Then they pray.

Pretty Obama rhetoric, we have learned the hard way, means precious little.  While he's saying one thing at the microphone, he had authorized his campaign to frequently do something diametrically opposed.

Wonder what Richard Dawkins thinks of this.

He was endorsed by NARAL because he promised to give them money.  The state affiliates disavowed the endorsement.

I wonder why faith gatherings weren't held at prior Democratic conventions? Perhaps because politics and religion should remain separate? That's my view.

You're certainly not alone in your views on the separation of church and state. It's particularly noteworthy that Democrats have managed to rigorously preserve that fundamental tenet over the past 25 years since the tyrannical religious right came to full power during Regan's Presidency. So, what has changed?

I would suggest that there will be "faith gatherings" at the upcoming Democratic convention because the theology of the declared nominee's faith is proving to be considerably more controversial than that of any other Democratic nominee.

JFK's catholicism posed some problems for his candidacy, but Obama is looking at a different order of magnitude altogether.

IMO, the faith gatherings of the 2008 Democratic convention are contrived for the cynical, politically-expedient purpose of neutralizing the ongoing, and impending, fall-out over Obama's 20 year association with a church that is widely perceived to be outside the mainstream.

I've thought for a while that the entire Obama campaign was about adopting the Rovian/Bushian playbook in order to win.  But the question is, will we know who we are when we're done? Or will we get lost along the way?

As for anti-choice law prof Doug Kmiec: "Kmiec is pro-life and has come out in support of Obama. "

I wonder what the primary results would have been if people had known he'd be doing this....clearly, he probably expected the results would be bad, or he'd have been doing/saying he'd be doing this.

There is a rumor that Clinton has asked her delegates to endorse him, preventing a roll call at the convention. On the thread of that piece was this. Another Obama creation?

The Rumor is FALSE.

I have just received an e-mail message from Mary Boergers, a former Maryland State Senator and a pledged Clinton delegate. Mary was on the conference call with Hillary Clinton last night, and she has given us permission to publish her message in full:

"I was on that conference call and there was nothing in Hillary's comments to indicate that she was releasing her delegates and urging them to vote for Obama on the first vote in Denver. In fact what Harold Ikes said was that the campaign would like to keep Hillary's delegates together so that she can more effectively fight for issues like universal health care to make sure it is included in the party platform."

One of the super delegates who was in London in fact complained about the strong arm pressure from the Obama campaign to immediately (last Friday before Hillary's speech) switch their vote to Obama.

So to me the strategy is clear. The Obama folks want to try and prevent us from nominating Hillary at the convention and voting for her at the convention. We need to STOP this. Historically losing candidates always have their names put into nomination, give a great speech and then there is a roll call vote. The presumptive nominee gets the majority and then there may be a call to make it unanimous.

We need to make sure that people are aware of this procedure. Once again the Obama people are trying to change the rule of the game, pretending that they were always the rules in order to push Hillary aside. We must keep them from succeeding.

To me this is the most important thing that we can do right now. We need to attack Howard Dean for saying that he hopes there isn't a role call vote at the convention.

This pressure, heavy handed tactics and "shot gun" marriage effort must end. This is the fight that we need to continue!

Mary Boergers, Super Delegate

To repeat Mary's call to action: We need to attack Howard Dean for saying that he hopes there isn't a role call at the convention.

And Yes, this is on topic, because Obama is doing exactly what he has promised he would do - reaching out to the right. And thisis likely to offend a significant number of his supporter's, but they will be wrong to be offended, because they are getting exactly the candidate they voted for. If he is elected, he will "reach out" to the right, and probably will govern in a way that is far to the right of what everybody expects. And the only  reason he won, I sincerely believe, is that the strategy Dean tried out in 2004 has been perfected. People have no clue what they voted for. They simply voted for a personality with no idea of what his platform, beliefs, or strategies would be. They voted for "change" and "unity" and they will get it. Obama will change the Democratic Party into an organization that can unify with the Republican Party. He will "reach across" the lines to embrace those who are anti-choice, intolerant of homosexuality, and anti-government. He will find compromises to ensure that the right wingers who fear Muslim terrorism will be comfortable - even if that means threatening to start a war with Iran or keeping troops in Iraq. He will embrace those with different religions - even if those religions demand that the lines of separation between church and state be blurred. It will be "change".

TalkLeft:  Voters read that correctly; it worked
by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008
in its context -- that once it was clear that McCain was to be the GOP nominee, the Dems would need a nominee to match his strength, his experience. [snip] She can win it.  Obama cannot. Btw, he might have been the pick against the Reverend or the Mormon, because of Obama's religiosity . . . although, polls showed last week that she draws far more churchgoing voters. So maybe even that would not have helped us with him as the Dem nominee.

DailyKos: I hope I don't have to vote (0+ / 0-)
for Obama, but because of his religiosity.  Not his race.  [snip]]

"Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon
by Cream City on Mon Dec 17, 2007
 

Local blog: posted by Cream City on 10/23/2007
Hillary hasn't come here hardly at all, compared to Obama. If and when she does (as Wisconsin with its late primary will not see as many candidates), watch out. . . .  Obama's religiosity makes a lot of Wisconsinites quite uncomfortable.

The more people on his side, the better chance Obama has to be elected. It's that simple. You don't have to agree with absolutely everything that they believe in, but if you can find some common ground, at least you might be able to get something you agree on done, and work on the disagreements later.

As an effort to step away from the cynicism, he said that this was one of many meetings that he'd be having with people of faith. He didn't say that he'd be meeting with these exact same people. Also, no one knows for sure exactly when on during that meeting except those that attended. For all I know, it could've been another "Religious Forum" that was on TV with an added segment of group prayer.

Besides, when he has to fight against being a Muslim or a racist radical Christian, he'd probably want some religious leaders convincing his followers that he's neither (please note that I am neither approving nor denying either of these preceptions, thank you). Of course this country was founded on separation between church and state, but when you've got people voting against you because they think you're a Muslim, a radical Christian, or even, heaven forbid, the anti-Christ himself, you have to address it somehow. To be Obama and simply ignore religion all together would be the absolute dumbest of mistakes.

Now Obama does the same thing and he's a genius and a unifier?

Please.

yeah, our "dear leader" hisself, gb. striving mightily to blur the line between gov't and religion! in business since 2000!

hope and change alright. what was it the man said?

If you have read about Hillary, she states she got her interest in social issues from her religion.  
Obama is not going after the religious right, he is going after the religious folks who really have liberal beliefs but have been alienated by the democratic party. (and maybe some of its supporters from the posts here).  

Another thing to go beyond even pandering to bringing them into his administration.

And the thing is, it is still hard to tell what he really has in mind, but these new initiatives, taken only after Hillary dropped out, tell us we really don't know what he plans to do and that he has no problem just doing whatever he damn well pleases without regard to Democratic values.

Couple quick points on this:

1.  Gay rights.  Obama is I believe the only major presidential candidate to repeatedly and vocally press for the repeal of DOMA, as recently as this week.  (I think Kucinich is the only other one this cycle to do that, but he wasn't exactly viable).  Obama has also repeatedly, from the pulpit in black churches, talked about the homophobia in the black community and the need to respect and promote equality for "our gay brothers and sisters."

1.  Choice.  The guy has had a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, or very close to it, for over ten years running and long before he was famous or had his money machine.  (On the present votes in Illinois, I don't see how one can in good faith ignore that the then-director of the state Planned Parenthood is on record as saying that they asked Obama and a few other safe liberals to vote present as part of PP's strategy to provide cover for other senators who were vulnerable -- which wouldn't work if the vulnerables were the only ones to vote present.  I understand NOW disagreed with that strategy, but Obama couldn't simultaneously adhere to both groups' requests.  He went with PP's request and I don't see how you can hold that against him on choice).  But Obama clearly is going to try to make common cause with pro-lifers on reducing unwanted pregnancies (which, by the way, is what Doug Kmiec is saying about his reason for backing Obama, even though he understands that Obama is solidly pro-choice).  Nothing radical or suspect about that; Bill Clinton practically invented that approach -- make abortions "safe, legal and rare."

3.  As Bill Clinton and Kerry showed in opposite ways, democratic presidential candidates apparently need to be able to talk the language of faith to win.  I don't get it, but I accept that as political reality.  Religious folks have been saying Obama has shown an ability to talk the language of faith pretty good for a liberal democrat, so he should use it as best he can, again just like Bill Clinton did.

4.  The muslim/Wright stuff.  These two issues -- one of which is a disgusting smear and the other of which is a legitimate problem -- are another reason for Obama to talk faith if he can do so credibly.  In this context, it's part of his political defense as much as offense.  If he can talk about his christianity in a way that is natural and not forced (and it looks like he can), then he's got to do it in part as an effort to counter the damage done by Wright and the muslim smear -- i.e., so certain folks can try to relate to him on some level despite the fact that they obviously don't relate on other levels.

5.  "The Most Liberal Senator."  There's a reason the repubs are attacking Obama as "the most liberal member of the senate."  That National Journal number is obviously suspect for a number of reasons -- Obama's not more liberal than Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold, and frankly you can't be as liberal as they are and be a viable presidential candidate -- but as Baal noted up-thread, Obama and Clinton are the two most liberal viable candidates to have run in a generation.  Of all our great candidates this year, Obama and Clinton are probably the only two who could talk about faith a lot and not concern me about where it "might lead" (and Kucinich, of course).  

BO's pandering to these people makes me ill.  

But is it pandering or is it real?  Just as with TUCC, Wright, Pfleger and Meeks I still do not know...