Obama's purpose-driven politics

I predict that Bruce and Johnny/JD will start bashing Obama in:

4......3.....2......1.....proceed with the bashing!!

"...Obama issued a call to progressives to shed bias against religious people..."

From the late 1800s until the 1960s the Populists, Progressives, Liberals (successively) had the Evangelical vote in their pockets. They stupidly drove it away (witness the mindlessly viscious attitudes expressed by some "Liberals" in this blog) into the waiting arms of the Republicans.

Obama is smart enough and decent enough to want to rectify that blunder. I always said he's bright.

I don't mind so much when commenters butcher the language, but I really do think that professional journalists should pay attention to something as simple as the use of apostrophes, for instance. It would be "Obama's" purpose driven politics, of course. The story is about Mr. Obama and not his whole family, right?

Somebody buy Ms. Parsons a copy of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" for Christmas, please. Punctuation is really not that difficult.

I think it's wonderful that another Swamp reporter, in this case Cristi Parsons, has joined the Obama Campaign team. I look forward to more Swamp articles on Obama's going to church, and walking his dog, and how he sat in an airplane, to name just three of the myriad articles on our sainted senator.

John E., shouldn't you be concerned about Obama's visit to a church? Could he be turning into one of the dreaded "theocons?"

I personally feel the heck with the evangelical
vote. To me they are nothing more than another
lobby using votes and money to sway America to their own agenda which I feel is contrary to mainstream ideas.

While I have always disagreed with Sen. Obama's politics, I was mostly impressed with his integrity, demeanor, etc. However, recent events have been eroding that respect.

The whole Rezko thing goes without saying. But he also showed hypocrisy in the runup to the election, campaigning for Cardin (D, white) against Steele (R, black) in MD and for Ford, Jr. (D, black) against Corker (R, white) in TN. In MD, he told voters not to vote along racial lines, but in TN he visited black churches talking about how lonely he is in Washington, urging them to vote Ford in as the first black senator from the South in over 100 years. Is his celebrity status getting to him and leading party to trump principle?

see http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/elections/bal-obama1103,0,2199481.story
and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15582056/

"...Obama issued a call to progressives to shed bias against religious people..."

So Obama wants a progressive to stop trying to make progress.

This is an important distinction: The only progressive bias against the religous is against the religious that want legislation to be based on tenets of their faith or on the "morality" that their faith dictates. There isn't a problem with religious people that recognize that religion is a personal choice, not a universal truth, and not something that can be forced on anyone.

Essentially, there is a progressive bias against religious fundamentalists, which is completely legitimate and a good thing. Fundmentalists should not be making laws based on their faith that everyone else, no matter their faith status, has to abide by. It's un-American.

The "progress" that should be made is to keep faith out of politics completely, and Obama, instead of actually telling the objective truth, is trying to appease the fundamentalists.

Religious faith is irrational but harmless so long as it isn't taken as universal truth and used to base legislation on. Because of this, it has no place in politics, policy making, legislation, or any section of government at all. Obama knows this, but he would rather win than be right, which is decidedly not "progressive."

This reeks of pandering in an effort to garner his share of the fundamentalist base as his Obama '08 campaign has already started.

Looks like the progressive candidate won't be coming from the democratic party in '08.

This could really give the Greens some ammunition against the illusion of progressiveness that is the democratic party.

and juanito, it's obvious you're parroting Jim Wallis, so why don't you just say that the evangelical vote was "hijacked" by the right as opposed to foolishly "given" to it by the left?

I personally feel the heck with the evangelical
vote. To me they are nothing more than another
lobby using votes and money to sway America to their own agenda which I feel is contrary to mainstream ideas.

Posted by: bill r. | Nov 15, 2006 1:28:39 PM

bill r.,

I understand what you're saying. The wall seperating church and state has been taking a beating, and I'm all for keeping the wall.

But the fact is that this once was a solid Democratic block of votes. It's RIDICULOUS that the Democrats can't carry Kansas, for example; that should be a natural! But that's largely due to them not knowing how to connect with rural culture.

There is a small but growing movement in the party to win this block back, or at least split it -- Obama is just the latest to join and he has the star power* to possibly make it work. But that doesn't automatically mean the Democrats are going to start pushing to repeal Roe v Wade or proposing a school prayer ammendment.

* As for Obama's star power, who knows if that can last. As "an observer" points out in his post Barack is not looking as clean as he did a short time ago. There's a money scandal that smells VERY bad, and more than a few dubious endorsements.

"But the fact is that this once was a solid Democratic block of votes. It's RIDICULOUS that the Democrats can't carry Kansas, for example; that should be a natural! But that's largely due to them not knowing how to connect with rural culture."
-juanito

You don't know how to connect with REALITY. Kansas? DEMOCRATIC???

The last time Kansas supported a Democrat in a presidential election was LBJ in 1964, and Kansas has voted Republican in every election except ONE SINCE 1940! All of their congress-people except one are Republican as well. Even their governors over the years have been overwhelmingly Republican.

You are frickin clueless. Kansas is one of the reddest states in the Union, and by and large the religious have voted conservative, not liberal.

Kansas could be called "progressive" relatively, but only in relation to other red states.

You also said that waiting at a bus stop and believing that a bus would come is an act of "faith."

This is completely wrong. A person waiting at a bus stop has the evidence that they are waiting at a bus stop (a known designated spot that buses will stop at) to support the belief that a bus will come, therefore it is the exact OPPOSITE of faith. It would be an act of faith to wait for a bus in the middle of a forest and believe one will come.

Do you understand what "evidence" and "reason" are? Definitely not.

You didn't know what you were talking about then, you don't know what you're talking about now.

Rob Norris,

You forgot to mention that Kansas is also where those nutbags who protest military funerals are from.

Those freaks think W. has god on speedial.

The MountainWest area produces some whacked out religious sects,ie David Koresh etc,and that minister they just busted in Vegas for perfoming underage marriages,and rape,I just can't remember his name.

Robbie,

Thank you once again for arguing my point. Yes Kansas was once a natural for the Populists and Progressives, and of course it SHOULD be today for the party that calls itself "Liberal".

Now if you could only learn to organize your thoughts when you write and figure out what "reason" means, you'd be making some real progress. Keep trying.

And thanks once more for so effectively reinforcing my position.

"But the fact is that this once was a solid Democratic block of votes. It's RIDICULOUS that the Democrats can't carry Kansas, for example; that should be a natural! But that's largely due to them not knowing how to connect with rural culture."
-juanito

Ok. You claim that the democrats should have carried Kansas as a forgone conclusion. Yet, historically speaking, Kansas has been overwhelmingly Republican.

So the Dems should have carried Kansas because...why?

"Yes Kansas was once a natural for the Populists and Progressives, and of course it SHOULD be today for the party that calls itself "Liberal".
-juanito

Oh, because in the 1800s the Populists had the evangelical vote? And after that it was the Progressives and the Liberals?

None of that matters because Kansas has always been Republican, and just because 100 years ago a certain block of the religious voted populist doesn't mean that in today's world the religious vote should be a shoo-in democratic one. Your argument rests on a bedrock of ignorance as to the difference between America in 1800 and America in 2006. Do you not realize how completely different religion is in this country than it was then?

Juanito, as always, the egregious flaws of your logic are breathtakingly idiotic. I've called you out as a troll before, and now more people are starting to echo that call. Finally. Maybe we'll all be rid of your ear-flicking once and for all.

And way to dodge the in your face proof that you are wrong by pretending that what I said actually supported your lame contention that you read somewhere else and decided to post here to antagonize people. You're still exactly wrong about faith too, yet you can't face that fact either. So you're still in the swamp, acting like you know what you're talking about when its clear to all that you don't.

Why don't you just go away since you never have anything original or non-antagonistic to say and your pedantic rants of mis and dis-information are starting to wear thin?

This just in...

Juanito is a troll. Ignore him.