home

Obama Says Faith Community to be a Priority of His Administration

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:39:40 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Barack Obama privately met with religious leaders in Chicago today. His spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters on the campaign plane today:

Reaching out to the faith community is a priority for Barack Obama and will be a priority under an Obama Administration. This is one of several meetings he will have over the coming months with religious leaders....He's done it before. He'll do it again.

He did it in South Carolina, here's his mailer(pdf).

As for who was present at the meeting, it was a combination Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants and Catholics. Among them: [More...]

Mega-pastor TD Jakes and pro-life Catholic constitutional law professor Doug Kmiec...Rich Cizik with the conservative National Association of Evangelicals, best selling Christian author Max Lucado, Luis Cortes, Paul Corts, Cameron Strang, Bishop Phillip Cousin, Rev Stephen Thurston, Glenn Palmberg and Dr T Dewitt Smith.

The meeting lasted two hours during which they prayed. The Christian News Network is thrilled:

This is one more example of how Obama is not just bringing in the 'religious left' into his coalition. He wants to bring in conservative figures, too. McCain has some work to do.

As for anti-choice law prof Doug Kmiec: "Kmiec is pro-life and has come out in support of Obama. "

Kmiec served Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush during 1985-89 as constitutional legal counsel (Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice).

Here's a list of his writings.

< Bob Barr Insists He's Seen the Light | McCain Steps Up Outreach to Jewish Democrats >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Says Faith Community to be a Priority of His Administration | 214 comments (214 topical)
    Alrighty....he needs to be stopped....this is (5.00 / 25) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    gwb redux!

    It is a mistake to assume ... (4.50 / 2) (#23)
    by cymro on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:59:14 PM EST
    ... that everyone in the "faith community" is a right-winger. There is a Christian left. See, for example, Jim Wallis.

    [ Parent ]
    Google some of these guys.... (5.00 / 17) (#41)
    by ap in avl on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    the are NOT the Christian Left.  Rich Cizik is anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-stem cell research.  He describes himself as a Bush conservative.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay yeah sure (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM EST
    you bet.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course there's (5.00 / 15) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:09:09 PM EST
    A Christian Left,  He's not a republican party George W. Bush.  He's a Democratic Party George W. Bush.


    [ Parent ]
    Wallis is good but got sucked in by Bush on the (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by sallywally on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:23:22 PM EST
    faith-based stuff. He discovered the truth soon enough and loudly said so.

    Was he at the meeting?

    Is Obama meeting with him or other progressive Christians?

    We don't need any faith-based crap in our own party. This could be a deal-breaker for me.

    How about John Shelby Spong, the retired Episcopal bishop who ordained the first gay priest in the E. church?

    [ Parent ]

    And was the Christian Left represented (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:38:05 PM EST
    in their prayer group today?

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    Not from what I have seen.

    I am a big fan of John Shelby Spong, have read all his books. I would be curious to find out who, if anyone, he endorsed.

    [ Parent ]

    As far as I can tell, Spong's religious (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04:25 PM EST
    beliefs are indistinguishable from atheism.
    He's a good guy.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm glad you like him BUT he still (4.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:03:06 PM EST
    has no place in a faith planning session for an "Obama Administration".

    Tonight I will go to bed with this prayer on my lips (yup, I'm a believer...but not in terms of my government being involved):  

    "Please please dear God, let Obama stumble and fall flat on his face in the next 30 days....please God, I promise to be good.  Amen"

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 18) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:41:37 PM EST
    Whoever it was that whined in the other thread that the DNC outreach was about a political party and therefore not technically a "church-state" issue will need to find a new rationalization in this thread.

    I'm kinda hoping he doesn't even find this (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:43:29 PM EST
    thread... :)

    [ Parent ]
    Do you think his time might be better spent (5.00 / 24) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:42:49 PM EST
    honing his foreign policy, uhc, fixing the economy skills instead?

    Well, they'll probably (5.00 / 16) (#10)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:54:02 PM EST
    pray for the economy and foreign affairs, etc.

    That's worked so well during the Bush years, hmmm?

    This is NOT my Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]

    ummm hmmm, bush doesn't even have (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:55:52 PM EST
    his shill James Dobson to fall back on anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    He might better spend his time (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    using his brain.

    [ Parent ]
    What economy skills? n/t (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by mg7505 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:49:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The Economy Skills (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:52:34 PM EST
    People believe he has because the last Dem president was pretty good with the Economy.


    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    don't worry!  Obama is pro-choice!

    Hey, I have a bridge I'd like to (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:41:58 PM EST
    speak to you about.

    NARAL is so screwed.  Serve them right!

    [ Parent ]

    you'd prefer a president who has (4.00 / 2) (#196)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:18:10 PM EST
    ... this on his website?

    Overturning Roe v. Wade

    John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

    Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.



    [ Parent ]
    Go read. Learn. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:21:24 PM EST
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/prochoice_democrats_and_john_m.html

    [ Parent ]
    My goodness, if I weren't voting against Obama for (5.00 / 17) (#6)
    by Calvados on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:46:44 PM EST
    other reasons already, this would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.  I can only hope that the superdelegates are as disgusted by this turn of events as I am.  This might even be enough to turn some of the so-called pledged delegates.  If I wanted this, I'd vote for the Republicans.

    Come to think of it, I guess I will if nothing drastic happens at the convention.

    In another thread, someone jokingly (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:56:35 PM EST
    suggested that we disaffected dems should consider trying a take-over of the republican party.  If these -- um, how about -- undesirables, are going to become Obamacans, maybe the waters are safe again back at the GOP for centrist, moderate folks who love their civil liberties, including that silly little wall between church and state.  

    Now if only McCain would offer Hillary the GOP veep slot.  Now there's a ticket I could get behind!

    [ Parent ]

    That's pretty funny.... (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    ...then we could call ourselves the party of Lincoln.

    [ Parent ]
    And the party of Roosevelt, (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:02:32 PM EST
    both Franklin and Teddy!

    [ Parent ]
    I suggested it weeks ago (5.00 / 14) (#35)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    It was a rainy Saturday afternoon, and I was feeling sad about where the Democratic Party was going. If the evangelicals are moving over to the Dems, my current exile from the Democratic Party will be permanent.  This is scary.

    [ Parent ]
    Makes me angry (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    that he waited until after Hillary dropped out to start this crap.

    [ Parent ]
    It wouldn't surprise me in the least (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by RalphB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:16:35 PM EST
    if McCain gets elected, I imagine he may throw the radical right under the bus in a heartbeat.

    That could transform the GOP and maybe those centrists would have their voice back.


    [ Parent ]

    As Long As They Believe That Obama (5.00 / 12) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:21:26 PM EST
    can keep the money rolling in nothing he does will disgust the Super Ds.

    [ Parent ]
    Doncha mean (5.00 / 12) (#72)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    tithes?

    [ Parent ]
    Tell me again (5.00 / 19) (#8)
    by stillife on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:51:27 PM EST
    why I should vote for him b/c of the Supreme Court?
    This is no wink wink!!!!! (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:20:00 PM EST
    I have been posting this all over blogs for a couple of months now.  Prof. Kmiec endorsed Obama and Kmiec has the credentials to be a serious contender for US Sup. Ct.  Consider these words from Kmiec and his quotes of Obama:

    For those unfamiliar wiht Prof. Kmiec, he is a noted legal scholar, and ardent Roman Catholic. He has the credentials and standing to become a serious nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Also, he is a member of the IL bar, and has written for the Chicago Tribune. I know of no other link to Obama.
    IN writing on Obama, Prof. Kmiec has quoted Obama's positon on abortion as:
    As he [Obama] writes, "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
    Note, one COULD view Obama's personal position on abortion as influencing his "present" votes on a woman's right to choose while an IL state senator.
    Prof. Kmiec reconciles his endorsement of Obama (not McCain, who is adamantly pro life) by citing to the offical bishops' edict on voting and abortion:
    "a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position." But voters should not use a candidate's opposition to abortion "to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity" -- such as, say, the invasion of a foreign nation leading to the sacrifice of the lives of our own troops and of thousands of others."
    Prof. Kmiec also posits the following question/statement:
    "[B]ut here's the question: Does Obama's thoughtful appreciation of faith mean that he would work toward the protection of life in all contexts even if that protection cannot be achieved in a single step?  I am inclined to think so . . ."  
    Interesting endorsement, no matter how you read it. However, note further that Prof. Kmiec had endorsed Mitt Romney, just 6 months prior.

    [ Parent ]

    Endorsed Mitt Romney (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:23:33 PM EST
    now I feel better now.  thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Kmiec the next Scalia? (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by RalphB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Harrop had an interesting (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:28:57 PM EST
    opinion piece on McCain and SC appointments today.

    I'm not very familiar with her work but I've seen it linked to from TL before, so I took a look.

    She argues that while McCain is anti-abortion, he's unlikely to make putting more extreme anti-abortion jurists on the SC a big goal of his presidency, were he to have one.

    It's still too close for comfort for me (to vote for him, that is), but I did find it interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    I actually think Harrop's right, (5.00 / 7) (#173)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:09:23 PM EST
    that McCain is a pretty safe choice re: Roe v. Wade.  First, despite what the Obama hordes are trying to sell, it seems unlikely McCain would have any Sp. Ct. vacancies to fill in his single term.  JPS shows no signs of slowing down -- remember, the 80s are the new 60s.  Second, being strongly anti-abortion has never been McCain's thing.  Remember when he got attacked in 2000 when he answered the question about what he would do if his (then) teenaged daughter got pregnant?  The right-wingers went bonkers because he said the family would sit down and decide on the best choice for her, and if that was abotion, so be it.  I think that was really him talking.  Once he's in, since he's not running for re-election, he won't owe anything to these folks, who I'm guessing he still holds responsible for how he was savaged in 2000.  If he does get a Sp, Ct. vacancy, revenge may be sweet.  Another Souter anyone?

    As for Obama, he would be running for re-election from the get go.  I see no reason to trust him on choice, particularly after this latest "reaching out."  

    [ Parent ]

    what are you talking about?!? (3.00 / 1) (#212)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:51 PM EST
    First, despite what the Obama hordes are trying to sell, it seems unlikely McCain would have any Sp. Ct. vacancies to fill in his single term.

    Stevens will be just shy of his 89th(!) birthday by inauguration day.  You think it unlikely that there will be a vacancy?!

    Secondly, read McCain's own web site:

    Overturning Roe v. Wade

    John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

    Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

    These aren't scare tactics -- these are facts.

    [ Parent ]

    Frankly I would expect (5.00 / 6) (#188)
    by RalphB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:15:31 PM EST
    nominees like Sandra Day O'Connor from McCain.  She was a good fit with his traditional western GOP views.  In any case, the Democratic senate could quash any really right-wing types.

    [ Parent ]
    may i suggest an edit to your post? (4.90 / 10) (#214)
    by dws3665 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:26:02 PM EST
    In any case, the Democratic senate could quash any really right-wing types...

    if they had any moral fortitude.

    [ Parent ]

    We need 100% (5.00 / 15) (#9)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:52:20 PM EST
    separation of church and state.  Anything else is just a perversion of what this country was founded on.

    Never had it... (3.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Artoo on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:54:43 PM EST
    There's always been some gray area there. Don't both chambers of congress employ chaplains? The military does too.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok then (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by JustJennifer on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:56:26 PM EST
    as close as we can get.  

    I am just uncomfortable with Obama doing this as I have been with Bush.  

    [ Parent ]

    What I'm wondering is.... (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
    ...how many more core beliefs we will have to gloss over in order to be "good democrats" in this election. I thought that the Obama wing of the party was the idealistic one. You guys are starting to sound a like like Bill Clinton. LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    your analysis is dead wrong (5.00 / 13) (#42)
    by angie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:06:24 PM EST
    having a chaplain or the words "In God We Trust" on the dollar is NOT mixing religion with politics -- mixing religion with politics is making political decisions based on tenets of a religion -- which is what W has done and, it seems, Obama plans to co-opt for himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (4.92 / 13) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:28:10 PM EST
    I've learned to accept them ending their speeches with "G-d bless America" but more than that and I'm uncomfortable. Will the Ten Commandments on government property be making a comeback too? With another Supreme Court it might.

    [ Parent ]
    that was prior to Constitutional Amendments (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:23:08 PM EST
    Just an earlier custom.  Read this link.  Founding Fathers were not all that religious; that is a myth, at best:

    http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
     

    [ Parent ]

    You're equating (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:34:05 PM EST
    chaplains saying a prayer in Congress with implementing policy?

    I doubt it.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm confused (5.00 / 13) (#11)
    by Coldblue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:54:27 PM EST
    I thought that it was Obama's 'old-style' political opponents that would say anything to get elected.

    Can someone enlighten me?

    So what is the churches view (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:54:51 PM EST
    On torture! On a day when the Senate Judiciary Committee is looking into our use of torture, Obama announces how he is going to incorporate church and state. There are major issuesfacing this country that require answers, not dreams and speeches.

    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:18:23 PM EST
    website here, has progressive views opposing  torture, opposing the death penalty and immigration reform. Here's what they said about the anti-gang bill:

    On Thursday, May 5, the USCCB sent a letter to the entire House asking members to oppose provisions in the bill that would expand the use of the death penalty, treat juveniles as adults and impose mandatory minimum sentences (see attached). House members now need to hear from you that the current version of the House Gang Bill will not help to combat gang-related violence because it emphasizes severe punishment over reform.

    Of course, they oppose abortion and gay marriage.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm all for them (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:25:25 PM EST
    opposing capital punishment.  But we're never going to get 100% from ANY religious group.

    [ Parent ]
    which is why (5.00 / 11) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:29:00 PM EST
    voters should pick a party based on which most supports their views on issues, not their religion.

    [ Parent ]
    Problem is that if we continue (5.00 / 10) (#103)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:37:26 PM EST
    with the way I see this party going I get a feeling that it is no longer supporting many of the issues I find important.  Now, I have never been to sure what Obama stands for, but this party sure went all out to make him the nominee.  And by this Party i mean the so called leadership, not it's constituents. Just worried that when I changed from Republican to Democrat this Party may be taking a turn to what made me quit being a Republican.

    [ Parent ]
    But if this candidate is making religion (5.00 / 7) (#167)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:06:44 PM EST
    a "priority," that's a major issue for me.

    [ Parent ]
    This is hysterical. (5.00 / 16) (#19)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:58:08 PM EST
    Obama's entire Christian life includes being the member of one church.  Wright's church.  Which I assume was for political gain.  This is just so funny.  It's to be expected.  He ran under the GWB banner "uniter not divider".  Mission accomplished?

    I have a screenplay (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:18:28 PM EST
    To sell to David Geffen.

    It's about a politician who resigns from his church reaching out to the religious community.

    Think he'll buy it?

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't see McLurkin on the list (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by angie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 08:59:34 PM EST
    he & his homophobia helped bring SC home for Obama -- I'm sure it's just an oversight by "staff." btw -- his use of McLurkin in SC is where Obama lost my vote forever.

    Maybe Daily Kos (5.00 / 10) (#33)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:02:50 PM EST
    will change it's name to  (our) Daily Bread?

    Daily Kos has a (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    second site called "Street Prophets."

    [ Parent ]
    Well, alrighty then (5.00 / 14) (#100)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:36:23 PM EST
    The mirror image is complete.  The Left has religious groups and crazy ministers to match the Right, sexists to match their racists, and at least one overheated cable news bloviator. Not to mention the corporations buying luxury suites at the convention.

    I guess there is change in there somewhere...oh yeah, the sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow! (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Dave B on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    That's all I can say is just Wow!

    When did that little site take off?  A Daily Kos Community!  Wow!

    I'm Roman Catholic and seeing that gives me the willies.

    [ Parent ]

    Un-holy guacamole! (5.00 / 13) (#36)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:03:09 PM EST
    Anytime great rascals get together, they begin by talking about god.

    Then they pray.

    Then they prey.

    Thank you, Jeralyn (5.00 / 18) (#48)
    by stillife on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:10:05 PM EST
    for keeping it real. I understand that you and BTD are supporting Obama, but I trust you to call him out on his BS.  And this is BS.  

    He's using religion just like the Republicans do.  It may be a "smart" political move, but is this a new kind of politics?  What's the point of being a Democrat if they are turning into Republicans?

    there isn't (5.00 / 16) (#51)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:11:46 PM EST
    IMO.  that's why SO many Dems are tearing up their voter registration cards, sending them to the DNC and registering as Indies.

    [ Parent ]
    I have considered doing that (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by stillife on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:16:01 PM EST
    but NY has closed primaries and I have a sentimental attachment to being a Democrat.  However, I have no more loyalty to the Democratic Party.  They are dead to me!

    [ Parent ]
    True, this is a problem (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:15:35 PM EST
    In NY, especially in the city, most of the action in local politics takes place in the Democratic primaries.

    That was the reason I registered Dem in the first place.

    It's a quandary.

    [ Parent ]

    He's trying to follow Hillary's lead (3.00 / 4) (#181)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:11:50 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton speaks of faith in face of adversity
    THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Sunday, May 25th 2008, 1:23 PM
    HORMIGUEROS, Puerto Rico - Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday offered a spiritual defense for continuing her presidential campaign despite the long odds of overtaking rival Barack Obama.

    Speaking to a full congregation at the Pabellon de la Victoria evangelical church, Clinton spoke in measured terms about faith in the face of adversity.

    "There isn't anything we cannot do together if we seek God's blessing and if we stay committed and are not deterred by the setbacks that often fall in every life," Clinton said.
    Clinton is campaigning for Puerto Rico's primary on June 1, which offers 55 pledged delegates to the national Democratic convention. The New York senator is expected to win the contest, thanks partly to her ties to the large Puerto Rican community in her home state.

    Clinton spoke of her determination to stay in the race despite trailing Illinois Sen. Obama by nearly 200 delegates, with 2,026 needed to win the party's nomination. Obama was about 50 delegates short of the number needed to clinch - and Clinton says she will keep going until one of them does.
    "If I had listened to those who had been talking over the last several months we would not be having this campaign in Puerto Rico today," she said, alluding to calls during the past few months for her to drop out of the race.

    "But I believe this is an opportunity unlike any in recent history for the needs and interests and diversity of the people of Puerto Rico to be in the spotlight. This is an opportunity to educate everyone about this wonderful place," Clinton said.
    Clinton took the stage after more than an hour of joyful noise - religious singing and dancing, led by an eight-piece band and 16-person chorus. Women and girls in bright red, blue and white dresses danced in front of Clinton, shaking tambourines as parishioners clapped and waved their hands.

    "I believe in all my heart that what is happening in this church today is part of God's purpose and part of the community of believers that can in ways large and small transform lives," she said.

    [ Parent ]

    That's a personal statement, not (5.00 / 12) (#185)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:14:03 PM EST
    a political philosophy of mingling religion and politics to create policy.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:19:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh man (5.00 / 7) (#215)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:26:47 PM EST
    I'm reminded of nothing so much as right-wingers trying to create the false equivalence between Bush consulting religious leaders on Supreme Court nominations, and John Kerry giving a speech or two in a church.

    Do you seriously think giving a speech in a church is the same thing as vowing to give "faith" a prominent place in your administration?  Are there any progressives who care about secularism any more?

    [ Parent ]

    do not reprint articles here (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:27:52 PM EST
    link in html format and quote a bit. It's a bandwidth hogger and a copyright infringement and against our site rules.

    [ Parent ]
    Truly we are becoming what we used to scorn... (5.00 / 17) (#54)
    by Berkshireblue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:14:46 PM EST
    I think this is a sorry road to go down. The problem with "religion" in politics these days is that we all know that "religious" voters, values voters, aren't about religion or "Christian values" but rather about bigotry and curtailing civil rights, teaching "creation science" in schools, praying in schools and insinuating religion into all facets of public life, inserting their religious tenants into law. Why on earth would we want to appeal to these people. Plus, we're 20 years or so too late to that party and it looks so calculated and blatant and antithetical to what Democrats have stood for-or what they used to stand for.

    Why do the Repubs love religious voters? Because they are more likely to accept authoritarian rule.
    Our founding fathers knew this. As Jefferson said on this subject: "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." and a personal favorite: " Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight...". Can someone throw Obama the Constitution?

    that's why we should (5.00 / 20) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:21:55 PM EST
    not refer to them as the Christian right but the radical right. There is nothing Christian about bigotry and intolerance.

    [ Parent ]
    I will spead that (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:30:53 PM EST
    info on my blog.  I am SUPER careful to never use the radical right's language (example: partial-birth abortion...NO such thing).

    Thanks for the heads-up JM.

    [ Parent ]

    Has Obama used that phrase, btw? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:15:04 PM EST
    (partial birth abortion).

    [ Parent ]
    what I find alarming about this (5.00 / 12) (#69)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:22:23 PM EST
    is not so much that he's reaching out to religious groups (or "faith communities", ish), which I'd expect of any presidential candidate. Political necessity, I'd say.

    It's that, as the article quoted in the post says, he's reaching out not only to the left but to conservative religious as well... people who share very little of the values we hold dear...

    ...while, may I remind you, he's not seeing any reason to reach out to the long-time Democratic voters he's managed to alienate, which includes a lot of people like me who are truly on the left (and, may I add, a religious Jew).

    I'm waiting, Obama, I'm waiting...

    [ Parent ]

    This is honest-to-God truth: (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:38:27 PM EST
    "we all know that "religious" voters, values voters, aren't about religion or "Christian values"

    Quite correct, from the standpoint of this Christian (slightly heretical Christian, maybe.  But then Jesus was a slightly heretical Jew to my mind.)

    Jeralyn, are you really comfortable with this candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    Pay attention: this is NOT about Obama vs. McCain (5.00 / 12) (#58)
    by BoGardiner on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:18:11 PM EST
    It's about letting OUR PARTY know it's SCREWING UP when we're as "freaked out" about Obama as we are about McCain.

    Pretty Obama rhetoric, we have learned the hard way, means precious little.  While he's saying one thing at the microphone, he had authorized his campaign to frequently do something diametrically opposed.

    Wonder what Richard Dawkins thinks of this.

    It's our party too and they'd better damn well start paying attention.

    Obama is just reaching out to another (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:22:13 PM EST
    group which he will put under the bus later, when it suits him.

    Heaven forbid they reproduce :-) (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by RalphB on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:22:31 PM EST


    Cynicism (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by jb64 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    Pandering to religious groups, or sincere attempt to find areas of agreement? Either way, its a dog that won't hunt with most "religious" values voters. Particularly after you left your church when it became politically expedient to do so.

    Re (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:34:59 PM EST
    volting.

    Pro-choice is going to be the "issue" (5.00 / 17) (#101)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:37:17 PM EST
    that Obama plays Kumbaya with...I can feel it in my bones.  Whether it's related to "kind-of" conservative judges or modifications to Roe v Wade we are going to be scr*wed.  And if you're a lesbian, gay or transexual...watch out!

    This is unacceptable on so many levels that I was having a hard time not sputtering and stuttering as I told my husband about it.  He, a nice Jewish boy from NY, is furious.

    A long time ago I thought that (5.00 / 12) (#112)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:41:45 PM EST
    Obama must have a secret plan for rapprochement with the right---that he could not be so certain of getting their votes unless he was going to offer something concrete. My idea at the time was that he would craft a "grand compromise" on abortion.
    Later I thought SS was the bone he would toss to the right wing. Who knows, maybe he will do both---one before the election and one after.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:43:39 PM EST
    we have that in common, too.  My husband is also Jewish.

    This religion thing has totally changed the picture.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe that's why they needed to... (5.00 / 11) (#124)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:46:33 PM EST
    ...put us old feminists in our place????

    [ Parent ]
    Blah, blah, blah. (5.00 / 15) (#106)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    Shoo, fly.

    He was endorsed by NARAL because he promised to give them money.  The state affiliates disavowed the endorsement.

    Hillary has a proven record.  He doesn't, and people saw through the endorsement.

    You can rationalize it away (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Baal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:05:30 PM EST
    But to attack Obama from the left on this issue is utterly absurd.

    By the way, I am not a fly.  My support for a host of progressive candidates has hit my bank account fairly substantively this year.

    [ Parent ]

    The rationalizing occurs when (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:08:09 PM EST
    people excuse Obama's voting record on reproductive rights.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't Obama inviting future interference (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:40:00 PM EST
    by the RCC? What I mean is that if he backtracks from his wink and nod towards the pro-life movement, then parishioners will be told they should not vote for Obama, just as happened with Kerry in 2004.


    Obama is playing both sides. (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:47:01 PM EST
    While politically Obama votes with pro-choice, personally he is pro-life. That is evident in Obama's writings as quoted by Prof. Kmiec.  See the following Obama quote:

    As he [Obama] writes, "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

    [ Parent ]

    I had not read that (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:58:34 PM EST
    Is that in one of his books?  

    Is he out and about asking people of all faiths to find him an acceptable reason to seek a law banning abortion?

    [ Parent ]

    Funny. (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by pie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:40:27 PM EST
    Digby posted his most recent comments yesterday if you care to check it out.  

    Really funny.

    Ha. Love it. (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:44:01 PM EST
    Very knowledgeable about the leftie blogs, I see.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama on religion and public policy (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Baal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw

    Please watch this and then decide if this is someone who's views are somehow alarming.  

    I watched clip (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:54:38 PM EST
    Does explain a bit.  However, it is a prepared verbal presentation.  I try not to listen to what is said; I rather watch what is happening.  Often in life there is a disjoint between the two.  Words, just words.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama was the guy (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Baal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:59:26 PM EST
    who is getting called a closet Muslim.

    He has the right to meet with people of any kind of faith he wants to if it helps build bridges.  There are a host of issues that need addressing and McCain is on the wrong side of all of them.  

    I am personally a fairly strident atheist.

    [ Parent ]

    This is not the same thing (5.00 / 6) (#177)
    by sallywally on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:10:37 PM EST
    as meeting with folks to get the facts of his biography straight.

    This is a suckup, unnecessary and inappropriate and very distressing.

    [ Parent ]

    Can we vote "present" in November? (5.00 / 9) (#122)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:45:02 PM EST


    I think you can vote "present"... (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:58:49 PM EST
    Just go to your local voting site, get your oficial ballot, and turn it in unmarked.  Your vote will be added to the tally, but won't help any of the candidates.

    If you'er the only one who does it they'd just think you're crazy.  Nut if a million people do it, they'll think it's a movement.  

    Arlo told me so.  Sorta.  But I trust him on this one.

    [ Parent ]

    Arlo?! (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You skipped over what they'll think if it's just 2 (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by BoGardiner on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:14:32 PM EST
    And I think Arlo thought only three were needed to make it a movement.

    Oops, we're revealed as Hippies for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely (5.00 / 6) (#174)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:09:47 PM EST
    Leave the top spot blank.  Or vote for one of the 3rd party candidate.

    But for goodness sake, make sure and vote in down-ticket races and for ballot measures.  Don't let this suppress your attendance at the polling place.

    [ Parent ]

    And in the choice between a (5.00 / 8) (#128)
    by mg7505 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:48:26 PM EST
    real Republican and a Republican lite, we know whom voters will choose. Say hello to President McCain.

    This is another perfect example of the Obama campaign neglecting the Democratic base in their Race To The Center. Forget women, the elderly, minorities and the lower-income bracket -- nay, we're going after rich white Evangelicals. Next up: Beverly LaHaye, and Tim too if we're lucky. Also keep an eye out for Ted Haggard, Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell's ghost. Maybe Obama's speech at the convention will just be a prayer. That's all he'll have left at this rate.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:07:19 PM EST
    Democrats often make this terrible mistake.  

    [ Parent ]
    Faith no more, please... (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:52:25 PM EST
    Jeralyn, in a preceding related post you asked a good question:

    I wonder why faith gatherings weren't held at prior Democratic conventions? Perhaps because politics and religion should remain separate? That's my view.

    You're certainly not alone in your views on the separation of church and state. It's particularly noteworthy that Democrats have managed to rigorously preserve that fundamental tenet over the past 25 years since the tyrannical religious right came to full power during Regan's Presidency. So, what has changed?

    I would suggest that there will be "faith gatherings" at the upcoming Democratic convention because the theology of the declared nominee's faith is proving to be considerably more controversial than that of any other Democratic nominee.

    JFK's catholicism posed some problems for his candidacy, but Obama is looking at a different order of magnitude altogether.

    IMO, the faith gatherings of the 2008 Democratic convention are contrived for the cynical, politically-expedient purpose of neutralizing the ongoing, and impending, fall-out over Obama's 20 year association with a church that is widely perceived to be outside the mainstream.

    Those prospective, all-inclusive, Democratic "faith gatherings" will prove to be jolly good sport for the GOP arbiters of fundamentalist/mainstream religion who, evidently, thought Mitt Romney's Mormonism was beyond the pale for the man at the top of the ticket.

    So it really is just like Kerry's (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:55:42 PM EST
    reporting for duty skit of 2004, but with a different aim in mind. Gosh, that worked out well.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't this (5.00 / 6) (#195)
    by chrisvee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:17:35 PM EST
    just inviting the media to revisit Obama's list of rapidly disappearing spiritual advisors? I'm concerned this is an invitation for swiftboating.

    [ Parent ]
    I think BTD is right - Media Darling (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:19:36 PM EST
    CNN was eating this sh!t up...Oh McCain should be scared Obama is poaching religious voters, I am not kidding.  I think Obama will be able to say or do anything he wants and the press are going to act like he is manna from Heaven.

    [ Parent ]
    Keep in mind - the religious right (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:54:59 PM EST
    thinks McCain is too liberal.  Obama doesn't seriously think he is going to peel off those voters.  This is a religious initiative of his own.

    I've voted for R's in the past. (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    But the religious right is one of the reasons why I don't do that anymore.  I'm trying to get away from these people and Obama is setting out the fine china and hors d'oeuvres for them.  What am I supposed to think?  At least once upon a time McCain called these people hate merchants.  Looks like I'll have to take what I can get.

    Why the evangelicals... (5.00 / 14) (#152)
    by elmey on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:59:06 PM EST
    I don't understand this at all.  For the first time in years, the evangelical right has begun to lose some of its grip on power--they couldn't stop the nomination of McCain and were wavering in their support of the Republicans.  This group, even in its "kinder & gentler" form, has had a toxic effect on American politics, why are we giving them a foothold in the Democratic Party?  They are not inclusive and have no intention of changing, do we really want to give them an opportunity to start an assault on the democratic platform--and they will start that assault.

    I guess I really don't understand why Obama is trolling for votes among this group before making any gesture to get women and blue collar whites back in the fold. It's disappointing.  

    If he's so honest, above board and ethical, (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by sallywally on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:59:56 PM EST
    why on earth does he have to do something like this? This is no new politics, at least not in any positive sense.

    Very scary.

    Ugh (5.00 / 7) (#168)
    by chrisvee on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:07:07 PM EST
    I don't know what worries me more...if he's serious about this or if he's using them.

    I've thought for a while that the entire Obama campaign was about adopting the Rovian/Bushian playbook in order to win.  But the question is, will we know who we are when we're done? Or will we get lost along the way?

    I'm an atheist and I appreciate the secular focus of the Democratic Party. I definitely will leave if this trend continues. I don't like it. YMMV.

    Since you did not hesitate to mention (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    Do you mind providing a source for the allegation that some of Hillary's staffers are helping to spread smears that he is a closet Muslim?  

    And for future reference, I don't base my vote on anger.  I examine the issues/policies of the candidate.  

    Jews? Muslims? (5.00 / 11) (#175)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    I'm searching everywhere in these articles and in the list of attendees for any indication that Obama is defining "the faith community" as anything other than strictly Christian.

    WTF is going on here?

    Do we know anything (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by joanneleon on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:10:22 PM EST
    about Doug Kmiec's reasoning on supporting Obama even though he's staunchly pro-life?  Does he have any reason to believe there will be any compromises on it by an Obama administration?  Or is it possible that he has decided it is more important to join the coalition and put his pro-life interests aside?

    As for anti-choice law prof Doug Kmiec: "Kmiec is pro-life and has come out in support of Obama. "
    Timing of this and the Joshua stuff is interesting (5.00 / 8) (#197)
    by sallywally on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:18:43 PM EST
    AFTER he gets the nomination, not before, no statement that he'd be doing this if nominated....

    I wonder what the primary results would have been if people had known he'd be doing this....clearly, he probably expected the results would be bad, or he'd have been d