Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

**Breaking** Obama is a liberal & progressive, DU Shocked!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:00 PM
Original message
**Breaking** Obama is a liberal & progressive, DU Shocked!
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:37 PM by never cry wolf
I am so sick of posters here calling Barack centrist or DLC. He is a freshman senator, currently 98th in senority who has a solid 7 year progressive track record in the Illinois State Senate before he was elected by a landslide in 2004. Dick Durbin has been encouraging Barack to run, the late, GREAT Sen. Paul Simon is who Obama's true mentor, as he has said often. The "Lieberman is my mentor" crap was not his choice, it's a Senate, or at least a Dem policy to assign freshmen senators to veterans to be their mentors, Obama was assigned to Lieberman, not his choice...

I have not agreed with every vote Obama has made but as far as a liberal or progressive candidate that may just have a chance to win, I'll hook onto his wagon any day!

From Progressive Punch: http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&...

He is rated the 8th most Liberal senator, more than Feingold...

From the National Journal he is 18th: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Either way, Barack Obama is rated somewhere in between the 8th and 18th most liberal Dem senator....

The denigration I see here disgusts me... How much experience did Bobby Kennedy have in 1968 and how do you think he would have been as prez? You all know that Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, right? He was also the very first afro-american to hold said post. The President of Harvard Law is THE elite recruite, THE TOP law recruit in the nation, if not the world. Six and probably seven figure slaries had to have been offered from the highest powered firms and corporations in the world... Barack decided to go back to Chicago and try to organize a voter registration drive in Chicago in the projects in 1992... After that he took a job with a nondescript civil rights law firm to help peeps in the hoods.....

You all can tell me he's centrist and/or all hype... I may just ignore what you say and see what happens.... I think he may just be perfect for the times....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DFLer4edu Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. TY
so much disinfo here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark E. Smith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Huh?
So he's a liberal and we're all supposed to get divided and weird about it?

Wow.

Wouldn't you rather go bowling or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. No, there are so many Obama denigratiors here
So many that say he is DLC and centrist and a sell out... I personally believe a good portion of them are trolls trying to dim what may be our brightest star
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark E. Smith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Yeah well
Who really cares what those assholes say, anyway?

Obama is great. So is Hillary. They'd make a hell of a ticket in 2008.

I'm sick of the division in our party. It is high time some people woke up to
who the real enemy is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. I love Obama... but my dream ticket is Gore/Obama
I just can't stand all the Obama detractors... He be good for us, he be good for the USA, he be good for the world.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #23
52. ***
Gore/Obama sounds nice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
141. Just realize
Unless he tones down the religion a lot of us won't vote for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SouthernBelle82 Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
103. So let me get this straight
someone who disagrees with you about Obama and his record means they're a troll? Wow I hope I don't come across and disagree with you (well I am now) and you call me one. And here I thought dissent among the democratic party was a good thing..... I guess you get called a troll even if you have a DNC membership card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #103
143. Apparently
religion shoved down your throat with a different spoon is good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastknowngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Let me start. That's a matter of opinion
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
73. Very fulsome retort.
Or something.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. you are correct, mr wolf
thanks for posting this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. You are quite welcome, ms/mr kitten
There are two surveys that I have found, and in the worst case Obama is more Liberal/Progressive than 29 nSens and in the best 37...

I don't get it....

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. that would be ms
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:21 PM by AtomicKitten
Some folks have already made up their minds about a lot of things and information just gets in the way.

You can only do what you are doing and hope for the best. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm not shocked. You should do a poll to see if most of DU actually
thinks that or not because I doubt that most of DU actually does.

Sometimes a vocal minority can seem like a majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. You are so correct Pirate Smile
and I agree, tis a vocal minority...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. Where did the myth that Obama voted for the Bankruptcy Bill come
from? I used to see that a lot. I'm not sure if that keeps getting thrown out there or if that urban legend has finally gotten beaten down.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Withywindle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. That one drives me NUTS!
Where the hell does it come from? I have no idea. There has to be some web site out there spreading it as fact.

All anybody has to do is go to senate.gov. There is a search engine for any bill, any vote. And there is his big honkin' **NAY** plain as day, right where it's always been. I wish there was a way to make it flashing red neon for the really slow children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionStartsNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. Anyone read his new book yet?
I just bought it at Costco today.

So far I like Obama, partly because of his progressive record but also undeniably partly because of his charisma -- I know I will get flamed by those who think Kerry, Clark, etc. have appeal but the Dems haven't had a candidate who excites people in a long, long time.

I desperately want a candidate I can really care about who I also believe can win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Even lil old repuke ladies in red districts fawn...
I am not in the least saying that the most charismatic candidate deserves to win (good lord, I'd rather have a beer with Barack than shrubby) But as Durbin told Barack, there is a time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
142. I haven't read it yet
But it's on the list to buy next.

I also really like Obama. I do find him really appealing. I've found that a my friends that are centrist also really like him because he does have great charisma.

I think of him as someone that will get you with his personality, even if you don't agree with him 100% on the issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
11. Proud to be your 5th rec!
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. tyvm moc, it may be time
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0610230...

Obama was not clear when he would make the decision, but it is likely that it would come late this year or early next year. Obama is wrestling with whether his time is now or in the future. Many friends, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have counseled him that he should not pass up the opportunity when he enjoys such a high and positive national political profile.

I do trust Durbin....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
12. Re the RFK comparison...
Yes, they were both senators for four years. But the rest of the comparison depends on us equating three and half years as Attorney General in the hottest days of the Cold War and during some of the worst violence against the Civil Rights movement. Three of those years RFK was the president's top advisor on all domestic and international relations. I don't think seven years in the Illinois Senate quite matches up to that level of experience.

That said, it is ludicrous to say Obama is "not qualified" to be president. Compare his experience to Abraham Lincoln's--a railroad lawyer, one term US Representative, and a failed US Senate candidate. A man is more than his resume. I'd vote for Obama if he's nominated and there's several candidates I'd choose him over in the Democratic field. But I think we have several more qualified candidates than him, and I'll wait until they're eliminated before looking at him again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. You may be very correct Bucky
As far as I know RFK had hos AG experience and that's it, did he ever hole elective office? Nothing against Bobby, I was 14 at the time and was crushed, he was gonna win it and lead the US, and the world to a higher plane....

Obama has more experienca than the current idiot in chief... Clinton had alot more... GHWB more... ronnie raygun, i confess i was not real political at the time, what did raygun have, 8 years as guv? jimmie carter is a saint, i don't care what experience he had because it was in the area of politics and media preception... as a leader who did the right thing, carter rocked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #12
38. How many years did Jimmy Carter have as Governor?
As I recall he only served one term and before that he was a state senator. I'd say that's a better comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
16. Thanks for this. I think he is one of those rare people who recognize
their potential contributions, and, even knowing the misery that comes with trying to do the right thing, still want to do the right thing. MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. Of course, Obama is a progressive.
The Progressivepunch list is not very significative by itself, because it compares 1 year of Obama to 4 years of any other senators, but all you have to do is to look at his record.

Of course, just as any other senators, there are votes I would disagree with, but he is not a conservative senator.

That does not mean I feel compelled to endorse him for president. That some of us consider that experience is important (and Bobby Kennedy had experience when he started to run for president) does not mean we denigrate him.

And if somebody disagrees with him on the issues, why should he be blamed? Some people disagree on others for a lot less than their positions on the issues or their experience. We are all allowed to have our opinion on somebody.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Well said.
I'm not a big fan of either Obama or or Hillary not because of what they've said, but because what they haven't said. Neither of them has put forth the kind of clear agenda as people like Al Gore, or had the kind of media presence speaking their minds as Wes Clark. They've been in the background taking the safe path. I am critical because I think they need to get out there. Our advice and issues with them should not be taken as denigration at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. In my political wet dream. Kucinich is prez
Maybe Feingold or Boxer or Howard as veep... OR CONYERS!!!!

Tain't gonna happen tho... I hate the 2 party system and wish we had a parlimentary system where all parties had some say... but we don't..

Working with what we have, and who may realistically be elected... couldn't do much better than Obama, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
122. Why be so glum?
I REALLY back all those people who have been out on the front lines fighting for us, laying down their agendas and taking action. Conyers, Clark, Dean, Boxer etc. These are the people I will be fighting for in the primaries, you can bet. I have no interested in smearing great people like Obama and Hillary, because I'll be fighting for their election in 2008 if the fine people of this party choose them...But I honestly don't see any reason why we can't get at least one of these fighters on the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
20. Well said- recommended!
I know we have a lot of devil's advocates here, myself included, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PEOPLE! This man has more charisma than any candidate we've seen in decades AND he is far more progressive than Clinton(either one). I think Obama/Clark might make a mighty fine ticket! ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Obama Clark woudn't be bad.
Though I would prefer Clark Obama. But Obama's got to get out there and make himself known, like Clark. Charisma is not a real selling point, I want more substance as far as agenda and values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I agree somewhat
But Obama resonates with the average person, whereas Clark comes across as a bit stiff.

Obama has a great vision for this country and he articulates it well. Clark has a great strategy for achieving many of the same goals, but he seems to have difficulty getting through to the average voter. I think that if we put them both together, with Obama out front, it could be a winner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionStartsNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Clark would be excellent in anyone's administration
I'd like to see him as Sec of Defense. He's smart and experienced and seems to have a heart and soul (both lacking in the current admin).

And I know there are some very loyal Clark people here, but I agree with you that he doesn't quite resonate with the public. I'm not sure why, he is handsome and well-spoken, but maybe he is a bit stiff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Actually, I think Clark resonates too
Imagine the combination... Obama's vision and constitutional law background combined with Clark's foriegn policy expertise and military experience....
wow, wow, wow......

Could also have Gore/Obama with Clark as SOS......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lvx35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
126. I see it a little differently.
I had it out with a lot of Kerry people in the last primary (I was for Clark), and their arguments for Kerry were similar, that he was more statesman like, charismatic, classy, and really looked more like a president. (in the eyes of the average voter) But at the same time, the conservatives used that really successfully to paint him as aloof, effeminate and metrosexual, a wealthy limosene liberal out of touch with the people. Then they successfully ran Bush who came across as the type of simple good hearted cowboy you would like to have a beer with.

I like Clark because he's worked hard to get out there, make himself very visible and lay down his thinking on national TV. He is not the most liberal guy in the party, but he knows how to stay his ground on issues, draw lines and defend them. He doesn't seem weak at all, which is what conservative leaning independants respect..As well as myself.

If Obama wants to get the same respect from me, he needs to get out and start really advancing his ideas on TV interviews. I won't support a candidate in the primaries who hid in the background to avoid contraversy while people like Clark and Dean take the hits. That just tells me they'll probably do the same thing when elected president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
144. ....
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PEOPLE!

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
24. I think all the 08 posts right now are divisive bullshit.
Try again after November 7. Shiny object lookey here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. As Barack has said
I am in the Chicago burbs and it seems the Tribune has one or two weekly Obama articles (odd fofr a paper that has not endorsed a dem for prez since like, um, er... nope, never have) Anyway, lotsa nice long complimentary articles and until sunday, all had Barack saying we need to concentrate on Nov. 7th, Even with Timmy he mentioned it Sunday...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #24
49. It's a lot better than those frackin Pelosi/Impeachment threads
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SouthernBelle82 Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #49
105. Well doesn't that have to do
with Nov seventh in a way where as all the "so and so for president!" is about 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
30. I guess some people here have a problem with a guy who
asks us to surrender the separation of church and state to the benefit of his ridiculous political aspirations. I'm one of them.

I can't be led by such a person. Hell no. Never. I'm far better than that. Next please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Where has he EVER said he wanted to surrender church/state?
C'mon now, give me a quote because I can give you 10 where he said how precious it was to preserve the separation beteween church and state....

Facts get in your way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #33
42. You have no idea what you're talking about. None.
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 12:36 AM by BuyingThyme
ALL great American leaders of the last fifty years -- King, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton -- understood that one's deeds, not one's religion, effectively carry one's political message. Obama despises this standard. He is literally emulating Bush in this regard, and makes no bones about it. And he wants me to pander to evangelicals, not through my deeds, but according to their religious insanity. He uses Bush as his standard.

I never, ever want such a person to represent me.

You can have your Obama, but please, please, please keep his nonsense out of my White House. No more of this crap for me. Keep these godawful people to yourself.

At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. YOU have not idea what you are talking about
Have your read the whole speech??? Have you???

The entire speech emphasized the separation of church and state... Are you gonna believe 3 or 4 paras quoted in a paper or read/listen to the entire 20-30 min speech to progressive evangelicals in context?

Too late for me to find it and link it but believe me, Obama is VERY much for separation of church and state... He taught constitutional law at the Univ. of Chic ferchrissakes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #46
54. Now you're just making things up.
Why do people like you do things like this? Can't you just read it?

What the speech calls for is a compromise between "secularists" and evangelicals. Yes, the nutjob refers to true Americans as "secularists," just like Bill O'Reilly.

What you are claiming is precisely contrary to the reality.

Go here and read it:

http://blackvoices.aol.com/black_news/canvas_directory_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. Thanks for the link, you made my point
Some excerpts:

For me, this need was illustrated during my 2004 face for the U.S. Senate. My opponent, Alan Keyes, was well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincolns Second Inaugural Address without reference to the judgments of the Lord, or Kings I Have a Dream speech without reference to all of Gods children. Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of Americas 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 within our borders, whos Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobsons, or Al Sharptons? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, 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 so radical that its doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?

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 Gods 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.

This may be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to Gods edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base ones life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #59
77. Bravo!
:applause:

We should resist being trapped by the "2-second soundbite = truth". Thanks for putting Obama's comments in context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #77
84. Actually, the poster is trying to take the comments out of context.
All you have to do is read the speech. It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #84
93. Speaking of context
He WAS speaking at a religious conference.

Call to Renewal (www.calltorenewal.org ) is a national network of churches, faith-based organizations, and individuals working to overcome poverty in America. Through local and national partnerships with groups from across the theological and political spectrum, we convene the broadest table of Christians focused on anti-poverty efforts. Together we work to influence local and national public policies and priorities, while growing and developing a movement of Christians committed to overcoming poverty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #93
98. Makes no difference to me.
But I think it would do this conversation some good if you were to explain why it makes a difference to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. It makes a difference because that was the subject at hand
If he gave a speech to a group of doctors the subject would have been health care. He's not going to go in front of a religious conference and tell them their view have no place in the Dem party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. Well if he was to tell a bunch of doctors to stop performing abortions,
I would assume that he was speaking out against abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #106
125. Of course he would never say that
He is firmly pro-choice.

Let me ask you, how would you approach the fact and the problem that much of the RW base is evangelical and that the Dems have been painted by rove, robertson, falwell et al as godless. Do you have a plan to bring back the many, many religious citizens to where the party many had traditionally voted?

Screaming and bringing lawsuits when a student group wants to borrow a classroom for an after school religious discussion only reinforces the myths the RW has painted about us. I'd much rather fight for universal health care or a sane foreign policy and with those added votes we could make some progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #125
132. The "religious citizens" seem to be coming back anyways.
It's largely in thanks to Rove, Robertson, Falwell, etc. And it's largely in thanks to good people walking the walk while standing up for the Constitution.

And if you don't want to see screaming and lawsuits, the likes of Obama are certainly not for you, for I and others will expose them for what they are.

And, though Obama doesn't understand it, all good Americans are "secularists." To believe in a secular government is not to reject religion. That, apparently, is a lesson that Obama never learned. And it's that unlearned lesson that Obama now carries for George W. Bush, the father of faith-based American governance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. That is the exact opposite of what Obama said in his speech
you said:

"all good Americans are "secularists." To believe in a secular government is not to reject religion."

That is a main theme of Obama's speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #135
138. Actually he makes it very clear that he believes "secularists" and
"religious" people to be two different groups.

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.


Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country.


To build on these still-tentative partnerships between the religious and secular worlds will take work a lot more work than weve done so far. The tensions and suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed, and each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #84
158. Actually, I did read the speech. You're right, it's that simple.
I don't see your point. I thought Obama's speech was thoughtful and didn't suggest any of the concerns you seem to have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trixie Donating Member (696 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #59
146. To me this is filled with religious crap and pandering to the right
You have even convinced me more that Obama is not on the right track. Let's look here (snip from your post)

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincolns Second Inaugural Address without reference to the judgments of the Lord, or Kings I Have a Dream speech without reference to all of Gods children. Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

He is saying that the religious people hold all the cards and we must pander to them or all is lost. WRONG! He confuses morality with religion. WRONG! He discusses MLK when MLK was never elected and came to the table as a person of the cloth and was not disguised as a politician. Why do religious people feel that most people feel the same way they do? It is crazy! HE should recognize that a lot of people are turned off by his pandering and will not vote for him. If he wants to do progressive work as a clergyman....so be it. Don't expect me or anyone I know to vote him into office.

Is he pro-choice or pro-life? Seems pro-life but you can correct me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #146
159. Your post is grossly misleading.
This is the full-text of the part of the speech you've excerpted:


<snip>

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincolns Second Inaugural Address without reference to the judgments of the Lord, or Kings I Have a Dream speech without reference to all of Gods children. Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting preachy may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy; it will also require changes in hearts and minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we have a problem of morality; theres a hole in that young mans heart a hole that government programs alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws; but I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nations CEOs can bring quicker results than a battalion of lawyers.

I think we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys, and give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished. But my bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young womans sense of self, a young mans sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence all young people for the act of sexual intimacy.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps off rhythm to the gospel choir.

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. 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 the 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 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 Americas renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like my friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality. National denominations have shown themselves as a force on Capitol Hill, on issues such as immigration and the federal budget. And across the country, individual churches like my own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

To build on these still-tentative partnerships between the religious and secular worlds will take work a lot more work than weve done so far. The tensions and suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed, and each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

While Ive already laid out some of the work that progressives need to do on this, I think that the conservative leaders of the Religious Right will need to acknowledge a few things as well.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of Americas 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 within our borders, whos Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobsons, or Al Sharptons? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, 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 so radical that its doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?

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 Gods 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.

This may be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to Gods edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base ones life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes Gods test of devotion.

But its fair to say that if any of us saw a twenty-first century Abraham raising the knife on the roof of his apartment building, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that are possible for all of us to know, be it common laws or basic reason.

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.

This goes for both sides.

Even those who claim the Bibles inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, a sense that some passages the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christs divinity are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

<snip>


The text in bold is what you posted, but you snipped out everything in between without any indication there was text missing. You are therefore implying that the final statement regarding how religious leaders should act in politics is following from the initial paragraphs. Your conclusion that Obama is saying we should "pander" to the religious right is so far wrong, it's truly laughable.

Read the WHOLE excerpt from the beginning paragraph that you chose to the end statement about religious leaders. I'm going to highlight the main tenets of Obama's thesis throughout the text in italics. The whole second half of this part of the speech is illustrating and expanding the statement that "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. " THIS is the wisdom that Obama is saying that religious leaders need not accept in counseling their flocks but must respect if they enter the world of politics and policy making. How, on earth, is this pandering to the religious right?

Did you honestly not follow Obama's argument? I read it as follows:

-there is overlap between the goals of progressives committed to social justice and people of faith who are committed to social justice

-progressives should not pretend that faith plays no role in addressing social justice issues

-in a pluralistic society, separation of church and state is critical

-religious leaders and/or other people of faith who enter the policy-making arena must acknowledge that policies cannot be based on values specific to one religion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SouthernBelle82 Donating Member (879 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #46
108. So why don't you find
other sources that say that? I'm sure he has done plenty of interview's or you can find the speech online.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top