This brings up an interesting issue. i have been watching the campaign thus far, and there is something absent. it could have something to do with the fact that there is not yet a competition between a democrat and a republic, or perhaps its because all candidates, whether its Obama, Clinton or McCain seem to be more or less on the same page, but there is a clear absense of the usual "social issues" being brought up. Did the born again Christians crawl back under the rock they came from? I have yet to hear questioning about the death penalty, abortion and gun control, the bread and butter of the far right (or I should say republicans in general?) So what are we to make of this? Obviously the issue of the war, the economy and competence after Bush's utter incompetence are perhaps so much in the forefront that these issues are not being mentioned, but as a liberal I am curious to know what Obama, Clinton and McCain think about these issues. And I dont mean the typical "im pro choice" or "im pro life", I mean serious questions such as whether either democrat supports federal funding for abortion for the indigent (as just one example) I know that the other issues are important, but if as the pundits say, there is no real distinction between the two leading democratic candidates on the big issues of the day, then maybe they should mention these social policy questions.

Incedibly rich... multifaceted. Thanks, Norm. Had to laugh my ass off. Thanks for being my cable. I refuse to get it, myself.

Oh God, are you serious?

What counts as "seeming to make a political calculation"? Reading into what you want to, apparently.

Here are the facts, sans bullshit. Obama had already "denounced" anti-semitism and Farrakkan, the latter of whom had not made a formal endorsement. Clinton wanted to know why Obama had only "denounced" him rather than "formally rejecting" an endorsement that was not itself ever formal. You do the math. But all of that was clear before the debate ever happened, and it was Clinton who pretty obviously made a "political calculation"--and came off looking like the phony, substance-free, say-what-ever-I-need-to-win-no-gutter- too-filthy-for-me candidate which we have all come to know and love.

Obama sqaushed this from start, everything else was lame semantic games played by Hillary.

Being involved in a community on the level has, its easy to play 6 degrees and link Obama to people who aren't the best people.

If the leader of your church supports someone who is anti-semitic, is anti-semitic, should you remain a member of that church. Is it a fair question? Does it say something about your character if you retain your membership?

As far as I can tell the leader of his church praised Farrakhan for working on black empowerment. Not sure if that is worth the anti-semite label, but maybe it is.

http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm

Obama joined the most progressive black church he could find and has denounced anything that could be considered Anti-semitic.

I don't know that this is much more damning then any other church.

Newsweek found nothing racist or separatist about Obama's church upon investigation, and Obama formally distanced himself from Farrakhan, but the ultimate repudiation of Farrakhan is the senator's very presidential campaign and its welcoming quality to Americans at large, whatever color, whatever religion, whatever class and whatever voting age.

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/663150.html

// Does it say something about your character if you retain your membership? //

It speaks volumes about the character of the poster of this item that he would lend the slightest credence to one of the most absurd and unproductive lines of questioning in the history o f televised presidential debates. Russert was completely grasping at straws, yet 1gm continues to press the smear.

I've lost all respect for this site because of the mindless, irrational Obama-bashing in recent weeks. It shows that 1gm's commitment to reason is paper thin.

I'm unsubscribing from the RSS feed and won't be back.

For shame!

here's a speech in which obama discusses religion and politics. he states among other things that the separation of church and state is for the benefit of both institutions.

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=11869431

now, i have to say, the way this question is framed:

"If the leader of your church supports someone who is anti-semitic, is anti-semitic, should you remain a member of that church. Is it a fair question? Does it say something about your character if you retain your membership?"

is somewhat baffling.

i suppose, since kennedy was catholic, he was guilty by association for all the priests who boink little boys. oh and the crusades. and back alley abortions.

hmm. i re-read that question carefully, and i think the answer to the "is it fair" part, is yes. fair to ask. but unfair to conclude that someone is guilty by association because they share a faith or a church with someone else who may have reprehensible views. i'm an atheist with great faith. sound odd? fine, fine. i do not care what church a president is involved in, i don't care who they sleep with, or who they drink with. i care how they manage the institutions of government, and how they speak, how they represent us in the world and in the world of ideas. my support for obama is made more certain every time i hear his name mocked, his religion questioned in one way or another, or his experience doubted. and the more clinton shrieks, cries, yells and says "shame on you," the more certain i am that she would be a terrible and depressing president. we've had enough of terrible shrieking depressing fearmongering self-important twit-dom. sorry but she seems like a slightly watered down version of icky neocon. obama is a liberal, and i mean that in the best and truest sense of the word. and conservatives are coming over to his side, because they see that he would be good for the country. when, since we're asking questions, is it time to acknowledge that this is a good thing?

sorry if that was rambling a bit. but it's time to get ready and defeat mccain. be glad there's a candidate with real momentum, and a huge groundswell of support from coast to coast.

I'm not implying that Obama is guilty of anything more than bad judgment in staying in a congregation whose leader supports such nonsense.

'I'm not implying that Obama is guilty of anything more than . . . "

sorry, Norm

what you ARE implying is that he is guilty, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da . . .

first off, this 'leader' has retired as pastor of this church.

whether the present church leader(s) carry these values of antisemitism is the real question, as far as Obama's membership is concerned and we don't know that

I agree that it raises some questions but I'm not as quick as you to try to prove what I already believe

and, yes, can we have a little more 'fair and balanced' blogging here please?

this is getting really pretty weird

Newsweek found nothing racist or separatist about Obama's church upon investigation, and Obama formally distanced himself from Farrakhan,

Norm,

If you mean antisemitism by "such nonsense" the facts don't seem to support that.

Should every Catholic be required to leave the church because of their role in the holocaust?

Norm, i understand your clarification, thanks.

hey, i wonder, what's Clinton's religion? i really have no idea. not that it matters much, but does anyone know? what the heck, everyone else is being scrutinized around "faith" in this drama fest. kee-rist, what a joke it all is. religion = bullshit. but if mitt romney (remember that guy) and John McMurderManyPeople were serious candidates, and little evil monkey boy can pass his nucular self of as a christian, what in GOD's green earth is Mrs. Clinton? sopmeone, um, enlighten us, please.

I didn't share Norm's and Dan Savage's interpretation of Obama's answer. I didn't see political calculation in that answer; I saw a bit of amused incredulity at Hillary's lame attempt at a semantic gotcha, which he easily deflected.

I think the question is "Does Obama believe this stuff?"

No, he doesn't. That question goes to Hitchens as well. Like Lincoln and Jefferson, Obama doesn't believe the weird stuff.

I am not religious (somewhat of a church mercenary see below), but alot of folks go to church and synagogue and what have you for community. I've sung and played at churches with pastors that embarrassed me, and I wondered about the members of the congregation. At one church, I was pleasantly surprised that some stalwart members were trying to influence him to come into the 20th century. Before I left town and the gig, there was a woman reading from the pulpit. Shit - by now, that church may even have a female pastor - what could be next?

So I am unworried about Obama's pastor. The only thing i wonder about McCain's change to Baptist is that he was trying to placate Bush/Rove? After all, he went down and spoke at Bob Jones U., did he not? If we ask about Obama's guy, then yes, let's find out about Clinton's pastor, and btw, who the hell is Bush's pastor? He's so "religious" and has so many Christian supporters, I'd think they'd like to know.

hey, i wonder, what's Clinton's religion? i really have no idea.

She a devout Methodist.

Who a person's paster is, except perhaps in blatantly egregious cases, matters less than their judgment, which is demonstrated by their legislative record, public statements and actions.

But hey, when those are pretty impeccable, reach to the guilt by association reasoning that a logic 101 student would get a good laugh at; claim there is no such record, when you didn't bother to check; reject all evidence to the contrary; and avoid mentioning the failures of his competitor.

And shit, when that fails, just make shit up.

People cannot be talked out of opinions and beliefs in which reasons and evidence played no role by means of reason and evidence. It is the same in politics as in religion. It is called "faith."

Barack's judgment is sound. He answered as any politician would though, rather than ridicule the question itself, which is what he should have done. Is the question fair? Any question is fair, many are irrelevant however. This particular question is absurd, because politicians cannot possibly give the same attention to all their supporters as Russert was suggesting Obama should give to Farakhan's. Obama's rejection of specific ideas of Farakhan is enough, and Russert's assertion that Obama must react is nonsense.

I think Hillary is going to become a victim of politics, she is obviously the better person to take the office. She is more experienced, she works hard and gets things done. Russert is just playing the game he usually does, he's just setting the stage, attacking Obama because he's obviously more popular and Tim thinks he has a better chance at getting the nomination.

lukkystarr, how can you say she's the better person to take office when she voted for the invasion of Iraq?

I'm curious why McCain doesn't get asked if he denounces and rejects the KKK who will undoubtedly not vote for a woman or black? I mean, I don't know if they will make a formal announcement, but I have a feeling that the KKK will support McCain in the next election. Why then, does Obama have to even comment on someone announcing that they support him? I'm sure there are plenty of racists and unsavory people voting for McCain for their own retarded reasons, so why is he not having to reject their support?

Just seems weird to me that Obama has to answer about a ridiculously small racist group of people that are voting for him presumably because they support a black president, when other candidates aren't having to fend similarly stupid questions...

Oh come on. Lets clear this up:

It is true that my Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things. ... He does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago and as a consequence he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them. I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is that, recently this is probably, I guess last year. An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to [the] Jewish community and I said so.

Jesus, are we going to start dismissing Darwin's theory of evolution because it led to eugenics and subsequent nazi experimentation?

This is getting rediculous.

Farakahane, high priest of parthenogenesis, and enneadecanumerology too. Iraq is Hitch's twitches' subtext. Semite-neutral is always the best policy. Which is why Rev. Hagee, Hagy, whatever, should scare the sh!t out of you all.

Really.

Well, this won't be a popular comment here, but what the heck? With this appearance, we've discovered that Hitchens is a closet religious fanatic. Why? Because, as he stated flatly, "those who condemn things mightily ... have a secret ... desire for them." I think that comment of Obama's posted by MagElecCo does go a long way to resolving this issue. I'm an Obama supporter, but objectively viewing that part of the debate -- Hillary was right, despite the popular impression and the laughter at Obama's response. He could have chosen to "reject" Farrakhan's support at the outset, but didn't (for whatever reason). Then, when pressed by Hillary, he made a joke of it by suggesting that denouncing anti-Semitism and rejecting Farrakhan's support were the same thing. They aren't. However, when it's all said and done, I think his explanation as posted above is fine and I don't see why he should have to leave his church because of this issue.

On a side note: Christopher Hitchens really needs to get some new material. By now I've heard that "No religion likes the birth-canal" joke so many times, I know it by heart.

I don't see the big deal about receiving someone's endorsement. There are millions of voters and they all support a candidate, that doesn't mean the candidate accepts all their nutty beliefs. Obama never said he agreed with that scrawny tie wearer.

I'm thinking all the religious bigotry will work in the Atheist's favor. Obama actually makes an effort to reference the non-religious. He has been exposed to other religions and cultures, his dad being an Atheist as well. He has repeatedly called upon to respect the Establishment Clause.

JFK had to go through this nonsense when people thought he'd be taking orders from the Pope. He certainly didn't and there is no doubt Obama won't be taking orders from Loony Farakhan.

Christopher Hitchens really needs to get some new material.

He can't remember the new stuff when he is that drunk.

lukkystarr, how can you say she's the better person to take office when she voted for the invasion of Iraq?

Because I don't base my opinion on any single issue. I didn't say that I align completely with Clinton. This kind of remark is exactly what is wrong with Russert's question. Does her vote on Iraq have any bearing on how she will treat the issue now? I don't think so, but that is my opinion. She is smart enough to realize what the American people want, as opposed to Bush & co who believe they know what is good for the country regardless of public sentiment. Bush used 'mandate' too much for me, and although I don't know for sure, I think Hillary will refrain from thinking in such terms a little more than Obama will if elected.

Just seems weird to me that Obama has to answer about a ridiculously small racist group of people that are voting for him presumably because they support a black president, when other candidates aren't having to fend similarly stupid questions...

This is true, because it is a ridiculous line of reasoning that leads to the question in the first place. If it had any merit, candidates would have to address such discussions as a matter of course.

I have made that point before. I am sitting in a Church, heaven forbid, and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright starts one of his anti-semitic rants, I walk out and never return. But not Obama. He stays for the Louis Farrahkan encore.

Now I actually make the charge that Obama came to religion because he wanted a political career. And to have one and be atheist in the US is seldom possible. The last atheist President Thomas Jefferson, the third President.

Interesting data points though.