Jeeze, five articles since the Open Thread. Iamcoyote and Phidipides, see Open Thread for update on TLC Convention.
Posted by Judith at May 2, 2008 03:39 PMDon't we deserve a look into Clinton's
spiritual background.
Too much to ask?
And a rundown on the gas tax would also be enlightening.
Posted by chaz at May 2, 2008 03:49 PMClear evidence Hillary is desperately pandering for votes.
She has gone off the deep end at last.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_airs_another_negative.php
Posted by chaz at May 2, 2008 04:11 PM"Don't we deserve a look into Clinton's
spiritual background."
No. I'm not voting for someone's religious or spiritual background. I want someone who understands the very complicated issues facing this Country. We have already wasted valuable time on nonsense.
Posted by Judith at May 2, 2008 05:12 PM
More "fair and balanced" BS from the Clinton camp.
Truth is Hillary has some "splainin" to do about her sordid past in this regard.
But hey, go all "nothing to see here" on us
cause that's the Clinton's MO.
PRICELESS!
Posted by chaz at May 2, 2008 05:27 PMNow I've seen it all.
Judith attacked as a Clinton flak!
You are a true honor to the spirit of the Obama campaign chaz. The wonders of the Obama effect on 'the old style politics' never ceases to amaze.
Posted by snark at May 2, 2008 05:45 PMNo. I'm not voting for someone's religious or spiritual background. I want someone who understands the very complicated issues facing this Country.
I don't know about you, but I'd like to hear Hillary explain her long time association with the largely Republican and religious organization the Fellowship and Douglas Coe, a man who has been dubbed "the stealth persuader."
Posted by Upton at May 2, 2008 06:01 PM
Yo snark,
Get over it sport, the fact is she IS a flack in this post.
So you are suggesting "Judith" wasn't impacted by the Wright saga?
And now it's all, "get over it, move on", like Scalia?
God help you.
Just what are you flacks afraid of??
And as a follow up to "my friend" Snark:
Got anything on the Gas tax??
Posted by chaz at May 2, 2008 06:37 PMActually, chaz, Judith is a friend, and has been away taking care of her mother this past year. She's not been in the fray and doesn't deserve to be attacked. She does, however, deserve to express her opinion, just like everyone else, and I happen to agree with her. This shit's just gotten ridiculous. While everyone's fighting over who's pastor is more heinous, the real bad guys are trashing the place before they leave office. And did you know that Hoyer and Rockefeller are trying to do a backroom deal for telcom immunity? We're just helping those shits by providing cover with this silly infighting.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 2, 2008 06:44 PMI am so old that I remember Betty Friedan and the time before the "pill". I am a lifelong supporter of womens rights (way before it was cool). I have seen excess and passion destroy rationality, and I have seen opportunism use those emotions to destroy good policy. The truth of the 60's is that we were living in a phony "Joe McCarthy" America that was both ignorant and repressed. I am very sad to see blind allegiance to gender overcome fact on this site. All you need to know about Clinton "progressive" politics can be found in Joe Stiglitz book "The Roaring 90"s". Please remember that Stiglitz was Bill Clinton's guy. She is not a progressive. I have read Obama's "hope" book and I am not convinced; but I know the Clintons are not progressive.
Posted by Don Beal at May 2, 2008 06:50 PMDear Turkana,
I agree with many reports and analyses over the last few days that point out the double standard of us all going apeshit over Rev. Wright's lunatic fringe rantings vs. pretty much ignoring the lunatic fringe rantings of the Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, Hagees, etc. representing the white wing of religious crazyland. It is true that this is hypocritical.
But I also feel that there IS a reason for going apeshit about Rev. Wright nevertheless. That reason, for me, is that Wright, and Trinity Church in general, stands in such stark contradiction to Obama's self-professed values and philosophies. On the one hand you have black separatism, racial and cultural divisiveness, anti-semitism, and yes, some good things too. On the other hand, you have Obama's postracial, unifying all the races, looking for all that we have in common rather than what differentiates us schtick. It is very hard to understand and swallow the contradiction.
In contrast, none of us is surprised that people like Bush and McCain are aligned with bigoted wackjobs like Falwell and Hagee. We KNOW they think like them, they're completely out about it. I expect nothing better from them, par for the course.
And that's why Obama's association with Wright and Trinity (and, indeed, also the new wackjob pastor Meeks) remains shocking to me. I thought he was better than that. The more I saw and heard about Wright and Trinity Church, the less I could understand the Obamas' attraction to that community.
My two cents.
Posted by Reality at May 2, 2008 06:52 PMFor the love of god man, pull your head out of your ass.
How can my post be seen as an "attack" on the helpless Judith?
She entered the fray willingly, and now my non-abusive post is an attack??
Again, priceless!!
Posted by chaz at May 2, 2008 06:55 PMYo reality,
Don't we need to examine CLINTONS spiritual past in order to bring about a COMPLETE airing of this topic?
Or is that too much to ask?
Posted by chaz at May 2, 2008 06:58 PMchaz,
If you're so interested go ahead and tell us what there is to know.
As for the gas tax holiday, it's a gimmick. But it sure got people talking about energy policy didn't it.
But please, enlighten us about Clinton's spiritual past.
Posted by snark at May 2, 2008 07:19 PMI'm thinking the topic deserves a full
discussion by someone other than an inconsequential poster (me) on a Clinton
web site. How bout you?
As for your response to the gas tax query, seems like the next president needs to come up with more than "Gimmicks" to discuss crucial policy issues. And if you are paying attention, EVERYONE is blasting Clinton for her hapless pandering. So much for the "experience" angle.
Obviously that leaves Hil off the short list, as you so aptly pointed out.
Posted by chaz at May 2, 2008 07:27 PMchaz,
Sure - I'm more than willing to hear about Clinton's spiritual past (or present).
I tend to not care that much for religion, but as I said, I did find an utter contradiction in Obama's stated beliefs and values vs. the beliefs and values of his church and pastor.
Posted by Reality at May 2, 2008 07:29 PMYou're the one who's interested. Do it yourself.
Did she present the tax holiday as the centerpiece of her energy policy? And I said nothing about "leaving her off the short list".
Again, please go look into her 'spiritual past' and enlighten us with your findings.
Posted by snark at May 2, 2008 07:32 PMSeems Obama didn't always have a problem with temporary, feel good gas tax policy.
Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.
The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.
During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, “Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.”
Now, he did vote against a measure to make the repeal of the state gas tax permanent. But Hillary Clinton is not supporting it as a permanent measure either.
"More "fair and balanced" BS from the Clinton camp."
"So you are suggesting "Judith" wasn't impacted by the Wright saga?"
Chaz, may I suggest that you have a problem with someone who does not agree with your way of thinking. I didn't jump into any fray, I just posted my opinion, of which you took off on some tantrum.
No, I was not impacted by the Wright saga. I have been far too busy with important realities of life and have had little time to read or listen to much on the issue.
I would suggest that before you jump on someone and make an idiot out of yourself, you take the time to wait and read more of their comments before jumping to some convoluted conclusion.
Yeah Snark, that was pretty funny, considering Chaz hasn't been reading my position on the candidates.
Thanks Iamcoyote, because your right. For the past 74 days I have been totally out of touch with (or cared) about politics.
"And did you know that Hoyer and Rockefeller are trying to do a backroom deal for telcom immunity? We're just helping those shits by providing cover with this silly infighting."
Iamcoyote, that was exactly what I meant. While people are salivating over the lastest tabloid like news, issues that affect all of us are going on under the radar.
Posted by Judith at May 2, 2008 08:15 PM"Do white right-wing preachers have it easier than black left-wing preachers? Is there a double standard?"
Yes.
To quote Stan Lee "'Nuff Said."
These guys can do no wrong. They have been enabling the Republicans for decades by sending targeted messages to the base and allowing the politicians they support to distance themselves.
I find it odd that all of a sudden Barack must justify everything that has come out of the mouth of his pastor (3 years ago). It goes to show that the racial battles of the past go on for people older than me.
BTW, Wright is a total prick! My beef is that the Reich Wing equivalents get a free pass. Let's rake them over the coals too!
Posted by midwestdem at May 2, 2008 08:21 PMMidwestdem, how right you are. For years the right-wing religious leaders have been trashing everyone from John (unworthy of communion) Kerry, to suggesting someone kill the head of another country, or 9/11 was God's retribution. Yes Turkana, there is indeed a double standard. As in all things, what applies to the GOP does not necessarily apply to the Democrats.
Posted by Judith at May 2, 2008 08:40 PMHey Turkana, where's the post about what's going on in England...you know the first Conservative Mayor in 30 years elected in London...or the big loses Democrats ally the Labor Party suffered? Will Cameron be leading there soon?
Italy goes conservative again, now England to go with Germany and France. there won't be very many friendlies left should there be a president Obama or Clinton. Whereas a president McOld will have some very friendly world leaders out there.
Posted by peter at May 2, 2008 08:42 PMBy-the-way, in case you have noticed, white republicans (and pastors) always get a pass on hate speech.
Peter, read the topic of the thread. It's not about England, Germany or France.
Posted by Judith at May 2, 2008 08:58 PMTo the last post, I think both Merkel and Sarkozy could easily work with Clinton or Obama. I'm not so worried about that, nor does Johnson's becoming mayor of London worry me. Italian politics are a freaking disaster.
Judith, as Atrois might say, IOKIYAR.
Posted by Mike P at May 2, 2008 09:00 PMpants pissin petie...must you always show what an ass you and the other "conservative" apologists are?
Posted by headxray at May 2, 2008 09:32 PMpeter,
part of labour's problem was that it was too cozy with bush. but the real story, which i'm sure you haven't noticed, is that other than berlusconi, "conservatives" in europe are what people like you would consider a flaming liberal. after michael howard's meltdown, the tories moved to the left.
Posted by Turkana at May 2, 2008 09:51 PMDo white right-wing preachers have it easier than black left-wing preachers?
Yes.
Is there a double standard?
Yes.
Obama had to answer questions about his Christianity because of the accusations of being a Muslim. Then the focus was directed onto his pastor. There is no way he could have gotten away with a simple, "I don't wear my religion on my sleeve" or "I believe in the separation of Church and State".
Fair game in the political spectrum.
That said, no candidate should be given a free pass if one is being crucified in the press. (Ooops... poor terminology?)
Equal treatment, equal exposure on the same subject.
And who really gives a shit about Hillary's spiritual background? A bunch of Obama whiners saying he's being treated different!
Besides if she gets the nomination she'll be seeing a whole different attack from the wingnuts. It will be along the lines of, "How could she be for women's rights if she tried to silence all those women Bill made passes at?"
The wingnuts are waiting, salivating... for "the most polarizing figure in American politics" to win the nomination.
Obama has answered the call, he's still standing, he's wounded, but he has taken the republi-con and republi-con light best shots.
BTW, snark, give my regards to Ben Cortman. ;)
Posted by Seven of Six at May 2, 2008 09:56 PMthere won't be very many friendlies left should there be a president Obama...
I guess he will have lots of friends in South America though.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 2, 2008 10:01 PMObama had to answer questions about his Christianity because of the accusations of being a Muslim.
I've been ruminating about a little bit of information I came across that has me reconsidering over a decade of support I gave to the Clintons. During Bill's problems I defended him, argued for him, wrote letters and made phone calls for him. The attacks on him from the right profoundly affected my world view both then and now. Now I read this little piece that lays out the proof that H. Clinton's campaign is using those exact same organizations that so battered her and Bill to attack Obama.
This really tends to change many of my perceptions about Clinton. And none of those perceptions have been positively changed.
I hope every Dem who supported Clinton through the troubles reads this same piece, and if it is as accurate as it seems to be, those same Dems should toss both Clintons under the bus.
Posted by phidipides at May 2, 2008 10:22 PMIf all the candidates were non-godbots we wouldn't be wasting all this time.
Organized religion is delusional.
How long will it take to undo 2,000 years of generational brainwashing?
Posted by TIKI AL at May 2, 2008 11:55 PMInteresting article at CNN and title of new critique of the religious right by the right: 'An Evangelical Manifesto'.
(AP) -- Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.
"That way faith loses its independence, Christians become 'useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," according to the draft.
The declaration, scheduled to be released Wednesday in Washington, encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage. But the drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love," helping create a backlash against religion during a "generation of culture warring."
"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others," the statement says, "while we have condoned our own sins." It argues, "we must reform our own behavior."
The document is the latest chapter in the debate among conservative Christians about their role in public life. Most veteran leaders believe the focus should remain on abortion and marriage, while other evangelicals -- especially in the younger generation -- are pushing for a broader agenda. The manifesto sides with those seeking a wide-range of concerns beyond "single-issue politics."
Wondering if this is a way for them to accept McRube easier?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 3, 2008 12:24 AM
Having it both ways aren't we judith?
"I would suggest that before you jump on someone and make an idiot out of yourself, you take the time to wait and read more of their comments before jumping to some convoluted conclusion.
Yeah Snark, that was pretty funny, considering Chaz hasn't been reading my position on the candidates."
But then there's " For the past 74 days I have been totally out of touch with (or cared) about politics."
Sorry, but how can I keep up with your views IF YOU HAVEN"T BEEN POSTING??
That is sooooooooooooo Clintonian!!!
Well I, for one am glad my candidate won't have to face the Clinton's this fall. We found our pansy in Barry Obama. He's lost the female vote as of now. McOld is going to make such a nice president and Cindy, a first lady.
Posted by peter at May 3, 2008 04:25 AMBTW, snark, give my regards to Ben Cortman. ;)
And give mine to Joe Andrew. ;)
Posted by snark at May 3, 2008 04:51 AMChaz: "Having it both ways aren't we judith?"
Hardly. I'm on topic, which you were not.
Chaz: "Sorry, but how can I keep up with your views IF YOU HAVEN"T BEEN POSTING??"
That is sooooooooooooo Clintonian!!!
Exactly Chaz, that was my point. I haven't been posting, but you in your infinite wisdom decided I was a Clinton supporter based on a comment that didn't agree with yours. Grow up.
Politics and Religion. The two topics that should never be integrated into a single issue. Thanks GWB. Another legacy for the history books.
Posted by Judith at May 3, 2008 06:47 AMGrow up?
Calm down Judith and take a breath.
What you're suggesting is I wait before I comment and read your body of work before I post, but alas, there IS no body of work and no matter how "Clintonian" your remark may have seemed to me, refrained from following Internet protocol and responding to the one post.
But wait, it gets worse.
You also appoint yourself arbitrator of what is acceptable subject matter that will be discussed.
""Don't we deserve a look into Clinton's
spiritual background."
No. I'm not voting for someones religious or spiritual background. I want someone who understands the very complicated issues facing this Country. We have already wasted valuable time on nonsense."
How convenient for the Clinton camp.
I'm thinking the same argument could have been made earlier in the campaign, say after the Sniper incident. No need to pursue non essential issues further, let's skip the Wright matter entirely. As you said, "We have already wasted valuable time on nonsense. "
And finally, if you read my post where I supposedly "attacked" you, well, that too is a stretch!!
However, (ok so not finally), if you are indeed NOT a rabid Clinton supporter in spite of the slant of your post, for rightfully suggesting otherwise, I do apologize.
Apology accepted.
Just so you are informed, I was an John Edwards supporter. I do not like either of the candidates, Obama or Clinton, but am forced to vote for one of them simply to keep McCain out of the oval office. That's why your statement calling me a "Clinton flak" was amusing to some people here, like Snark.
Posted by Judith at May 3, 2008 08:00 AMMy my my....
The Obamabots are getting vocal...
Makes me laugh.
More noise you guys make, the more we know that there's Big Time Trouble in Obama-rama Land...
Chaz is an Obamabot. Not going to be able to logically remonstrate with it.
Phidipes, I am sorry you feel you need to throw "the Clintons under the bus"....I will not throw them under any bus.
I am not going to vote for another empty suit. We already have had one for nearly 8 years. "Bush/Cheney: Aren't you Glad?" (Bumper sticker I saw two weeks ago in Sharon, PA)
I don't see why anyone would vote for Obama, who has basically no experience on the Federal level, and apparently doesn't want to gain any (note his lack of willingness to hold even one meeting of that Senate subcommittee he allegedly heads).
We are not heading into Fair Weather, people. Do you want an empty suit that provides bromides left and right? How does "Yes, we can!" solve the intractable problems that this nation has? How will that meet the crises we are now in--domestically and foreign-wise? How will sloganeering solve our problems? How does the behavioral trends of Obama (contrast with his rhetoric) that indicate a hack politician from Illinois, and who is definitely "Politics as Usual"? Most of his speeches are completely devoid of how he would actually do anything. Hell, give me 60 days, and I could give the very same excellent speeches as he, devoid of any details. Sloganeering won't work in the US. This is not Central America, this is not Cuba, this is not South America.
This is not the former Soviet Union, despite the current Administration attempting to turn us into that form of Totalitarianist State.
Get over the New Car Syndrome, the American Idol Syndrome, whatever Obamabot Syndrome you people are ascribing to.
The Nation is heading for some deep deep negative experiences for the foreseeable future.
Obama doesn't offer any alternatives, just more of the same. Kind of like a younger version of John McCain.
Hillary Clinton, in contrast, offers actual solutions, and she also tells how she would pay for them.
That's why I think that this election is very exciting. We have a Real Candidate in Hillary Clinton, versus a poseur.
It highlights whether the electorate does their homework, or doesn't do its homework. Great Rohrschach testing. Whether we, as an electorate, can see through the bullshit of the Obamabots, or not. And see through the bullshit of the Republicans.
Can we rise above? We better.
But I am not worried.
Obama supporters better be.
Posted by Troubled American at May 3, 2008 08:14 AMYO TA...
may I call you TA?
Hell yeah, I may.
You sound like Ralph Nader with your
"Obama is just like GWB".
I have been struck by the vitriol spewing from several Clinton supporters on this and other blogs.
Check the record, you will see it's true.
So true that I was called out for calling someone a "flack", yet any one questioning Clinton is automatically declared, as you did, an
"Obamabot." WETFTI
That's cool, "remonstrate" 'mongst yourselves.
You all deserve each other!!
But you may want to remonstrate on this:
What role is Bill going to play during an Obama
presidency??
One last thing Judith,
If you check my post, I clearly stated,
"the fact is she IS a flack in this post."
So you stand corrected and I respectfully rescind my apology.
Seems you and snark got your panties in a wad over nothing, EH?
But I'm with you on Edwards, he was my senator and I voted for him more than once. Any chance he is holding his delegates for the convention, hence no endorsement?
Posted by chaz at May 3, 2008 09:40 AMseems that barry was for reducing taxes on gasoline while in the state senate...curious..but hey..it's not like he's taken any money from oil people....barack obama is a political hack from illinois..who is a media creation and is being backed by white corporate elitists...who hate the clintons..because they fear them..you obama zombies are taking the bait..hook line and sinker..big day tues..people are voting..you know..behind the curtain in private
Posted by dennis at May 3, 2008 10:14 AMWhatever.
See you on the other side of the curtain this Tuesday!
Posted by chaz at May 3, 2008 10:28 AMIamcoyote, withdraw Chaz's invitation to the TLC Convention.
Posted by Judith at May 3, 2008 08:39 PMJeez Chaz, you must be very unhappy caring all that anger.
Posted by Judith at May 3, 2008 08:48 PM