Like the his campaign told Canada: "Don't listen to what Obama tells voters. It's just rhetoric."

Wow, have you been out of the loop. I suppose you did not see the news that it was actually Hillary's campaign that gave the old "wink wink" to Canada. But it typical Rovian style, you have to accuse your opponents of what you are guilty of yourself.

Don't believe me? Here is the news coverage for those who are mislead by your post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM

Posted at May 17, 2008 3:21 PM in response to Obama Change - Dirty Biz as Usual

The latest media ploy is to give Clinton no coveragewhatsoever, despite that she has the majority of votes

Wow, did you leave for a 3rd world country months ago and just return? It is obvious you have not kept up with the news.

I'll get you up to speed. The reason Hillary is not getting coverage is because she has lost the nomination race, by every concieveable means - pledged delegates, now superdelegates, popular vote totals, states won...

Sorry you have been so out of the loop. I hope you recover and get up to speed soon.

Posted at May 17, 2008 2:58 PM in response to CNN Exploits Ted Kennedy

And another way is to accept people for who they are. You don't have to believe everything they believe. As Americans, what we need to do is not point out beliefs that divide us, but what we have in common.

Posted at May 17, 2008 11:53 AM in response to Obama's Photo-Op with a Cross!!!: Despicable

I absolutely love Neil. His presentation on Stupid Design had me in stiches.

Posted at May 17, 2008 11:48 AM in response to Obama's Photo-Op with a Cross!!!: Despicable

Fred,

I have a great respect for Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Beyond Belief 2006 has great vids.

While I didn't grow up in a particularly religious household, and question now the sense of it, and am not now religious, I still will not disparage those who do. Yes, more blood has been shed over religion that anything else, but that is a fight for the populace at large to tackle (think Dover School Dist. intelligent design case). Our president must represent all of us. I think he shows shining example of that trait.

Obama blends his faith with respect for all. Which is pretty much how most reasonable people live in America. I have great friends who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhists etc. and accept them as they are.

But this is still a predominately Christian nation. Why should Obama not show his faith? It is definitely much more to his advantage to show his faith than not (so many think he is a Muslim or has ties to hamas).

It would be a great shame to loose the opportunity to have such a decent, well rounded, intelligent and ethical president on those grounds.

Posted at May 17, 2008 3:33 AM in response to Obama's Photo-Op with a Cross!!!: Despicable

I am glad you saw fit to respond. This site, which once was a great place to throw civilized ideas back and forth, has become so full of venom that I seem to only post comments that debunk such venom.

From the wording of your post, it seemed not much commentary was necessary, and posting the speech would adequately debunk it for other readers who happened to pass by.

I am glad you have seen fit to peruse what I have posted, which shows you are among those who would much rather have reasoned debate that intolerant discourse.

Posted at May 17, 2008 1:35 AM in response to Obama's Photo-Op with a Cross!!!: Despicable

I just want to list a little more from Obama's speech, since you are so adverse to links:

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. But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. 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.

and this

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. This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Hardly sounds like Hagee. Does it?

Posted at May 17, 2008 1:13 AM in response to Obama's Photo-Op with a Cross!!!: Despicable

If you are not familiar, the shaded part is indeed excerpt from a speech he gave in 2006, which is a custom here at TPM to post excerpts in this way to avoid it being confused with the rest of the comment.

If you would like to debate the merits of his appearing in campaign literature with a cross, I suggest you either read the link to his senate page with the transcript, or see the video of it given before you do, as I have no problem conversing with someone who has informed himself.

I understand your disgust, as I felt the same way with the poorly disguised bookshelf/cross in the Mike Huckabee Christmas TV spot. Such obvious pandering is disgusting.

I do not believe this is the case with Obama. I listed this speech for you, given before his run for the presidency, so you can get a feel for the mindset of this candidate.

You may then disagree with his choice of campaign material if you'd like. If you are indeed determined to repel any voice that speaks common sense and only seek to add flames to those who are already intolerant, then I will cease to comment on your thread and only regret that I had wasted my time.

Posted at May 17, 2008 12:55 AM in response to Obama's Photo-Op with a Cross!!!: Despicable

Liberals speak of tolerance. You post does not. Obama has been a tireless advocate of bringing people together regardless of faith:

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.
Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.
Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.
Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

Posted at May 17, 2008 12:33 AM in response to Obama's Photo-Op with a Cross!!!: Despicable

Great Post Laura,

My hubby, who usually is the music geek in the family, has used youtube greatly to his advantage. Now that he is stuck with a political geek like me, our combined minds have tried to support Obama with this medium that our candidate has also utilized to its fullest.

But of course when things get a little stressed, hubby feels the need create some political silliness, cobbled together from youtube clips, that make me laugh out loud whenever I get too passionate about the day's political occurrences.

Since we are talking about the internet age and how it is changing the political discourse, I thought I would share the silliness with you.
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwHu-LZKhfU

Again, great post! :)

Posted at May 17, 2008 12:06 AM in response to Obama and the Internet May Change American Politics FOREVER.