Barack Obama - I wash my hands of you

[LiberalPartisan]

If this guy isn't a DLC triangulator of the first order. He's packaged real well but he's an empty shirt.

Here he is sipping the KoolAid - From CNN

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,"' he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

...

Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps -- off rhythm -- to the gospel choir." (I think he knows something about being transparent - he's being just that in the article)

At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

Dear Senator Obama - blow it out your ass.

[GoneOffShore]

1. I washed my hands of Obama

when he voted for the Bankruptcy Act.

[DemPopulist]

6. Good for you

Too bad he didn't actually vote for the Bankruptcy Bill: http://www.archpundit.com/archives/013828.html

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

24. thank you

You will also hear here at DU that HRC voted for the bankruptcy bill too, but she missed the vote because it was when Bubba was having bypass surgery.

Some folks don't let facts get in the way of their agenda. Sad, really.

[liberalhistorian]

51. That was a chickenshit avoidance

on her part; she would likely have voted in favor of it.

[AtomicKitten]

64. oh please

Coronary artery bypass surgery is serious and she was with your husband for it. It's really sad that you construe that as "chickenshit avoidance." This is as unfeeling as it is outrageous.

And you have no right to take it upon yourself to declare how she would have voted. You have no idea but a hell of a lot of nerve.

It effin pisses me off when people take these opportunities to gratuitously trash someone based on pure conjecture and colored by the fact that you just don't like her.

You should be ashamed of yourself, should - but I'm sure don't.

When did you lose your humanity, your sense of fair play? Damn.

[liberalhistorian]

65. Oh, please,

cut back a little on the ridiculous melodramatic overkill. I happened to like HRC an awful lot, and defended her constantly, until the past few years, when she's become more and more repub-lite.

And I'm well aware of just how serious coronary bypass surgery is, I've had family members and friends who've had it. There was EVERY indication that she planned to vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill, based on her statements, responses to questions, and her reactions to those who contacted her office requesting she not vote for it. You need to pull your head out of the sand and realize that she is not the same person she was several years ago, and she certainly isn't anywhere near as liberal as we thought she'd be.

[AtomicKitten]

66. I know exactly who she is.

And I won't vote for her in the primary as a result.

There's nothing melodramatic about being offended by the gratuitous trashing she gets at the hands of people that just don't like her. It's grotesquely unfair.

And my taking offense at it doesn't mean I'm mis/uninformed, but thanks for the dig anyway. What it means is that I try to be a nice, decent, fair person. Unheard of here at DU, I realize, but still ...

[liberalhistorian]

116. I don't dislike her, I'm just

extremely disappointed in her. I defended her endlessly all throughout Clinton's presidency, and had very high hopes for her in the senate. Unfortunately, she's completely dashed those hopes, and that's very disappointing.

[LoZoccolo]

123. Here's my chickenshit avoidance.

See you in November.

[Warpy]

10. Yeah, even Lieberman voted against THAT dog

I was checking out Lieberman's voting record again tonight, and most of his non war related votes haven't been all that bad.

He did vote for the Poison Pill bill, though.

[Nutmegger]

40. No he didn't

Straight from the source:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00029

[Rosemary2205]

21. No he didn't

check his record instead of just repeating talking points.

[katinmn]

2. Keep religion out of politics!

[BillZBubb]

3. Yep, he's a real disappointment.

Notice how instead of supporting Democratic principles, Obama supports the RNC talking point that Democrats are hostile to religion.

There are also numerous logical errors in this baloney. For instance, it doesn't matter what the children "feel", that's not the issue. People being brainwashed rarely "feel" it. The issue is whether forcing people to declare an oath "under God" violates the Constitution. It's not a matter of "feel" or fear.

Guys like Obama are a reason I continue to lose faith in the Democratic party. Not only does he not explain the Democratic position clearly, he reinforces the right wing frame. Pathetic.

[cantstandbush]

80. I disagree. I never felt brainwashed saying the pledge.

And neither did most school children. It was only after it became politicized by the right and the left that children began feeling pressure. I also disagree about Obama. He is one of the few people in politics i believe in.

[Radical Activist]

101. True or not

many people do feel Democrats are hostile to religion and it sounds like Obama is arguing that we change that. I don't have a problem with that. The fact that Obama acknowledges the reality of public perception doesn't mean he is encouraging that perception. He is just being honest.

[kiahzero]

102. He's arguing that compelled speech is OK.

Which puts him squarely at odds with the First Amendment.

Like someone else said in this this thread: just because 98% of his speech was good doesn't give him a free pass on the other 2%. I'm not agreeing with the OP's "washing of hands," but that doesn't mean that Obama was right.

[Radical Activist]

106. When did "voluntary" become synonymous with "compelled?"

He talks about VOLUNTARY prayer in schools by outside groups, not as part of the classroom, and it doesn't appear that he even argues that students should be forced to say the pledge. I think you're twisting his words to suggests he argues for any kind of compelled religion.

[kiahzero]

109. He does argue that forcing students to say the Pledge is OK. (n/t)

[Radical Activist]

110. Where? He only refers to it.

Where does Obama say "I think kids should be forced to say the pledge in school" because I don't see that in the quote given. All I see is an opinion that he doesn't think it brainwashes kids, as part of making a different point. I don't think DU brainwashes anyone but I don't think anyone should be required to post here.

[damntexdem]

4. It's not asking believers to leave their beliefs at the door, .nor ...

to refrain from accepting them. It's asking government to not push the beliefs of the believers. "Under God" was added by Congress in the 1950s to show that the U.S. "wasn't atheist like the Communists." The U.S. wasn't atheist, it was secular; and it should have reamined secular, and should become secular again -- as should the Pledge.

[hopein08]

35. I hadn't thought about "Under God" that way...thanks

I knew it was added in the 1950s but for some reason I never got that it was to separate the U.S. from the Communists.

Your whole reply is perfectly put and I could not agree more.

[cigsandcoffee]

5. I think he knows how to get elected.

There is something to be said for realism in tight political struggles.

[TahitiNut]

19. Being "realistic" has been the maxim of collaborators throughout history.

Vidkun Quisling. The Vichy government of France. Realists all.

[cigsandcoffee]

58. Another realist:

Bill Clinton. I never saw him go anywhere without a bible. How'd he do in the elections? Two terms? Interesting.

I doubt very much that any politician could be elected in his local constituency, let alone a national race, without tossing some meat to the Christians. You certainly don't want to piss them off, because that will gaurantee that you lose. That's realistic, which doesn't please the idealogues, but hey, what does?

[chimpymustgo]

93. Quisling Democrats. Good reminder, TahitiNut.

Vichy Democrats. We must fight them as hard as the Cons.

[cigsandcoffee]

98. Oh, please...

If realism has been the maxim of collaborators throughout history, insistence on and adherence to uncompromising ideology has been the maxim of despots and tyrants throughout history. If the Democratic Party adopts a strategy rooted in pure ideology at all costs, one of those costs will be relegating it to minority party status on a permanent basis. Obama appears to understand this, and has thus reached out to what is perhaps the most powerful voting block in the country.

[TahitiNut]

99. Yeah. Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, ...

... all them darn "idealogues."

People who speak sneeringly of "idealogues" often seem to me to lack ideals and principles. I suppose Paul Wellstone's maxim "Never separate the lives you live from the words you speak" finds little resonance among the "realists."

[cigsandcoffee]

114. Apples and oranges

Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, and Lech Walesa are or were fighting for a singular cause of independence from an outside force, and not a system of governance. Once an all-encompassing cause such as an end to colonialism is realized, internal political moderation becomes an absolute necessity.

Or do you think the people of Poland, South Africa and India remain unified on matters of internal politics?

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Yeah, so long as it's not smokers and coffee drinkers who are kicked in

the ass in the name of political "realism", right?

[cigsandcoffee]

59. Who did Obama kick in the ass?

It looks to me like he's trying to recognize an enormous block of voters. Regardless of what you think of them, don't you believe they have a right to seek representation of their ideals, or at least recognition of them? Obama sure thinks so, because he wants to stay in office.

Politicians kicking the Christians in the ass do so at great peril to their careers. That's just the way it is, at least for the time being. Maybe in Futureland God will be taken out of politics, but I'm sure I'll be long dead by then.

[peacebaby3]

7. This is about the 20th thread on this exact subject. See I can cherry-pick

too.

"And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I."

"Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix."

You left off a part of this quote:

"I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that."

"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."

"Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal."

"So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration."

"For one, they (the conservative leaders) need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it."

"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

"And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles."

"So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives."

Here's a link to the entire speech.

<http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html>

You know, context is important. This speech was given at a Progressive Christians conference by Sojourners who have protested the war and many other repuke issues. Their leader was arrested on the steps of Congress while protesting when they were passing the budget cuts on social programs.

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ which opposes the war, fully supports separation of church and state, supports a woman's right to choose, and supports gay marriage.

[skipos]

12. How dare you interrupt our circular firing squad with context! nt

[SmokingJacket]

38. THANK YOU for posting this!!!

It's an excellent speech, and one I can get behind -- and I WAS an atheist child asked to recite the pledge, "Under God" and all. No lasting damage here. I'm in favor of dropping the pledge ALTOGETHER, but whatever, we have much more important things to worry about.

Obama doesn't have much experience yet, and he disappointed me with his vote on the bankruptcy bill, and YEAH he's triangulating!! But fuck it all -- we're not going to have the perfect progressive candidate in my lifetime... especially if we tear down all the halfway decent folk before the republicans even get their hands on them.

[Zhade]

44. There are still some problems with this speech.

He's clearly pandering to the religious - which itself may not be an issue, but then he makes some...interesting...comments like these:

""So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will?"

This makes it sound like religious people are different from secular people (the same mistake the Raw Story anti-atheist hate screed made). Not so - I wager most believers on DU, for example, are also secular-minded and support the separation of church and state.

"Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation" - no, we were NEVER a Christian nation. Don't waffle, Obama, the facts are the facts, and one is that this country has never been a Christian nation.

Now, most of the rest I agree with, but he's flat-out wrong in his belief that kids don't feel persecuted - or aren't persecuted - for refusing to utter the unconstitutional 'under god' part of the pledge.

I was. Repeatedly. For that specific refusal. He diminishes the experience of atheists like myself when he blows off the very real recrimination we've faced for not pledging to a god we don't believe in.

[rosesaylavee]

95. (Sigh) His grandparents were converted

Unitarian Universalists (UU). I presume he was not willing to mention that as it would be catnip for the Christians he was trying to win over.

I like this man. I read his autobiography earlier this year and got the sense that he truly attempts to be fair-minded about all people. He is trying to build bridges and I appreciate that. We will need some bridge-builders for when we take back the congress as our country can't withstand this in-fighting too many more years.

And the UU thing - I am a converted UU and that's why I remember that from his book. It's one the reasons, he conjectures in his book, that allowed his grandparents to accept his mother's marriage to a black man. UUs highly value tolerance of other faiths.

[1932]

8. So you missed all the longer posts which put this in context -- Sojourners

Everyone agrees with Obama when they read/listen to the whole speech.

[dsc]

13. No amount of context makes up for the fact he is plainly wrong

on one of the issues he sights. Aside from states which have totally eliminated clubs, and those states have done so to eliminate gay clubs, students may have religious clubs in school. It is red letter, federal law. As a law professor, which is what Obama is, he should and I would assume does, know that. His overall speech was good but that right wing talking point was just stupid and again, factually wrong.

[1932]

28. Which fact do you think he got wrong?

[dsc]

36. This

Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

The clear implication of that statement is that people are suing to stop or at the very least complaining about the use of schools by religious clubs. That is totally false as it is a decided issue. Clubs have a right to use schools period and no Democrat that I have ever heard of has said otherwise.

[1932]

37. I still don't understand what fact you think he got wrong.

Some democrats do think it's wrong for student groups to have prayer groups on public school grounds regardless of whether it's a settled legal issue.

Obviously, if the courts decided this issue, there was a lawsuit and one side in that suit was someone arguing it shouldn't happen.

[kiahzero]

63. Name them. Name "some democrats."

Also, he's wrong about the Pledge as a matter of settled law: See West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette and Lee v. Weisman.

[1932]

78. Party registration aside, you really think there aren't people who are

upset by that?

At the very least, one party in each of the two suits you mentioned were upset about it. And I'm sure they had some friends, family members, attorneys, paralegals, and maybe even judges (presuming that all the decisions weren't unanimous against the plaintiff) who thought it was a bad idea.

And do you really think nobody is ever going to try to litigate it again? Why did you cite two cases? Why didn't one settle the matter? Why did there need two suits?

Really, you claimed that Obama was wrong on the facts, yet you don't even cite an allegation of fact by Obama.

Again, state the FACT you think Obama got wrong.

[kiahzero]

96. They don't matter.

Yes, some people get "upset" that the Bill of Rights gets enforced. I know that people were "upset" when the Equal Protection Clause got enforced in the 1960s against Jim Crow. That's not an argument for the constitutionality of certain laws. It doesn't matter if people get "upset" that they can't force children to swear oaths - it flies in the face of the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.

There needed to be two suits because people often don't like adhering to Supreme Court rulings when they strengthen the rights of individuals, and so they try to find loopholes. The first ruling I mentioned, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, was brought by those most secular of the secular humanists - the Jehovah's Witnesses. Their religion prevents them from saluting the flag or swearing loyalty oaths (such as the Pledge of Allegiance), so they filed suit claiming that this was a violation of their rights to free exercise and free speech. The Court, however, ruled broadly that it is unconstitutional for the government to compel speech.

The second case I mentioned has more to do with school prayer, but still establishes relevant precedent. Lee vs. Weisman was brought by another group of secular humanists - a Jewish family. The case was directly involving a school-sanctioned prayer at a graduation ceremony, which the Court struck down. A key part of the ruling, however, was regarding the use of social pressure to enforce conformity with regards to speech or religion. Justice Kennedy writes, "To recognize that the choice imposed by the State constitutes an unacceptable constraint only acknowledges that the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means."

Taken together, we have two principles: The government may not compel speech (WV BoE v. Barnette), and the government may not use "voluntary" schemes to compel speech (Lee v. Weisman). There is no way to justify "voluntary" recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in the light of these two principles. It's unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Obama was wrong to say: "It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God.'" First, some do. I did. Many others do. Second, it doesn't matter whether they "feel oppressed or brainwashed." That's a nice strawman, but it's not the point - the legal question is whether they are compelled to express a statement.

I haven't even gone into the Establishment Clause violation inherent in the statement "under God," because it's not necessary to answer the question. Even if "under God" weren't in the Pledge (it wasn't in 1943 when WV BoE v. Barnette was decided), it would still be unconstitutional to compel speech.

[1932]

107. Are you dsc? All this is proving that Obama didn't get any facts wrong and

that you (dsc?) are a little confused in your criticism of Obama.

I'll ask one more time: what fact did Obama get wrong?

[kiahzero]

108. He was wrong when he said that children don't feel oppressed

Many children do feel oppressed by being compelled to speak, contrary to the clear text of the First Amendment. And no, I'm not dsc... You might try reading bloody usernames to figure out who people are. No wonder you seem to be having difficulty following the relatively simple logic above.

[1932]

111. Oh, I see you. You cited case names which dsc only referred to generally

so nice of you to help dsc defend an argument she couldn't.

Nonetheless, the point is Obama is not wrong on the facts.

[1932]

112. So, if you want to take up dsc's argument

then, I still ask, what fact did Obama get wrong.

[kiahzero]

113. Um... what?

kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat Jul-08-06 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
63. Name them. Name "some democrats."

Also, he's wrong about the Pledge as a matter of settled law: See West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette and Lee v. Weisman.

[1932]

115. OK, let's make this easy.

You quote Obama's statement that you think is wrong on the facts.

And then you state why you think it's wrong.

You jumped into an argument that dsc abandoned, thus the confusion. But if you want to take this in another direction, I have no objections.

So, go ahead.

[helderheid]

9. he made a great speech at the convention and has dissapointed me since.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. And I wash my hands of...

alleged progressives, liberals, and Democrats who pick a few sentences out of context and decide to just trash someone for his presumed lack of ideological purity. Ideological purity as defined by precisely whom?

The speech was a good one, as statesmanlike as we're going to see in these times, and trashing people like Obama for speeches like that is the REAL reason why we've been losing.

Instead of pissing on Obama, take that speech and shove it down the throats and up the asses of the people who are ruining this country.

[Mz Pip]

15. Thank you

I wonder who in the party would pass the purity test for some people. We're going to be stuck with years and years of republican rule if we don't stop trashing young bright charismatic Dems who don't fit the mold of what our perfect Dem should look like.

I like Obama. A lot. Is he perfect? No. But he's far better than most Dems out there and light years ahead of any Repug.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[mountebank]

17. It's the classic division between the authoritarian left and the

libertarian left. All claims for ideological purity reek of authoritarianism. Those who call for it would be the first to push for "purges" were they ever to come to power. They scare the bejesus out of me only slightly less than the authoritarian right, and then really only because they aren't in power. Lieberman is one thing, but if you can look at Obama's record and speeches and just totally write him off, you have to wonder who would pass the purity test. This type of thinking is exactly what drives libertarian-minded rural folks out of their native habitat in the Democratic Party and into the arms of Republicans, who have triangulated well with the libertarian mindset.

(And by libertarian here I am not referring to the modern Libertarian Party or the pro-corporate so-called libertarianism of Reason Magazine, etc. I am simply saying libertarianism small-L people who value freedom, civil liberties, and as little intervention by government as possible.)

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I think if we want to court small-l libertarian minded voters

maybe we should grow a pair regarding ending the drug war or mandatory minimum sentencing, stand up for the rights of terminally ill people to choose a dignified exit for themselves and pain patients to get the medication they need, and be stronger and clearer about reproductive choice and the rights of adults to control their own bodies...

as opposed to endlessly trying to woo the religious right, which is hardly a hotbed of "libertarianism".

[mountebank]

29. Do you really think Barack Obama was wooing the religious right?

Seemed to me he was saying that people have their faith, something that is integral and inseparable from themselves, and they shouldn't be expected to check it at the door. Pretty reasonable. (And then of course he also detailed many of the dangers of excessive religiosity in the public sphere.) He was hardly wooing the religious right. He was wooing the religious, and because an overwhelming number of Americans describe themselves as such, seems like a pretty good idea. And then, yes, all those other libertarian ideals you mentioned....

It's just amazing to me that his speech elicited such vitroil from the left. I guess a certain segment of the left is committed to losing for the long-term.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. He was speaking to an Evangelical Group.

Howard Dean also spoke to the same group, and got a standing ovation. I don't have the text of HIS remarks, but I'd suspect he got through his speech without taking potshots, for example, at people who don't appreciate having their kids forced to pledge "Under God" every day in public schools.

As I said repeatedly in other threads on this, yes, lets "court" evangelicals, (while we also court people who support legalizing marijuana, Jam band fans, Libertarians, NASCAR dads, and whoever else we think may be in play) but lets NOT do it at the expense of our support of equal rights for gays, reproductive choice, or the separation of church and state. Want to talk values? 45 Million Americans have no health insurance. That's a MORAL issue.

There was plenty for Obama to talk about without the cheap shots at atheists and the right wing meme enabling.

One way to avoid "losing for the long-term" is to avoid deliberately pissing off your core constituencies. George W. Bush learned that from his daddy. Not sure why some people in our party can't grasp it.

[mountebank]

62. Do you call this taking pot-shots at atheists?

"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

A nation of nonbelievers. A Muslim nation. Courageous words in these times.

For me, losing the votes of those that demand ideological purity on this single issue (which I don't believe would really happen anyway), is worth the cost of enlarging the tent of the Democratic Party.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. I thought I wasn't supposed to keep harping on the problems in his speech.

You can't have it both ways.

Read post #18 again. That'll be my last word on the subject.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. It's also a classic problem of a two-party system...

where each party has to try to appeal to its own internal divisions.

Modern Republicans have decided not to even bother with ideology and just go for the power. They talk a lot about their values and positions, but don't seem to do much about them.

Not that we should emulate them in pure power politics, but we have to stop the circular firing squads and unite even on our differences.

We've been through this before, with the party split largely between Southern segregationists and inner-city machines. If we could survive that, we should be able to get through this.

[goclark]

43. The RepubliCONS will be delighted with this thread

Obama is no fool.


Let's see, who is the perfect Democrat today.... Feingold? Clinton - NO, Boxer - NO,
Kerry - NO etc. etc. etc.


Progressives, and I am one, are so busy being angry, they have successfully given the RepubliCONS talking points for the next three election.

Wake Up Democrats!

[WildEyedLiberal]

61. Amen. nt

[1932]

91. Amen.

I don't doubt that some people are not smart enough to care whether the facts support their knee-jerk conclusions. But I also think a lot of these kinds of posts are written by righwingers disguising themselves as progressives.

[pinto]

14. This sure sounds like a call to find common ground.

I thought it was a good speech. :shrug:

<snip>

"I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that."

"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."

"Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal."

"So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration."

(ed for format)

[AtomicKitten]

84. me too

It's terribly unfair to take excerpts to try to persuade others to not like someone that you already don't like. We need some truth and fairness here at DU. These baseless attacks on probably our brightest is so disheartening.

Christ, since when did we expect to agree with anyone 100% of the time anyway?


"One of us, one of us, one of us."

[adwon]

16. Try reading the whole speech

It's online at his senate website. That CNN story is so incomplete, it's not funny.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. 98% of the speech was good. But he doesn't get a free pass on the 2%

that sucked. Not only sucked, but was plainly uncalled for.

Frankly, plenty of nonbelievers are sick n' tired of waiting to see if we're the next "bastard red-haired stepchild" to be herded to the back of the Lets Court The "Values Voter" Bus. You know, with the gays. With the outspoken pro-choicers.

It is not, as Obama says, a case of "both sides" being extreme. That's like saying there are "two sides" to the evolution or global warming "debate". Fundamentalists want religion taught in public school science class. When so-called secular whackjobs start demanding that Darwin be taught in Churches, then I will accept that there are "two sides". To say otherwise is to buy into the rightwing meme of equivalence; you know, sure Ann Coulter talks about beating people with Baseball Bats.. but you guys have Michael Moore, who.. well, he's never advocated beating anyone with anything, but, well, you know..

Part of the problem with Obama's speech -and like I said, 98% of it was great- was that he did a lot of rightwing meme-buying. And repeating.

And he was wrong. He was wrong to try to score points with his audience by taking shots at those who have a legitimate complaint with our country forcing kids every morning in public school- directly or through implied coercion- to acknowledge a deity they don't believe in as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. A part that plainly doesn't belong there, a part that was tacked on during another unfortunate period in our nation's history when religious and political minorities were pressured, silenced and persecuted. It bears repeating that anyone who doesn't have a problem with making kids in public school Pledge "Under God" should ask themselves how they would feel if it was "Under Buddha".. "Under Krishna"... "Under Zeus".. "Under Eris"... or "Under Satan".

He "doubts" that any kid feels persecuted by that line in the pledge. He's never met me, but I *was* one of those kids, and I knew those words didn't belong there when I was seven years old.

There were REAL problems with that speech. Folks should understand that, even when acknowledging that he's certainly a great speaker and he made some excellent, well-overdue points.

[JNelson6563]

26. Well said

Yes, most of the speech was very good and, yes, a sliver of it was not very good at all. I agree with your sentiments.

Julie

[mountebank]

30. Ok, how about you spend 98% of your words devoted to Obama's

speech praising it and 2% of your word count attacking it, then? It's a deal.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. No, that's not how it works.

Same as if he had given an overall good speech, except for a couple small instances, for example, of gay-bashing.

I'm not obligated to give the guy anything. You have my analysis. I said most of it was good, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna forefeit my right to criticize the part that constituted the turd in the punchbowl.

If you want to ladle praise on him, do it yourself.

[Zhade]

45. I was one of those kids, too.

It's absolutely false that we weren't persecuted for not going along with the unconstitutional pledging to a diety we don't believe in.

Your analysis is pretty much mine. Well-said!

[SensibleAmerican]

23. Who are you to question Barack Obama's faith?

I understand this is probably not what you intended to imply, but Obama has been active in his faith for a very long time.

[earth mom]

27. Ditto. Can't stand that Dino!

:puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Obama has learned how to do politics very well.

Straddling fences without a saddle requires skill. He's kinda/maybe for the first amendment..but, kinda/maybe not. He's kinda/maybe against the war..but, kinda/maybe for the occupation.

He will go far.

[Imajika]

32. Sure, lets abandon Obama..

One of the brightest stars rising in our party should be abandoned because he says some things you don't like to hear.

We MUST have political purity! No one is allowed their own opinions. We must not view politicians as an entire package - rather we should toss them overboard the minute they say anything we don't like.

Let's start with all moderate/conservative Democrats. We can dump all of them - even if that means conservative Republicans will win the majority of those seats thus resulting in a filibuster proof Senate and a larger GOP majority in the House. Next, lets eject any Democrat who voted for the IWR. All of them. They've got to go too. Next, any Democrat that voted for the Flag Burning Amendment needs to be fired. Then, we surely need to purge any Democrat that wants to reach out to religious folk - we don't want the votes of those hicks anyway. And any Democrat who votes for any tax cuts, well, they've got to go too. The list goes on and on and on and on and on.

So were left with Barbara Lee and collection of others whom have the power to achieve zilch. But hey, we have political purity! We may not have much, but by golly we've got fighters!

People have just got to understand that politics is an incremental game. Our system is designed that way. People can't have everything they want. The further from the mainstream a persons politics are, the more dissappointed they are going to be. Radical change and revolutionary shifts just doesn't happen much in our system - and that God for that.

So how bout we stop talking about throwing out Dem's who might say something we don't like. For now, I will be happy if they will vote for Pelosi for Speaker and Reid for Majority Leader - that would be a good start. We can go from there.

[LoZoccolo]

33. Obama is rubber, and you are glue.

Whatever you say bounces off Obama and sticks to you.

See you in November.

[Zhade]

46. Do you really think anyone gives a shit if YOU put them on ignore?

Take heed - no one really cares, I'd wager. Get over yourself already.

[BuyingThyme]

34. Dim bulb.

[SmokingJacket]

39. So who do you like?

I think this board could actually use more boosterism -- tell us what's great about YOUR candidate!

[LiberalPartisan]

48. Anyone who qualifies as a Wellstone Democrat

The first of the two pillars of being a "Wellstone Democrat" is that you must be a conviction politician who lives and associates with ordinary people every day, as a natural extension of your political identity and aspirations. The second pillar is that you push policy for the poor, meaning that you campaign from the left, as liberals.

[undeterred]

50. That's what I am- a Wellstone Progressive

But I don't go along with the part about the whales. :hi:

Camp Wellstone
Activist Track 2/2005
Working on Campaigns Track 2/2006

[SmokingJacket]

57. Any potential candidates fit your bill?

I think Feingold is pretty close... and maybe Gore...

[johnaries]

47. Uh, voluntary school prayer groups CAN use school property

to meet. As long as it is student sponsored and not school sponsored and the school property is available to everyone equally.

[applegrove]

49. I like Lewis Black's take on it. He said under god and even prayed

every day at his public suburban school.. and it didn't kill him. Also said the pledge.

I mean how would you feel if parents of muslim kids asked that a spot with prayer mats would be put somewhere in the school so the kids could pray?

Not the end of the world. I'm sure it happens. Is there no compromise? Could not the kids of parents who want prayer in school lop off 5 minutes of recess so that their kids could all get together and say "under god" together?

I certainly expect that health class and social science classes will talk to public school kids about lesbians and gays and tell how it is natural. I expect that of any school district. So too is being religious a naturally occuring thing. People are born with the capacity of being devout.

Is there not room to talk?

[Solon]

67. Yeah, but was Lewis Black FORCED to do any of that stuff?

Whether through peer pressure or as official school policy? There is a world of difference between schools providing space for Muslim Students to pray at lunch, and forcing said students to pray to Jesus Christ in the Classroom. By the way, the mats wouldn't be provided, they bring those themselves, get educated on a religion before you use them as an example. The "compromise" isn't about the FREEDOM to WORSHIP in Schools, which ALREADY EXISTS, no, what many in the Radical Right want is a return to COMPULSORY prayers, pledge, etc. This is not a matter to compromise on, period.

[applegrove]

68. And by not talking.. we are wedged from each other.

[Solon]

70. What is there to talk about?

Every time I have a conversation with people about this subject, they say something like that prayer is banned in school, I then tell them that is not true, and they simply don't believe me and ignore the FACTS. I lost my tolerance of that type of BS a long time ago.

[applegrove]

73. Maybe you need to show them that you will support the idea of prayer

in school so long as it can be worked out so that nobody in excluded or imposed up. What would be wrong with prayer at recess. For those families that want it.

Would probably make recess a little safer for all. If indeed the ministers and religious leaders chosen to lead the interdenominaltion service 5 minutes a day.. were picked for their actual piousness and ability to walk the walk rather than for their ability to teach hate.

[Solon]

74. What is there to support? This is ALREADY practiced...

if I do precisely NOTHING, what you just stated will happen already, the only difference is its STUDENTS ONLY, as it SHOULD be, none of this "interdemoniational" stuff you are spouting, that wouldn't make ANYONE happy anyways. The Catholics will refuse any service lead by a Protestant, and vice versa, same for damned near every other religion and denomination. Its best if we kept the STATUS QUO, but try to cut out the rhetorical bullshit and LIES that the Radical Right spouts about this stuff.

[applegrove]

75. Well - the christians were not happy. And moved into planet weird

to take their grievances. And many followed. Forget interdenominational. There are enough pastors to go around to show up at every public school one a week at least.. and give the kids of christian parents some teachings.

As long as they are not teach hate.. and not going anti-gay. Why not?

[Solon]

77. It has nothing to do with hate, but everything to do with sanctioning...

such practices by the PUBLIC school. Most schools have rules about non-parental adults on campuses during school hours, especially if they are there in any "official" capacity. This means background checks, permission, etc. If a public school were to allow a local pastor or priest onto campus for the SOLE purpose of administering a religious service, well, that violates the First Amendment. It doesn't matter if the service was after school, before school, or during lunch, it would still violate the First Amendment. Besides which, who would attend such service, the entire school body, only those of said denomination/Religion, or is it completely voluntary? To be honest, it doesn't matter, unconstitutional as it is, there is no compromise on that.

Students are free to practice their religion on school grounds under very few restrictions, those restrictions are usually that they are not disruptive of school activities, follow SOME dress codes, for example, Sikhs may wear a turban as required, but their ceremonial dagger may not be allowed unless it is so small that it cannot be a weapon and that is about it. Clergy IS allowed in schools for EDUCATIONAL purposes only, for example, in my high school, over a decade ago, in our world history class, for a school activity, we had a Hindu Priest come into school, he was a member of the Interfaith Alliance, and he summarized most of the beliefs of all major world religions.

[Zhade]

79. Kids can already pray in school. NO ONE IS STOPPING THEM.

What IS being stopped is school-led prayer, which violates our Constitution.

[Blue-Jay]

52. I'm sure Sen Obama will be crushed by this development.

[greatauntoftriplets]

55. I am certain that he will have a sleepless night over this thread...

and pound his pillows in shame.

:sarcasm:

[mr_hat]

53. I fart in his general direction.

[H2O Man]

54. I like him. n/t

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cigar_Guy]

60. Refreshing

This is the first time Barak has made any sense since he was elected... Hopefully there will be more to come.

[bagimin]

69. Cut Barack a ba-reak

[0007]

71. I've had enough of this corporate whore and his greedy

doctrine for power & fame.

Fuck you Obama

[1932]

82. More argument, please.

I'd like to read some of this "doctrine."

[bling bling]

85. I wouldn't hold your breath.

The Obama haters never, ever have a legitimate argument to back up their hatred.

The very first sentence of the OP is the perfect, typical example: Accusing Obama of being a DLC'er. I have asked for proof of this again and again from all the dittoheads who repeat this accusation.

Nobody ever responds to my request.

(Maybe it's because HE'S NOT A DLC'ER YOU FUCKING DOLTS.)

And the OP's headline is another perfect example: Let's wash our hands of Obama (because my dumb-ass is too stupid and lazy to research what the hell I'm talking about before I launch my foolish diatribe).

They don't know how to STFU when it comes to baseless attacks. But it sure gets quiet when you ask them to back up the attacks. Asking them for proof: never. Facts: please. Even a quick "Google" search of his voting record and positions: don't make me laugh.

[1932]

90. All this is very predictable. A popular Democrat? Better destroy him

anonymously with lies.

[bling bling]

118. I see you still haven't received any proof of this "doctrine."

Or facts of any sort. Imagine that. :eyes:

[0007]

94. Actions speakth louder than words my friend.

[1932]

104. Facts speak pretty loud too. Arguments based on opinion only whisper.

[Connie_Corleone]

72. Thank goodness I read the whole speech.

If there's anything I've learned on DU is that "one should always go to the original source if you want context."

I would probably be rich if I got a dime every time someone quoted a Democrat out of context on here.

I like Obama.

[AtomicKitten]

83. me too.

And thanks for not being duped into going along with the herd by virtue of out-of-context snippets.

[PATRICK]

88. A blend of hatred

seems to be based on a hatred of religion in any context and a rather absolute hatred of a Dem in particular. This discredits the opinion before one even reads the whole speech. the point Obama is making does not seem that extreme.

If one dislikes the DLC there are certain reasons above all and certain people in particular. Obama has distanced himself from the DLC in the past and gone along with more seasoned Dems considered centrists on many issues. A reasoned comparison of his record might see more of the centrist positions lately. On the stump he is more a Wellstone perhaps.

If we had to surrender to red meat snap judgments on every statement of every Dem every day we would long ago have worked through the entire party roster down to alderman and then we would be working on the Greens- which might be healthier for your diet. Good roughage.

It is always more tempting to try to get to the issue or the personal goals of the poster as a possible disrupter than to take these spot condemnations at face value.

The abuse of "religion" in the schools, used pointedly in fact by unChristian Protestants against Catholic immigrants and others had that particular topic banned from the schools- long after the establishment Protestant courts backed up the abuse for many years. Catholic private schools were in fact created to achieve their religious freedom against a Christian power establishment indoctrination. oddly they transformed into religious formation when the schools abandonned religion altogether, but perhaps not the unChristian elements that truly created all the social friction. The real issue is not the ban or the ideological purity of the school but intolerance and squelching of free speech and thought as a remedy. There is plenty room for discussion of how best to deal with these things better or avoid the problems completely.

Exhibiting that same intolerance as CAUSED the special restriction of religious elements in public schools is an absurd tack to follow.

[LiberalPartisan]

89. Hatred? No - more like disappointment

Like most of us here I too watched and was captivated by Obama at the DNC convention. I had read some of his impressive story and of the laudible work he had done and like many I thought 'this guy has it all'. Unfortunately he has proven to be a disappointment in the Senate where he has opted to go along rather than stake a claim to any particular issue and make a stand.

My goals in starting this thread was to spur debate. I posted quotes which linked back to the source for context - that is all that is required. But Obama's opinion on religion in our daily life is not the reason I was my hands of him, but the final reason. He triangulates (straddles the fence?) on every issue of import. He has no conviction. In short - he's just another slick politician. I demand conviction in a politician especially one seeking higher office far more than ideolicical purity because I want to believe again. If Obama had Howard Dean's conviction dovetailed with his current skills he'd be unstoppable. Alas - he's looking more and more like Bill Clinton. If I had to I would vote for him, but it would be a qualified vote - that of someone who hoped for more and settled for less.

[PATRICK]

122. That is the general sense

of Obama's real performance, but unfortunately the posting used a red flag to get attention. Edwards as a Senate newbie also went that way. Wellstone was actually criticized here for going a tad soft until he turned it around to stand up against the Iraq War. What many people despise is often the way of political life. There is no point on the compass for a politician to find his way except in shunned isolation among his peers. Then they fall into the perception that the people's will does not fall far from the crooked media tree and Foggy Bottom sagacity. Once freed from DC people like Obama thrive in populist fresh air. This is why DC insiders very often have a tough time running for national office. They start off on a compromised foot. Governors start off as executives who own their own territory.

I can share some of the disappointment without over lambasting a quality Democratic leader. That is what we have the GOP for.

No on the current scene one has it all. Leadership as a working concept has to be reinvented by the people who require their services.

It's too easy to drop a match onto a legitimate topic. The real debate is about how far a populist champion is selling out and how ready for prime time. EVERY prospect gets that treatment sooner or later and usually it is not fully deserved.

[NaturalHigh]

124. Yeah, we really had it bad under Bill Clinton...

Do I really need the :sarcasm: ?

[bling bling]

81. Thank you.

For providing me another easy opportunity to put all the DU idiots that hate Obama on ignore.

None of you haters know what you're talking about. You quote out of context, make up shit, and LIE. Your over-zealous character assassinations against a respectable Democrat are disgusting, vile, and repulsive.

Go ahead and flame me with your TYPICAL one-liner bullshit against Obama that doesn't have anything to do with FACTS. In fact, put me on ignore, because you are my enemy.

Your ignorance is embarrassing and I wish all of you would stop calling yourselves Democrats because it's making the rest of us look as immature, freaky, and idiotic as you are. YOU ARE ALMOST AS CULPABLE TO THE DOWNFALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS REPUBLICANS.

[LoZoccolo]

92. I do that all the time.

There are people who are here to find out more about getting the Democrats in power and the Republicans voted out, and then there are the chronic whiners you and I put on ignore. I hope a lot of people start using the ignore button; maybe some more sane people will find out it makes DU a much more useful place and won't get chased out by the freakish element so easily.

[bling bling]

117. It's become a necessity.

My stomach can't take it anymore. I'm tired of getting angry and frustrated by the rubbish being spewed around by these types of posters.

[LoZoccolo]

121. In real life, people generally have to establish credibility to be heard.

On the Internet, that sense of being heard or not heard is largely not there, and thus people say anything they please, credible or not. That's why I like to let people know when I'm putting them on ignore as well. It might restore credibility to this medium.

[ContraBass Black]

86. The paticular words by Obama you've reposted here,

I agree with.

[Skittles]

87. yes you CAN leave your f***Ing religion at the door

if you can't then STAY OUT OF POLITICS

[RFKHumphreyObama]

97. I actually think Senator Obama sounds quite balanced and reasonable

And I agree with much of what he says. The reality is that there are a considerable number of liberal Christians out there or Christians, who even if they don't know it yet, have values that could be considered liberal.

There are many people who think along these lines
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1615247.htm

And in fact quite a lot of Christians I know personally (although I don't live in the US) are horrified at Bush and his RW agenda, are opposed to the war in Iraq and have principles that are quite left wing

The Democrats have got to reach out to this voting bloc and counter the Republican right wing religious propaganda that has unfortunately come to be the prevailing mode of thinking that has manipulated many people over the past twenty to thirty years. Dean and Obama are, IMO, on the right track here

Additionally if you are to abandon a Senator because of one policy position you disagree with -who are you left with? Senator Wellstone and Senator Boxer voted for the Patriot Act (although I think both later regretted it), Senator Kennedy voted for the Patriot Act, Senator Kerry voted for IWR, Senator Feingold voted for John Ashcroft and John Roberts and Senator Leahy voted against the Brady Bill, for the Patriot Act and for the appointment of John Roberts. And I'm sure if Ned Lamont gets into the Senate, he's going to record a vote on a particular issue that many of you disagree with and there'll be similar threads about him. The reality is that a Senator will always take one or two positions that will be unpopular among sectors of his or her constituency and, when he or she does so, then the alienated consituency has every right to call his or her office or write letters to protest the decision. But if people judge a Senator by just one or two issues, the Democratic Party will be much worse off as a party

[Radical Activist]

100. Sounds pretty reasonable.

All he's saying is that the freedom to voluntarily express one's religion will be protected. Personally, I like the Bill of Rights so that doesn't bother me.
I'm sure Obama will miss your support after all you've done for him. :eyes:

[KingFlorez]

103. Give it a rest

Some people here want to nitpick about everything, even when there is nothing to complain about.

[Cocoa]

105. I'm with Obama

:bounce:

[ComerPerro]

119. "Believers" aren't going to give him the time of day, hes wasting his time

and pandering.

[LoZoccolo]

120. Oh you think so?

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=757

Have that read by the next time I see you. In November.

[WI_DEM]

125. Jeez if we washed our hands of every democrat who isn't "pure"

and vote 100% the way some here would like we would probably have about 75 democrats in the House (that's probably generous) and maybe 10-12 in the Senate. Illinois is a pretty blue state and they seem to like Obama as I recall a recent poll he had something like a 77 percent approval rating. I hate to tell you but not every democrat is a raging left winger(in fact most are probably what you would call "mainstream" democrats who are probably closer to the middle than the left) and most democrats have no problem with their kids saying the pledge in school. As for Obama being an "empty shirt" I'll bet you he has more brains than most of us here.