Obama Lit In South Carolina Proclaims His Committed Christianity
In a move that looks as if it's designed to push back on the false Obama Muslim smears in South Carolina -- where the Muslim smear email has been circulating fast and furious of late -- the Obama camp has dropped some new lit proclaiming his committed Christianity.
Click on the image below to enlarge:
Late Update: Glenn Greenwald makes a persuasive case that the brochure "seems designed with a far broader purpose: namely, to signify to South Carolina's many Christian voters that Obama is one of them and therefore should have their vote for President, much the way that Huckabee sought to court the evangelical vote that was so critical to the GOP Iowa caucus."
Comments (82)
el jefe wrote on January 21, 2008 11:26 AM:And what about Ralph Nader?
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 11:39 AM:I'd imagine this is aimed at the white half of the electorate in SC, where Obama polls poorly. Some of that could be attributed to simple class demographics (Hillary tends to do better with lower-income and lower-educated white voters, and I believe they tend to dominate the white voting bloc in SC), and some of that could be attributed to lingering racist sentiments among the southern Dem base (though I doubt that's playing a significant role at all, personally).
Obviously, though, the campaign has decided that there is a problem with that voting bloc fearing Obama as a Muslim Manchurian candidate. It really is a shame that we have to go through this in the 21st century.
NCSteve wrote on January 21, 2008 11:40 AM:Let me save the Hillarites the trouble of typing out their standard response.
"Ooooh, this is a terrible mistake that will cost him the election. He's aligning himself with Pat Robertson and the undead corpse of Jerry Falwell. Real Democrats hate Christians. All his followers will abandon him and flock to Hillary's banner."
RaymondA wrote on January 21, 2008 11:45 AM:Were it not for the vile email smear campaigns and concerted effort to spread disinformation about Obama's religious background, some of it spread by Hillary supporters, I'd say that the brochure is misguided. But this is the least he can do to counter the disinformation, so I say it is totally justified.
jimijazz wrote on January 21, 2008 11:50 AM:Obama doesn't have to do that. He's just playing into the establishment's hands with this pandering. You better take that oath of christianity buddy or you'll never be president - pathetic. This country has regressed tremendously from the past 3 decades. The more people try to make a new and better vision the more the reactionaries react. To pause and realize that on MLK day is pretty sad and again pathetic. Obama gave it his best shot, but this country is going backward not forward.
Vaughan wrote on January 21, 2008 11:52 AM:As an Obama supported I think this is very good. He really is Christian, and it has inspired much of his work, so this isn't pandering. It's also the only way to push back on the lying smears that he's a secret Muslim.
Lippincott wrote on January 21, 2008 12:01 PM:He really does have to do this. I've heard from people around the country who're unsure if he's a Muslim, and have heard that he trained in a madrassa, etc. That horrible, viral email continues to circulate. Perhaps it was on here or some other site, I haven't been able to find it, where its origins were spelled out. Does anyone have the link? I'd like to forward this info, about the right-wing nut to first wrote the email and sent it to out, to people who still seem to believe that Obama may be a Manchurian candidate. (Though I personally wonder about his championing Ronald Reagan, one of the worst presidents of the last 50 years. What is that about?)
hr wrote on January 21, 2008 12:05 PM:It's only a smear if you think that being Muslim is bad. Would it be a smear to call him a Catholic? Or Jewish? Or a Mormon? Why are we calling this a smear?
I don't think that this is a Hillary "smear" either -- the people who hate Muslims in this country aren't her supporters, they're Bush/Cheney supporters. Frankly I think that Obama himself needs to deal with this NOT by defending his Christianity but by saying "so what?"
thedcsir wrote on January 21, 2008 12:10 PM:hr
It is a smear because the e-mail campaign calls him a "radical muslim" who "trained at a madrassa." It is shameful. I don't believe the statement of another poster that "some of it is spread by Hillary supporters" reflects the true spirit of that story. It was spread as far as I know by a supporter who was swiftly fired. As a Hillary supporter I still, of course, find this crap disgusting and am sorry that he had to defend himself from such silly attacks. Another waste of resources that should have gone to the real issues.
An Outhouse wrote on January 21, 2008 12:15 PM:Is Hitlery going to send Bill to S.C. to beat up on Obama like in Nevada? She's such a tough independent woman. I really respect people who send their thugs around to smear their opponent instead of arguing the issues.
Tapper wrote on January 21, 2008 12:17 PM:Good for Obama!
He has made his faith a major theme throughout his political career so this is not pandering.
And if he feels the need to push back against the Hussein is a Secret Muslim bs then more power to him, hope it works.
I want to see the man defeated for his actual shortcomings not some made up stupidities; his real pandering is much more troublesome and not so easily combatted.
This feels like over-the-top pandering that is painfully sincere, shouldn't be necessary, and may well backfire. It doesn't look good to me if Barack has to wear his faith on his sleeve to this extent.
td wrote on January 21, 2008 12:21 PM:to NCsteve
You'll " save the Hillarites the trouble of typing out their standard response....."really, how nice but wrong
oops, you're showing your foxism when you state 'real democrats hate Christians'? Really? That's straight out of the mouth of Ann, Rush, Sean and Billo!! Sometimes you just can't 'fake' it. Nice try playing at being for Obama and against Hillary.
More religion. Ugh. The only thing that's clear to me and keeps getting clearer everyday is that there's no place for non-believers like myself in this new America.
Ross Perot thought Obama was a Muslim until a few weeks ago, when a Time reporter set him straight.
Depressing.
debatepro wrote on January 21, 2008 12:26 PM:This smear won’t go away. Last night my 75 year old (democrat to the bone) grandma called me and said she was talking to someone who made this claim... it was someone who claimed to be a hillary supporter... who knows it could be a republicon.
In any event it's amazing to me that this sort of thing is able to start out as lie... spread through email... word of mouth... be disprove over and over again... but not every time the lie is spread and thus it become "truth" to some even when the lie has been debunked for months. It's interesting the communicative trajectory of the lie...
In any event... to bad we don't live in a country where the answer isn't "Obama is a Christian" but rather “Why does it matter if he is a Muslim?”.
I find it very interesting Obama promotes this aspect of his life a day after he gave a sermon in Atlanta where he refused to sing a verse of "We Shall Overcome." What was that verse? It was "God Is On Our Side."
Watch for yourself (verse begins at 3:16) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8x-1v1MIbs
This was just yesterday. Watch Obama sing every other verse and then as the pastor announces the verse "God Is On Our Side," Obama quikcly bows his head and does not sing a single word. The woman to the far left appears to notice what he's doing.
CParis wrote on January 21, 2008 12:31 PM:Are we electing a president or a head mullah in 2008? Enough of the religious piety!
Scott wrote on January 21, 2008 12:31 PM:As an Obama supporter who lives in Tennessee, I believe this is extremely necessary, since I literally get hammered with the "he's a Muslim" crap every day. And, no, this isn't coming from Hillary's campaign, but it is already being preached from the pulpits of churches, and in the rural south this kind of thing really sticks and hurts Obama. Of course, the people who say these kinds of things, whether it's in an email or from the pulpit would never vote for Obama or even Hillary or Edwards for that matter, but there are still quite a few Democrats who still attend these churches (whose only mission these days it seems is to preach hate, rather than love and compassion), and this kind of thing does raise doubts about Obama and costs him votes.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:32 PM:Not a fan of hyper-religion in politics, but Obama had no choice. With the muslim thing being pushed by Hillary supporters, he's got to be kissing the cross every chance he gets.
Jay wrote on January 21, 2008 12:40 PM:"This was just yesterday. Watch Obama sing every other verse and then as the pastor announces the verse "God Is On Our Side," Obama quikcly bows his head and does not sing a single word. The woman to the far left appears to notice what he's doing."
Ferris, just kill yourself already - we already know that people spawned from sibling relationships will shower the rest of us with intellectual dishonesty like this. To quote Jay-Z, "We don't believe you, you need more people!!" Try again numbnuts..
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 12:48 PM:You know what...fuck this guy!
I've had it with religious nut jobs and panderers. Fuck his flirtations with Reaganites and fuck his Christianity! Barak, I don't care about you ignorantly praying to a mythical sky-god...but doing it for votes just reeks! You've lost me. I'll vote for Obama in the GE if it's him, but no fucking way in the primary...and this is the reason...the final straw. Screw your religiousity Barak...
We. Don't. Care!
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 12:50 PM:Well, I wasn't planning on voting for Obama anyway...but this seals the deal.
NCSteve wrote on January 21, 2008 12:51 PM:Snark aside, of course it's necessary. I've been absolutely gobsmacked by some of the people I've met who believed this--brilliant, but rather apolitical, white people who who don't pay much attention to politics. To them, Keith Ellison and Barack Obama looked pretty much the same long about 2006 and, as between two well-spoken rising young black politicians from up north, which one's going to be pegged as the Muslim terrorist, the one with the 'merican name or the one with the funny foreign name?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." Arthur C. Clarke
Chew on that, Barak!
goldberry wrote on January 21, 2008 12:58 PM:Hey, maybe this is unrealistic in a state like South Carolina but I really wish Obama had taken the high road here and done a sista soujah moment on the evangelicals. NJ/NY have a lot of muslims. We work with the, we shop with them, go to school with and play soccer with them. Isn't it about time for Obama or someone to say, "I might not be a Muslim, but I believe that muslim americans are good citizens. I may be a Christian but I don't believe you need a religion to be a moral, ethical person. At a time like this in our nation's history, we can not afford to exclude anyone from joining us in the difficult tasks that lie ahead."
I'm waiting...
And td? How about you look around a website and get the lay of the land before you start jumping to conclusions about who supports whom, 'kay? And take a look at the comments here now and ask yourself again whether the "Democrats hate Christians" Republismear is utterly devoid of a factual basis.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 12:58 PM:"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
-- Richard Dawkins
Barak, you lightweight.
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 1:06 PM:To the defenders of church-and-state who are put off by this, to whatever extent that is honest, I implore you to read this, as your complaints are woefully misguided:
For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also 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 forbears of Evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religion, because they didn't want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it. Given this fact, I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism.
Whatever we once were, we're 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 non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.
Now, of course, where did he say this? At DKos? At some other area where such positions would be "OK"?
Nope.
On Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcast Network.
For real.
I'm no fan of organized religion, but this isn't pandering to stir up religious sentiment, this is push back to an odious e-mail being circulated claiming Obama is a "Manchurian" Muslim candidate bent on destroying the US from within.
I think you can appreciate the need to push back against that.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 1:10 PM:Hillary won new hamsphire, michigan (even though no delegates were given),and nevada....
Obama has only won Iowa
Polls show that Hillary will win Florida (even though no delegates will be given)
Polls show that Hillary will win Calf. and New Jersey.
Hillary is going to win!!!
I think Hillary will pull off the same thing in south carolina as she did in new hamsphire.... polls will be wrong again.
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 1:12 PM:loki-
Richard Dawkins is nothing more than a demagogue. Citing him will win you no points with anyone but other Dawkins' disciples. It's like citing Rush in a political debate, or Taylor Marsh in a primary debate.
Answer me this: do you think Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were simple-minded rubes? What about Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton or Thomas Edison? We can go on. It's quite easy to separate our everyday dealings from our spiritual beliefs, and some of the most intelligent, logical professors I had in college were religious.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 1:12 PM:The Dems Own Personal Jesus Freak.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/obama_is_vexing_me.php
DonnaG wrote on January 21, 2008 1:13 PM:oops, loki is mad.....loki must have had a bunch of chips bet on that distortive muslim e-mail slime to provide a slippery slope path for Hillary.
Northern Observer wrote on January 21, 2008 1:14 PM:hr wrote on January 21, 2008 12:05 PM: It's only a smear if you think that being Muslim is bad. Would it be a smear to call him a Catholic? Or Jewish? Or a Mormon? Why are we calling this a smear?
Have you been alive the last 10 year. Islam has a terrible PR problem at the moment thanks to BinLaden and friends. Feelings towards muslims by non muslims in the rest of the world are ambivalent at best. Your making it sound like a school yard insult, it's a bit more serious than that.
So anonymous: Hillary is gonna win Florida and California b/c polls say so, and Hillary is gonna win SC inspite of that fact that polls say she won't.
That's consistent.
loki, does your Dawkins' quote also apply to Hillary's Christianity? Just wondering. Time to parse your flaming, dear.
willyjsimmons wrote on January 21, 2008 1:18 PM:On the one hand, Obama needs to address the issue.
On the other, he could have taken the time to pose the question to voters as to why it should even matter if he's a Muslim or not.
We already have a Muslim elected official in this country.
No need to shout 'I'm A Christian Too!!!!'
Too sophisticated for SC? Maybe.
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 1:18 PM:Well, Loki, I approached this as if you were arguing in good faith (ahem...pardon the pun), but you've seemed to put that misconception to rest.
John Y. wrote on January 21, 2008 1:19 PM:If you've read "Dreams from my Father," you would realize how completely ridiculous all of the smears coming out against Obama are, from the "Manchurian Muslim" one to the "he's a closet conservative!" one. Obama is the real deal.
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 1:20 PM:You could reply to the interview I've cited, loki.
Or the 3rd comment in the thread you posted on science blog:
There's a good indication of his views in this interview, where he says "And the way to do it, though, is to understand that, No. 1, people who are religious don't have a monopoly on morality, so they've got to be careful about being sanctimonious. No. 2 is that whatever values may be religiously motivated, if you're in the public square, if you're involved in politics, I think you have to translate those moral precepts into something universal that people of different faiths or no faith at all can debate and argue and hopefully at some point come to a consensus. I think the mistake that's been made with respect to the religious right is a literalism that is so rigid that it does not allow for the possibility of somebody of a different faith or nonbeliever to engage in a dialogue."To even acknowledge atheism or the possibility of sanctimoniousness in the religious is as good as it's going to get.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 1:21 PM:
Jefferson, Franklin, Einstein and Newton...don't know about Edison...wre not religious in any real sense of the word. They never, NEVER, would have pulled a stunt like this. And only right wing regio-nut-know-nothings think Dawkins is only a demagogue. Think again.
benjoya wrote on January 21, 2008 1:22 PM:My Campaign to Destroy All Religion notwithstanding, this was necessary.
If Obama wins the nomination, watch for an all-out attack on the United Church of Christ. From "Christians" of course.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 1:30 PM:Michael,
You state above "I think you can appreciate the need to push back against that." If he "pushed back" with a similar statement as you showed above similar or commentary, rather than his seemingly willfully ignorant "Power of Prayer" crap, I'd be feeling a little differently. He's at the crossroads and he has, if you will, sold his soul. Not good.
Jefferson, Franklin, Einstein and Newton...don't know about Edison...wre not religious in any real sense of the word. They never, NEVER, would have pulled a stunt like this. And only right wing regio-nut-know-nothings think Dawkins is only a demagogue. Think again.
Haha, what?
Jefferson:
Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291
Man, what an atheist!
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
Oh boy, you're right on!
Franklin:
Benjamin Franklin, the delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. He has frequently been used as a source for positive "God" talk. It is often noted that Franklin made a motion at the Constitutional convention that they should bring in a clergyman to pray for their deliberations:In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?... I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. (Catherine Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Phaladelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966, pp. 125-126)
How about Isaac Newton?
Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. [16]His scientific fame notwithstanding, Newton's studies of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were also noteworthy. Newton wrote works on textual criticism, most notably An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. He also placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which agrees with one traditionally accepted date.[17] He also attempted, unsuccessfully, to find hidden messages within the Bible (see Bible code).
Newton may have rejected the church's doctrine of the Trinity. In a minority view, T.C. Pfizenmaier argues that he more likely held the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and most Protestants.[18] In his own day, he was also accused of being a Rosicrucian (as were many in the Royal Society and in the court of Charles II).[19]
In his own lifetime, Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. He believed in a rationally immanent world, but he rejected the hylozoism implicit in Leibniz and Baruch Spinoza. Thus, the ordered and dynamically informed universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason, but this universe, to be perfect and ordained, had to be regular.
Einstein?
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
It is worth mentioning that this letter was written a decade after the advent of Heisenberg's prin ciple of indeterminacy and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics with its denial of strict determinism.
As to that last part, actually, since I'm an agnostic who leans atheist, studied philosophy in college and worked extensively on the question of the existence of God, and, of course, am I life-long voting Democrat, my very existence puts the lie to your claim that only right-wing-nut-jobs think Dawkins is a demagogue. Fact is, Dawkins is a demagogue, as is PZ Myers, and Hitchens, and the lot of them, and they (and you) give the rest of us secular-types a bad name.
The fact that you're not able to separate your obvious loathing of organized religion from Obama's laudable statements to the religiously devout in their own forums about the importance of involving agnostics and atheists and secular-types in the public discourse...sort of proves the point about demagoguery.
Kind of ironic, really, that those who put "evidence" and "reason" so high up on the pedestal regularly ignore both in their arguments. You supplied -0- evidence for your categorical denial of the faith of the historical figures I mentioned, and made an absurd-on-its-face and demagogic claim about those of us who are no fans of Dawkins. And you've ignored the ample evidence that contradicts your beliefs about Obama's position on the role of religion in the public sphere.
Bravo! The triumph of reason, indeed.
Darrell wrote on January 21, 2008 1:40 PM:obama is leading in south carolina polls between 3 to 15 points over hillary clinton
Question everyone???
Will Hillary or Obama do good in tonight debate??.... If hillary does good will she bring obama down in the polls??
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 1:41 PM:So wait: Obama can say, "the religious don't have a monopoly on morality" (good), "we need to emphasize the importance of church/state separation not just for non-believers, but also for the churches themselves" (good), "we need to recognize that we're not a christian nation" (good), but he's not allowed to say, "and I'm a christian, to boot"?
That's so terrible?
Lindsay wrote on January 21, 2008 1:42 PM:Disgusting. Is this what you have to do to get elected in America now?
So much for the First Amendment.
spencer wrote on January 21, 2008 1:45 PM:*Sigh* . . . yet another piece of evidence (as if we needed it) that religion is an obstacle to - and not a facilitator of - progress in just about any society.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 1:47 PM:I never called any of those people atheists. There was also no "categoriacl denial of faith" for any of them. It reall is easier to argue when you make shit up isn't it?
Obama's mailer is Jesus Freak pandering at its worst...
And no matter how many time you state it, Dawkins is not a demogogue...deal with it.
It is the "moderates" of religion (like you) who are the problem. They/you give cover for the true religio-nutjobs.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 1:49 PM:Sorry, that post --just above this--was for Michael.
Guy wrote on January 21, 2008 1:50 PM:These are superb pamhplets, especially the first. That's how he should be running, and not only in South Carolina. The first pamphlet should definitely go nationwide before super Tuesday.
KarinJR wrote on January 21, 2008 1:50 PM:"Watch Obama sing every other verse and then as the pastor announces the verse "God Is On Our Side," Obama quikcly bows his head and does not sing a single word. The woman to the far left appears to notice what he's doing."
Ummm... has it occurred to you that a politician who does NOT believe you should vote for him because "God is on our side" is actually kind of a good thing? Obama is in fact a Christian and he's comfortable with that, but if he chose to sit out this particular verse intentionally I say good choice - claiming God is on your side means something very different in the context of the civil rights movement than it does for a particular campaign.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 21, 2008 1:53 PM:I am an entheusiastic Obama supporter and a pious, church-going Christian, so of all the people in this world, I imagine that I should be the last one to find this flyer off-putting, but the only thing I can think as I read it is "so, does he believe in walrus angels?" I am not much impressed by conspicuous piety, although I suppose that a certain amount of pandering is just par for the course in any election.
Rick B wrote on January 21, 2008 2:16 PM:NCSteve,
Democrats have great respect for real Christianity. It is "Christian" fundamentalist theocracy and dominionism that we detest, just as we detest any authoritarian or wannabe authoritarian regimes.
Fundamentalists are inherently authoritarian. There is no significant difference between a "Christian" fundamentalist and a "Muslim," "Hindu," "Mormon," (remember Warren Jeffs?) or "Buddhist" fundamentalist.
No civilized person can support fundamentalist authoritarian religion, even if it wraps itself around the cross of Jesus Christ.
If you are a supporter of Rushdooney, as Huckabee is, then go crawl back under your rock. That's not Christianity.
Democrats and real Americans need to stand up for and protect both Christianity and the U.S. Constitution from the crazies or the great American experiment that came from 1776 is over.
It's good to see Obama standing up to the crazies, as have both Hillary and Edwards.
Anonymous wrote on January 21, 2008 2:45 PM:NCSteve,
when you say Obama is aligning himself with Pat Robertson, you have no idea what you are talking about.
the UCC is a liberal Christian church that is 180 degrees opposite of Pat Robertson.
Lights, camera, action! Pray, Obama, pray. Good shot! You look almost ... almost ... why, reverent there.
Yeah, this is just what we need, another politician beating his religious chest in public. Next thing you know, he'll be pulling out a cross necklace and explaining how his grandma gave it to him with the blessing that Jesus would always watch over him.
heretic wrote on January 21, 2008 3:11 PM:Whether it is pandering or not, and for whatever reason he did it, it sickens me. Obama's religiosity may be genuine, but anyone who espouses a religious worldview is repugnant to me. It is why I have contempt for the man. People who believe in fairy tales to guide their lives are like children. If he is elected, the religionists will won a major victory in America, now controlling both parties.
Michael wrote on January 21, 2008 3:26 PM:I was playing poker the other day - the only WASP at the table - which is common in CA. And the Jewish kid on my right knew only one thing about Obama when someone brought up is name - "he's a Muslim." I forcefully denounced the smear. From the other end of the table, an Armenian spoke up: "what's his middle name?" "Hussein," I said. "What's yours?" HE ignored me and flatly stated, "Hussein is a Muslim name. He is a Muslim."
I guess trying to fight back against this smear is using "right-wing talking points," huh?
Every single one of the people ripping Obama in this thread are why I cannot wait to never vote for Hillary Clinton in the history of ever. The chance to vote against Hillary Clinton cannot arrive soon enough.
DemUnity08 wrote on January 21, 2008 3:44 PM:I think the ad's great, and really helps to introduce Barack Obama's strengths to audiences that don't know him so well. I think we can expect to see more of it.
What's interesting to note is just how many of Obama's fawning, adoring fans on this thread deplore their candidate's religiosity (or at least want him to "keep it in the closet"!)
Maybe there really is something to the idea that Obama is a sort of "secular progressive's messiah". Secularists don't want to be reminded that Obama is not really, truly one of them (wink, wink). He's a Christian. And it pisses them off.
fou wrote on January 21, 2008 3:54 PM:As a Clinton supporter, I feel obliged to say that I applaud Senator Obama's message of hope and tolerance. I think it's sad that ignorance regarding his background is so widespread, and that people spread these falsehoods (such as in the link to the YouTube video upthread) rather than educating themselves.
I have to say, especially as an African-American, that I feel for him today, and I commend him for being brave enough to try to run for president in the hopes of bringing the country farther past this scourge of ignorance and racism.
I'm also an atheist, but I have to say that his words and his deeds have touched me today.
Amen, brother. Amen.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 3:56 PM:Every single one of the people ripping Obama in this thread are why I cannot wait to never vote for Hillary Clinton in the history of ever.
See Michael...That's the diffeence between you irrational obamaniacs and Clinton supporters. Rarely do you ever see Clintonites saying they will NEVER vore for Obama. You guys on the other hand will--out of spite--help put another goddamn Republican in the White House...and you seem oh so proud of that. So much for that stellar education you couldn't wait to share with everybody.
Pathetic.
markg8 wrote on January 21, 2008 4:35 PM:I got one of the email smears from a buddy in Jersey a few weeks ago who forwarded it from some yahoos in FL. I took all the email addresses in the multiple forwards and put them into the "to" line and wrote back with a debunking including the snopes page about it. Then yesterday I emailed Obama's Jericho speech to them asking if that sounded like a Muslim.
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 21, 2008 4:45 PM:It doesn't look good to me if Barack has to wear his faith on his sleeve to this extent.
And how long, exactly, have you been following the American political scene? Don't get me wrong, I wish it weren't an issue, but others went and made it a damn issue with deliberate misinformation.
The idea that the Dems, in particular, should shut up about faith plays right into the GOP's (now precarious, apparently) party narrative about who "owns" the believer faction.
Nathan wrote on January 21, 2008 4:49 PM:RaymondA,
What Hillary supporters passed this along? I know of one staffer who was immediately fired by Clinton. Do you think every single Obama supporter has never passed along some e-smear of Clinton?
These smears are from the RIGHT. My God, even after he gets the nomination you'll still be blaming The Clinton Machine if he doesn't win. If he does win then every setback will still be their fault. Get a damn clue. It's the right who's gunning for Obama with gusto. If you think the Clintons are behind these smears you're a fool. Every criticism of Obama--every single damn one--is seen as a result of a Clinton conspiracy.
markg8 wrote on January 21, 2008 4:53 PM:Fact is loki the Clintons are using Republican smear campaign tactics against a candidate who has brought many new young voters into the process for the first time. Kids being the idealistic sort can be easily demoralized by such tactics and tend to be turned off by those using them.
Don't expect them to be as enthusiastic about Hillary if she wins the nomination as they are about Obama, especially as she's doing her best to drive them out the process in droves.
Loki, many of us believe that's a pretty important difference. Voting for the Democratic candidate simply because he or she is the Democratic candidate is an oversimplification of the issues and puts us all one step closer to idolatry. I support Obama because I believe him to be the best-equipped candidate in any party to bring our country back to a place I can be proud of. If he doesn't win the primary, I won't blindly vote on a party line--I'll vote for the candidate whom I believe is best equipped of those remaining to bring our country back to a place I can be proud of.
Here's the rub though-- those of us in the Obama camp want to be inspired. We don't want the "inevitable" President. Hope is a pretty powerful thing to a lot of people. But with Hillary's supporters all I hear is "this is why you shouldn't vote for someone else." I never hear anything uplifting about Hillary. I never hear anything positive from her supporters. Everyone who believes Hillary is the candidate of choice has a whole lot of work to do convincing those of us who don't believe it that you're right. And trying to prove us wrong isn't the way to go about it.
So I put it to you, Loki. I put it to everyone on here. What's your favorite thing about Hillary? What about her makes you wake up in the middle of the night with a big smile on your face or a wet spot in your sheets? Convince me.
markg8 wrote on January 21, 2008 4:56 PM:There were three Clinton operativers sending these emails in IA, one a county chair.
Obama is appealing to church going blacks in SC with these flyers. They are the backbone of the AA Democratic community down there people. It cuts into Hillary's support and firms his up. That's not hard to understand.
NCSteve wrote on January 21, 2008 5:00 PM:
Sigh.
You people are absolutely killing me. One more time . . .
My first post was simply a piece of sarcasm, a continuation of a point I had made in a comment on the immediately preceding post, okay? Got it? My point was that Hillary's supporters have had a tendency to respond to every single move, statement or facial tic by Obama with some variation of "that was a terrible mistake. His candidacy is doomed because of that terrible mistake. Everyone knows that Democrats do not like people who say things like that. Savvy, tough, strong and experienced Hillary would never make a mistake like that. He is doomed, doomed I say."
Sheesh.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 5:12 PM:Case,
There is no possible way to convince you to vote for Hillary. And here is why:
"But with Hillary's supporters all I hear is "this is why you shouldn't vote for someone else." I never hear anything uplifting about Hillary. I never hear anything positive from her supporters."
You actually believe this. The reality however is greatly different. If I tell you I think she's a highly intelligent woman whose stated values I mostly agree with and whose time in public service has helped forge a strong un-naive view of the world and of politics in general, that I feel she is best equipped because of all this to bring this country back from the brink, to help engender a sense of good will back upon the U.S. ...that sense of good will that Bush thoroughly squandered...well I think this would fall utterly on your unthinking, deaf ears.
If I can take that quote of yours at face value it tells me much more about you than it does about Clinton supporters. For you have not been paying attention. You have spent far too much time in forums like this and listening far too intently to the Obama echo chamber.
You have bought into the Republican and MSM narrative:
Obama= pure agent of hope and faith and change.
Clinton= manipulative, overly ambitious bitch with nothing positive to offer.
Convince you? Not possible.
Anon 1 wrote on January 21, 2008 5:14 PM:Now that Saint Obamicus has brought his religion up, I hope the media exmaines the teachings of this church and his spiritual advisor.
loki wrote on January 21, 2008 5:17 PM:NCSteve,
For the record, I am now officially a Clinton supporter...and I don't think Obama is doomed at all. I think he is doing brilliantly what the Obama supporters have forever accused the Clintons of doing...practicing the art of politics at its ugliest. Triangulating? Covering all sides? Trying to make everyone happy? Whatever it takes to win!
Not that there's anything wrong with that! ;^}
But, like everyone else, I have my limits... and this did for me.
fou wrote on January 21, 2008 7:28 PM:Loki,
I'm a Clinton supporter also, but I'm curious to know what 'did' it for you? This brochure? Seems there's nothing wrong with it, and it's necessary for him to put something out to dispel these myths.
The problem for him is, the more he has to say to dispel the myth, the more the myth sticks. It's a lose-lose.
I've had problems related to what I feel is Senator Obama's overall lack of substance; but I really empathize with him on this issue. It's just disgusting what people are saying about his background; and even if he were Muslim, so what?
Stop and Think for a Minute wrote on January 21, 2008 9:27 PM:Everyone stop for a second and realize what's happening here.
Everyone is so scared of everyone else. We all live in the frame of FEAR.
Even the intelligent, the pragmatic, the objective, the believer, the non-believer - all of us.
Have we EVER been SO scared of one another?
Have we EVER been SO scared of another's religion?
It started on 9/11. It grew with what this Administration has done in the name of a specific religion.
Now wake up and step back.
Have you ever made good decisions in a state of irrational fear? You get in the fear frame and end up believing something crazy about your neighbor or your preacher or your uncle Jerry- whoever.
We need to heal. We need to unite. We need to get out of the fear frame. We need to elect the future. We need to elect inspiration. We need to elect transformation. Now more than ever.
I love Hilary. Shes tough and smart, as hell.
But its time to move forward. Now.
Its time to Elect Barack Obama.
Seriously.
"Guided by his Christian faith..."
What a disgusting sentence. He is being guided by a fairy tale that has zero evidence, accuracy or provable truth?
We want another religious zealot controlling this country? Are people in our country this insane? Do you need to wonder why people in other countries think we're completely nuts?
If Obama really wanted to "dispel the myths" about his being Muslim, then he should've done that.
But, what he did, is precisely the type of shit that needs to take a backseat to our political process.
This "guided by" nonsense is scary as all fuck to me.
I know what's in the bible, I know what's on the minds of racist and homophobic "church-goers", and all of it makes me want to puke blood. For Barack to spew his religion on the public square, in such glossy and hi-quality printed materials, is the opposite of where our country should be in 2008.
This is exactly the same shit that Huckabee has done, and just the same shit that Bush and a lot of others have. And if Hillary does this nonsense too, well, sad for her, and for all of "us".
And Michael: Dawkins is not a demagogue. He's one of the only ones in the public sphere that is fighting against the radical religious fringes, and trying desperately to keep it out of our politics. For that, he should have all of our respect.
Volum wrote on January 22, 2008 9:12 PM:Oh, btw "Michael"
The quote you pasted from Einstein is full of shit. Even Albert himself disproved this nonsense, and was pretty heated about it being spread around.
The only people who still believe it are either those who use it to try to win an argument (you) or religious nutbags who don't know any better.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited
by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press "
(i really hope my html tags are correct, TPM doesn't have a preview button)
Oh, btw "Michael"
The quote you pasted from Einstein is full of shit. Even Albert himself disproved this nonsense, and was pretty heated about it being spread around.
The only people who still believe it are either those who use it to try to win an argument (you) or religious nutbags who don't know any better.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited
by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press "
(i really hope my html tags are correct, TPM doesn't have a preview button)
ps: That bogus Einstein quote was from a 1930's magazine from Germany.
Great sourcing!!
bob wrote on January 23, 2008 1:13 PM:I was for Obama, sadly this type of pandering forces me to look elsewhere.
I am not alone in this, everyone that I know who fears Huckabee's religiousity, also are changing thier minds.
werw wrote on January 24, 2008 3:18 AM:Obama is a Jihadist working with the world's 2 billion terrorists called muslims! Islamerica is his goal!
PE wrote on January 24, 2008 4:55 PM:Abraham Lincoln had to put out stuff to assure people that he believed in God.
Frankly, I have no problem with this. It doesn't say that he will only represent Christians. It just professes his faith.
