<p>Admittedly perhaps pandering is not the appropriate word as I can’t speak to Obama’s personal beliefs. I’m curious that last time the Democrats went after or ever stopped ridiculing the evangelicals long enough to court their vote. I’m not an evangelical so it doesn’t matter to me but it striked me funny…being cynical and all.</p>
<p>Democrats were not always seen as the die-hard secularists they seem to be perceived as now. The Democratic Party used to be the party of Catholics. Religion has been and continues to be an important dimension of the African-American experience.Jimmy Carter wore his religious beliefs on his sleeve, if I recall correctly.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the only other two African American men who ran for president, Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton, are ordained Baptist ministers. </p>
<p>There is also a very strong left-leaning evangelical movement – see:
[Evangelicals</a> for Social Action](<a href=“http://www.esa-online.org/]Evangelicals”>http://www.esa-online.org/)
[Every</a> Church A Peace Church](<a href=“ecapc.org - contact with domain owner | Epik.com”>http://www.ecapc.org/)
[God’s</a> Politics: An Interview With Jim Wallis](<a href=“http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/03/gods_politics_jim_wallis.html]God’s”>God’s Politics: An Interview With Jim Wallis – Mother Jones)</p>
<p>What you see as “pandering” I see as “expanding his base”. </p>
<p>Here is what I see: Barack Obama comes from a background of community organizing, and he has built his campaign based on strategies he learned from that work. He is very, very good at it. It is a different sort of politics, but not because it is “pure” or free of strategic thinking or decision making. On the contrary, a huge part of such work is coalition building, and that stems from finding and exploiting common ground rather than relying on partisan loyalties. So from my perspective, Obama is pretty much doing exactly what I would expect him to do, consistent with his background – he keeps trying to bring more people into the fold. (And it’s working- I read that his campaign is looking into arranging for him to give his acceptance speech in Denver at a football stadium rather than the convention hall, because they need room for more people to attend).</p>
<p>Here’s another article I ran across that shows the Obama/faith issues are not new:
[Pastor</a> Who Officiated at Jenna Bush Wedding Launches Pro-Obama Website | The Trail | washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/26/pastor_who_officiated_at_jenna.html]Pastor”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/26/pastor_who_officiated_at_jenna.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have got to be kidding me by even bringing these two up. They may be ordained but they are far from my, and most peoples, definition of religious. They are some of the most vile racists and opportunists we’ve seen in the last 50 years. I can’t tell you how glad I am they aren’t associated with the middle or the right. I can’t even believe you went there. As a human being I despise David Duke and everything he stands for. If these two were white they would lumped in with him…</p>
<p>I agree that Sharpton and Jackson are not admirable human beings. But they have worked through churches to build their following. I think Calmom was using them as examples of African-Americans who do so, rather than as exemplars of admirable traits. David Duke was/is not a religious leader. If the two were white, they would be lumped with white religious leaders who have been rabble rousers like them. I can think of quite few, some of them recently connected to the McCain campaign.</p>
<p>Other African-American religious leaders include, of course, Martin Luther King, Jr., Adam Clayton Powell, and in my neck of the woods, the Harvard-educated Rev. Eugene Rivers. The former Ambassador to Tanzania, Charles Stith, was the senior minister of the Union United Methodist Church. I am sure the list could be greatly expanded.</p>
<p>Today’s NYT has an article on Obama’s past as a community organizer that shows clearly his work with and through churches. Interestingly, his earliest work was with Catholic and Jewish organizers.</p>
<p>Even when Lieberman was a Democrat I never considered him much of one.</p>
<p>I wasn’t trying to suggest that there are no religious liberals out there. What’s funny is I’m not sure what compelled anyone to even bring up whether anyone was black or not. That I know of folks of all races are religious. I don’t think they were the right folks to throw out there for examples. I do disagree with you. If Jackson and Sharpton were white and spewed the same garbage towards blacks as they do Jews and whites currently they wouldn’t be lumped in with other white rabble rousers. They would deserve to be lumped in with Duke, religion aside.</p>
<p>But aren’t some white rabble rousers also incredibly racist as well as religiously intolerant?
Wasn’t racism justified on Biblical grounds in the past, and continues to be done in certain settings today?
Sometimes, we don’t hear or read about certain things because they are normalized, not because they do not exist.</p>
<p>I’m sure some are. I never made a point of their being religious or not. It doesn’t matter to me. Their actions speak louder than any words or titles.</p>
<p>^^ I Agree.</p>
<p>Good for Lieberman. He really is his own man, not a party mouthpiece. He took on his own party and won. I am not from the East Coast, but admire him because you know where you stand with him. Too many politicians say what they think will get them elected, but do the opposite once in office. I, too, was thrilled with Obama’s “Change” rhetoric, and as time went on, I realized that he is shifting into being just another politician and this was just another catch phrase - not enough substance. And change for change’s sake without a real game plan can be an even worse disaster than we already have. And change which means higher taxes, and socialized medicine isn’t what I want. I know about socialized medicine having seen it firsthand with family in Germany, Poland and Canada. If the government can’t get it right now, how can we believe they will get it right then? As in socialized med countries, only the rich will get the good care, as they have the resources to hire doctors outside the system. I really hate elections where I am not voting FOR someone, but against, instead.</p>
<p>As a liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues independent-mostly-dem – I guess a moderate – I nonetheless find religion’s involvement in public life more complex than the stock liberal response to it and actually I thought Obama’s willingness to use faith-based programs reflected some of this complexity. The fact is faith-based programs deliver a lot in a lot of cities – and I imagine in some rural areas – and if you’ve been involved in the politics and policymaking of cities as I have before you know this. If one feels that services should be delivered, but doesn’t necessarily feel that federal govt. bureaucracy is the best, or sole good, delivery vehicle, religious programs would a logical choice. These religious organizations are often very effective. My problem is with the use of those funds to explicitly or implicitly push certain positions on social issues, and I wonder if it isn’t inevitable that this happens. As an individual, I hold no brook with the brand of Christian religion in which I was raised. As a new parent, though, I see that my daughter needs a community in life and I would like her raised with the notion that there is something bigger than her and her desires because I’ve noticed that people who think that way are the happiest. So, summing up, I guess state support for some religious institutions is okay. But religious involvement in state institutions is against everything I stand for. </p>
<p>But what happens when a really successful Muslim or Buddhist or other non-Christian group applies for state support to deliver certain services? I would be all for it, if the group did its job of delivering services well and wasn’t involved in pushing certain social or geopolitical agendas. When most people talk about faith-based initiatives, though, they mean Christian of course and would find giving money to non-Christian organizations anathema. If I find people who are for faith-based initiatives who feel that money could be supplied to groups doing specific things of any faith, then I’d say they have it right. I need to check, but I doubt anyone including Obama feel they could espouse that position in a presidential campaign.</p>
<p>This weekend I took a step back from the ugliness of politics and the jockeying of debates to consider the two candidates again. I talked to my uncle who worked for the CIA in the interrogation division in Vietnam and then went on to be be a hugely successful businessman. He really likes McCain a lot, all for reasons I can see. I like McCain a lot too, though I am well aware of and have pointed out some of his flaws and, IMO, tendencies to tell people exactly what they want to hear. My uncle, though, thinks McCain is simply too old and that he’s stuck in old politics and that we need someone who is more vigorous and able to get beyond some generational rigidities.</p>
<p>What I think is going to happen in the next 5 months is that this campaign is going to get really ugly. I think this is going to happen largely because McCain is promoting the Rove people within his campaign – probably people who accused him of fathering a non-White child out of wedlock in 2000. As someone who is pro-Obama, while I respect his impulse to keep above the dirty fray, if it comes to having to do so, I want to see him throw punches right back. I’d like to see this campaign focus on two things: who has the policies and who has the personal abilities to best lead this country. I think it’s going to be a much dirtier affair, though, and that’s sad because I actually think we’ve got two candidates this year who I like – sometimes even in spite of themselves. Of course, I think Obama would be a better president.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see this race at all as being one that will definitely go in Obama’s favor. We have the conventions yet and five months – an eternity in presidential political time. And while Obama is running a really competent campaign, a lot can happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I couldn’t disagree more. On Iraq, Lieberman has lied through his teeth and he’s done so because he’s so tight with right wing Israeli-focused political groups like AIPAC who (wrongly IMO) believe the Iraq War was and is a good thing for them. </p>
<p>On a lot of other issues, Lieberman was a politician bought and sold</p>
<p>If you agree with him on Iraq, you are likely to think he’s a good guy. What he did with respect to Obama showed his character, though. I don’t think John McCain would have done something that low. My impression of John McCain with respect to something like that is better than my impression of Lieberman. And I say this knowing that McCain tossed his first wife over for a better looking richer Cindy McCain.</p>
<p>I don’t think this race is over at all. What I meant was Obama is clearly the Democrat that they think can win the general election. It’s yet to be seen if he can or not. He needs all of the Democratic votes, as does McCain on the Republican side, and they both need the independents. I find it strange that either one would try to woo hardcore supporters from the other side. There are more than enough GDI’s and moderates in either party to tip the scales.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I chose to vote for Obama in the primary, I decided I didn’t care primarily about his electability but more about his ability to inspire and because I thought he was intelligent and has good judgement. I felt I’d rather lose with Obama than lose with Hilary, if it came to that. This was only because Hilary didn’t inspire me at all.</p>
<p>I don’t imagine most of the voters voted soley on electability but it turned out the more electable of the 2 won. I think if HRC had won it would be a bleak time to be a Democrat. I know a whole lot of Dems that said they would vote for whoever the Republican was rather than HRC. I don’t think it was lip service.</p>
<p>
Well you, and “most peoples” don’t get to define what “religion” means for “most peoples” (or do you mean “most white peoples”?) There are very strong African-American religious traditions, including the style of oratory from the pulpit, which are somewhat different in flavor than the type of “religion” espoused by the Christian right.</p>
<p>
That’s definitely NOT what Obama is doing with his focus on religion – rather, he’s trying to build his own base and also take advantage of a schism among evangelicals that has existed for awhile. There is a significantly large number of evengelicals who are more concerned about [social</a> issues like feeding the hungry](<a href=“http://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/life-of-jesus-modern/jesus-poor.php]social”>Jesus the Advocate for the Poor) and housing the homeless, than worrying about gays & abortions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, we found that out from Obama’s Reverend Wright. It’s called racism.</p>