Wow, religion at odds with Democracy and self-determination?? I'M SHOCKED!!!

but if Brody reports it, it's real and significant and represents what clergy leaders are really saying to one another.

I like your reporting, Greg, but could you elaborate on the above? If someone else reported this we might think that it was fake, meaningless, and not what clergy leaders are really saying?

In other words, why is Brody such a trusted source of information about progressive clergy?

CT voter, what I meant was that despite not knowing who authored the thing, we can take it as reflective of what's really being talked about among clergy leaders simply because Brody reported it.

He's really well sourced in those communities and knows that world better than just about any other reporter...

That is why we call on all Americans to bring their highest and best selves to this moment in time – to focus on content and character, depth of ideas, and a tangible vision for our future...

Why is electability not on the list? Surely it's morally appropriate to support the "less ideal" candidate if you believe the "more ideal" candidate will lose the general election. Surely, 100% of "pretty good" is better than 0% of "better".

And I'm not saying that Obama is "less ideal." I'm just saying that electability matters, in both a moral and a practical sense.

Greg, this is the Christian Broadcasting Station - the brainchild of Pat Robertson! I find it very, very difficult to give credence to anything that comes out of them. I'm not saying that he didn't get the e-mail, but I would be suspicious of just who he's deeming "progressive clergy". And the "Minnesota post" describing a superdelegate getting e-mails from "Obama supporters" asking her to vote based on the will of the voters doesn't seem like pressure to me - this "article" is a thinly-veiled dig at Obama (how else do you explain the entirely off-the-subject stuff about the "Bossip" website?)

Carol, I'm telling you, Brody is good. I've been reading him through the campaign and whoever he works for, he knows what he's talking about...

Personally, I'm beginning to see the SDs as a non-issue. Axelrod has already intimated, on behlaf of Obama, that the SDs should vote their conscience, not based on who won where. Given Obama's successes, how could an SD in good conscience not cast their vote for Obama?

Granting legitimcay to the original purpose of the the creation of the SDs (which were established precisely NOT, by defninition, to rubber-stamp the primary/caucus outcomes), Obama is not the kind of "outside" insurgent that the DNC had in mind when they created a mechanism to stuff the convention ballot box with non-pledged delegates. My political memory does not extend back to the 1972 or 1980 campaigns, so I can't posit with any certainty how Obama's position (i.e., overtaking the Dem establishment's frontrunner) might have been treated back then by the SDs. But really, what could cause the SDs to vote in a large majority for HRC at this point?

Here is a link to an article that has the full story - the complete text of the letter, and names and affiliations of all the signatories, who are described in the lede as "a group of prominent Clinton supporters."

Google is my friend. Greg, you ought to give it a whirl. :-)

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/02/clinton-supporters-call-on-del-000199.php

Greg,

What in the letter (as opposed to the appended remarks, email quotes added by Brody) is objectionable.

If I remember correctly, this letter first appeared about the time of the South Carolina Primary when tensions between the Obama camp and the Clinton camp were high, and some of us were concerned that "racial tensions" were being introduced into the campaign. This letter may well have been an encouragement for all of us (Clinton and Obama supporters alike) to respond to our "better angels" and demonstrate Democratic ideals at the highest.

Brody does seem to be a fine reporter, but I do not see evidence in this particular column that he eamined the purpose of the letter or inquired very deeply into who the signers were. I know some of the signers personally: The ones I know are not partisan manipulators for any political candidate, though they may well have chosen for their own reasons, a particular candidate.

Finally, some of your responders immediately came to the conclusion that "religious" people are all of the "right wing" stripe. Many of us indeed are, and have been progressives (I prefer simply liberal) for years (My political involvement now spans 40 years!)

Dan Turner

Greg accepts Brody's characterization of the signatories as "progressive clergy", while the story at the dailyvoice link describes them as Clinton supporters.

Kind of an important distinction, no?

Hmm. My guess is that it might mean clergy from some of the religious denominations like Quakers (Friends), Unitarian Universalists, UCC, some Episcopalians, and other similarly socially-progressive ones like those.

We are Americans who look to God and the holy texts for our moral compass in our private decisions and civic duties...

And the Lord Jehovah said to the Israelites, "Thou shalt not vote for a black man, unless he be your slave and you voteth for him to take out the garbage."

I am a progressive clergy. Some of those whose names were on the list of signatories are in my denomination; and at least some of them truly are progressives.

I believe they are completely wrong about their expectations concerning superdelegates, though. While their conscience should inform their decision, the facts should have more influence.

If Obama has more popular votes and regular delegates it would be anathema to the Democratic party to have Hillary as the candidate for our party.