:05:11 AM EST

I've always gotten the feeling from Clinton that she is uncomfortable discussing her faith and events have forced her hand a bit. That doesn't mean I don't think she hasn't used her faith to help create some relationships (particularly in the Senate with associates that thought less than charitably of her).

I think Obama has definitely received some benefits from his strategy of publicizing his faith in earlier contests to help him connect to voters as LarryNYC has noted. To some extent, his hand may have been forced by the Muslim rumors as someone noted here in comments (sorry, forgot who that was1). But I think those benefits are now at an end and the liabilities are now lining up to bite us all in the butt.

Although I think the media coverage has been relatively positive, I think we might find a disconnect at the voting booth. IMO Obama will shore up any flagging support in his base but won't be able to penetrate Clinton's base. The media coverage may have the effect of neutralizing the effect of this in the primary but masking the potential effect in the GE.

I'm really getting less enamored of the media darling rationale for voting for Obama as time goes by. It's too risky. I'm thinking that I prefer media anti-venom instead. I also think that if you're running a campaign based on being 'not that kind of politician' you need to be pretty sure that you don't let them see the man behind the curtain.

Fair or Not, Wright Hurts Obama (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by tdraicer on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:46:51 AM EST

I see online a lot of Obama supporters arguing that Wright shouldn't matter. Not sure I agree, but for the sake of argument, fine, he SHOULDN'T matter. Unfortunately saying that doesn't make it so, and Obama's ties with Wright are too deep and long-lasting for his belated decision to "toss him under the bus" to save him from a tidal wave of GOP attack ads in the fall. Bloggers, alas, don't get to decide what will influence people's votes, and Hope is not a plan (just as Unity is not a possibility).

: Wright doesn't matter -- unless judgment (5.00 / 4) (#55)
by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:53:52 AM EST

on Obama's part matters. Remember, he was supposed to be judged on his judgment? So if not judged on that, then we judge him on his experience. Oh oh.

What's wrong (3.33 / 3) (#59)
by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:16 AM EST

is pretense. Either you respect religion or whatever spiritual path you embrace and then...stick to it....or you don't.

What Obama has done is try to have it both ways. That's untenable.

I personally liked the discussion on faith, but I also liked Hillary's reticence to discuss her choices specifically.

Obama now appears to be worse than hypocritical. He appears to be a cynic of the worst type. Go to Church for expediency? For connections? To write a book and make himself "acceptable?"

And then he talks about healing the soul of the nation?

Good gravy.

This attitude is antithetical to spiritual principles.

I go back to one key point, however. He cannot write a book calling Wright his spiritual mentor, give interviews and discuss how he bounces ideas off of Wright often, and then now say he was really nothing more than a pastor. He is either pretending people don't hear the news and know that's a contradiction or he simply doesn't care.

Hillary, by contrast, looks a lot more straightforward in how she handled the exaggeration of her time in Bosnia. At least she said, "I'm embarassed."

Should he somehow still pull this off (none / 0) (#2)
by bjorn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:29:03 AM EST

and win in November, I can't wait to see what church he goes to! Say what you want about Clinton, but because she was raised in her Methodist faith, whenever she does talk about it, it does feel like it is a deep, core part of her. Obama not so much. Maybe Obama is really a christian, but he wears it like a cape that doesn't fit and he is more comfortable without the cape at all. I am not of any faith and agnostic, but I deeply admire people of faith when it is genuine. When it is not, everything else seems suspect to me.

But Rove was successful... (none / 0) (#4)
by white n az on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST

at painting the Dems as g-dless

: IMO (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:43:04 AM EST

the rise of God politics is directly related to the decline of the public education system.
it is all of a piece.
and no accident.

Plus -- We have little else to define him by... (none / 0) (#5)
by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:31:15 AM EST

Almost everyone just "met" the guy a few years ago at the dem convention. He's not like McCain or Clinton that for, better or worse, is well known and already thoroughly defined.

: Hence, the need for the long Primary Season (none / 0) (#48)
by santarita on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:44:28 AM EST

We have Obama's resume which is only the skeleton. Now we need to flesh him out a little.
Because of Rev. Wright, we now know a little more about Obama. We know that he was a long time member of a church that had a pastor that he now disagrees with (and presumably he now disagrees with the cheering section that came with Rev. Wright to the National Press Club show.). The disagreement appears so fundamental that it calls into question how serious of a parishioner Obama was. And perhaps this was the point of Rev. Wright's outburst. He wants us to know who he is and by extension who Obama is, or more pointedly who Obama is not.

Everyboy knows that (none / 0) (#18)
by eric on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:44:29 AM EST

the GOP is the party of religion, morals, and the defense department. No matter how hard a Democrat tries to out-do a Republican on any of these issues, she/he will never succeed. The conventional wisdom is set in stone. We should just stop trying.

Everybody (none / 0) (#20)
by eric on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:44:52 AM EST

that is.


: Frank's book (none / 0) (#31)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:59:18 AM EST

about Kansas was about us starting to be economic populists against. Many liberals have misunderstood the Frank thesis and Obama is among that number--He thought it was an excuse to mouth off about guns, god, racism and Xenophobia.
Frank was pointing out that Dem politicians have overinternaized freemarket economics and lassez faire attitudes. Outside of being our brother's keeper our Donkey like leadership really don't offer anything.
Economic populism is the only way to neutralize the electoral power of social conservatism. We cannot desire or attempt to change folkways by government decree or we will look like interfering fools.

Republican vs. Republican-lite (none / 0) (#42)
by Davidson on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST

The Republican wins every time.


Hmm (none / 0) (#21)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:44:57 AM EST

Amy Sullivan is one of those people who never seems to be able to get a fair shake from the blogs. I don't understand why Digby characterizes her piece the way she does, it seemed fine to me.

Amy Sullivan is dim (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST

imo.

I think she gets TOO fair a shake.


Hey now (none / 0) (#39)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST

I have met her. She's not dim!

The irony is that the blogs constantly accuse her of being unable to grasp where secular Democrats are coming from, but the secular Democrats on the blogs display a far, far greater lack of comprehension towards her.

I'm a secular guy myself (sample dialogue from home: "Steve, how could you not notice that dirty laundry lying in the middle of the floor?" "Honey, you know I'm a nonobservant Jew!") but I don't believe secularism is intrinsically wrapped up in the definition of what it means to be a liberal. But the idea that Democrats might need to do a better job of outreach to religious folks is seen as an utter heresy on the blogs.


: For Me The Bottom Line Is HOW The Dems (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:42:09 AM EST

do a better job of outreach to religious folks. Seems too often this means we need to copy the Republican's play book for outreach in rhetoric and style and fill our ranks with anti-abortion candidates.
I was raised in an organized religion but I was also raised to believe (against church doctrine at the time) that religion was a personal and private matter of choice.
I do not like politics to be cloaked in religion and I definitely do not want someone else's religious belief crammed down my throat through government policy . Also, it personally offends me because too often I feel that politicians are using God or their faith as a political tool rather than implement the basic tenets in policies to aid others less fortunate them themselves. I am a firm believer in "By their acts you shall know them."

Maybe not so much (none / 0) (#30)
by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:57:21 AM EST

I'm what O'Reilly would call a secular humanist and only enter the church(Catholic) for weddings, funerals and baptisms these days.

But I am an army brat and I don't like anyone saying G*d Damn America. I know it doesn't bother some people and that's fine. I really don't care if someone wears a flag on their lapel pin or not. What drivel. I don't care if they put their hand over their heart or not. More drivel.

I don't care if someone says G*d Damn this or any administration and/or the government. This country has a lot to answer for and is a long way from perfect IMHO. Still, I just am very uncomfortable with anyone saying what Reverend Wright said. And I am very uncomfortable with people that sit in that church and listen to him say it.

I've always felt uncomfortable... (none / 0) (#44)
by NWHiker on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM EST

with what I perceived to be religiosity out of Obama. For some reason, it bothered me in him, but not in Clinton or Edwards.

I voiced that on an other forum and was told that Obama's church was UCC, and as result, would be "very moderate" and "totally non threatening". I really wish I could contact that person today and have a chat.

was it (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Salo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:54:55 AM EST

Elise, Geekesque, AdamB or another one of the Pros?

The fact that no research was encouraged on this subject and critiques of his religiosity were dismissed or trolled away, doesn't reflect well on Dkos, Open Left and other websites.

This was low hanging GOP fruit. Given the way we have attacked Falwell, Roberson, Dobbs and Hagee--it's no surprise Hannity and the GOP hav decided to get their own back on ur reverend issues.


: It wasn't Kos, actually (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by NWHiker on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:02:57 AM EST

It was at Salon.
I agree that this should have come out before now. Because now it's out, he is going to be the nominee (I'm not happy with that, but I can't see it not happening) and he's pretty damaged. And it's only May (ok, April, fine!).
I used to think that the Rs wouldn't use this against him, because, hey! they have some pretty spectacular nutcase preachers on their side as well, that don't bear too much scrutiny, but I think I was wrong and that they will. To the Dems detriment, of course. Because they'll not be attacking "religion" but the "views on one pastor" but when Dems do it, it's really attacking religion. Sigh...

The UCC (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST

is a loose association of congregations, each one having a lot of leeway in dogma.


Wright is right (none / 0) (#45)
by Sunshine on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST

About Obama doing what a politician does... He has had to disavow nearly all of his associates from Chicago, one by one.. Did all these people go to the Trinity Church of Christ?

Does Wright Excommunicate Obama? (none / 0) (#52)
by santarita on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM EST

Given yesterday's denunciation, does Rev. Wright excommunicate the wayward member of his church?

: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:51:56 AM EST

I have a hard time believing the UCC does excommunications!

A lot of my friends (none / 0) (#60)
by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:09:55 AM EST

sent their children to Iraq. It's not a knee-jerk reaction based on nothing.

I have absolutely learned to never remark about the war or get sarcastic about patriotism, because so many people have real children in real danger right now.

The $20,000 donation in 2006 says (none / 0) (#61)
by katiebird on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:12:44 AM EST

to me that Obama was deeply involved in Wright's church. That's a huge amount of money -- many people don't take home that much in a year.

For people who make a certain amount of money (none / 0) (#65)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:55:34 AM EST

on, say, book sales, $20k is pocket change.


Oh, I know they could afford it (none / 0) (#68)
by katiebird on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST

But, it's still about one-third of their charitable contributions for that year. Which I think makes it significant.


: Seems to me like they were giving (none / 0) (#70)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:10:01 PM EST

plenty of money.
You should see the size of donations that some art museums, theaters, etc. get.
Like I said: pocket change.

I don't get Shapiro (none / 0) (#64)
by Lena on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST

He writes

In Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democrats boast the most overtly religious cross-on-their-sleeve presidential candidates since Jimmy Carter prayed alone.

Really? Hillary Clinton is one of the "most overtly religious cross-on-her sleeve presidential candidates (blah blah blah)".

I'd say that's true of Obama, but definitely not so of Clinton. This reminds me of one of the ploys of the main stream media. Take a Republican scandal (say... the Abramoff scandal) and try to drag Democrats in no matter how inconsequential their connection to it.

The same dynamic is being replayed by the left wing, but now Obama is in the position of the Republican, and Clinton is in the position of the hapless Democrat, being dragged under by all of Obama's weaknesses.

please stop including (none / 0) (#67)
by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:58:23 AM EST

your link to your website in the body of your comments. It's in your user profile. This is the fourth time I'm making this request.