onegoodmove

Meh...not buying it. I don't even think the subtext of Obama's comments regarding Wright read anything like this.

It works on a very generalized level...but in that case it should have perhaps been a "typical American voter" or even a "devout Obama supporter" instead of Barack Obama himself.

very generalized level...but in that case it should have perhaps been a "typical American voter" or even a "devout Obama supporter" instead of Barack Obama himself.

It applies to Barack and all the other politicians who pander to religion. Do you hear Barack telling the voters that he doesn't believe in a fiery hell. No, why because he is intentionally leaving a false impression in hopes of appealing to the entire religious community and not offending the fundamentalists. Like all those that pander he wants it both ways. I'm sorry I'm not buying it and neither should you.

I knew it. Barack being a Xtian pisses you off so much. Get over it.

I knew it.

It's hardly a secret, but you should be accurate about what pisses me off. It's not so much that he is a Christian but that he panders.

Is it just me or are all of the posts, anti Obama? Ok Ok we get it you don't like the guy. Thats fine, but you have to admit the weakest way to make a point is in the negative. (Obama sucks, so... Hillary rules?)

Wait, does Senator Clinton not believe the same thing?

I think that he hopes to enjoy the "religious legitimacy" that comes with being a church member. I'll go that far. But I don't think ordinary people who attend religious services necessarily believe in the literal truth of their tradition. In fact, they may not even think about it at all or believe it really matters. For many, it's mostly about forging and preserving strong community bonds. It's more social than intellectual.

Of course, this can be maddening to those who place a high value on intellectual honesty. But even being such a person myself, if I had to choose between intellectual honesty and a strong community, I'd find it a very hard choice to make, because I place a high value on both. And in a strong community, you just can't expect everybody to be like you. Instead, you have to be willing to meet them where they are, appreciate and encourage their strengths, and respect their differences.

If Obama's affiliation with his church is for these kinds of social reasons, it can't automatically be labeled "pandering."

Wait, does Senator Clinton not believe the same thing?

It's not as much the belief as the pandering that I find offensive. She is certainly open to the same criticism but to a lesser degree.

Anti Obama does not translate to enthusiastic support for Clinton, she is better on the issues that matter to me. This is a hold your nose election, as I've said before living in Utah I'll be voting for Ralph Nader. I'll support the Democratic candidate on this blog, but it will be more a focus on how much worse McCain is rather than I find the Democrats satisfactory. Both the Democrats suck. He sucks more than she does.

By contrast to Obama, what McCain does with respect to religion IS, indisputably, pandering. There's no explanation for it, considering he went from calling Falwell & his ilk "agents of intolerance" and losing his bid for the nomination to actively seeking their support in an effort to gaining it.

'scuse...no OTHER explanation for it.

The pandering is not in question - but I cannot see how HRC is at all better on that point. I think she comes off far worse...her facade is more slick and calculated. Many call that "seasoning"...which I guess is true, considering the way you need to act in the American media frenzy.

Have a look at this input from Lessig, which I really found to highlight one or two very central issues that puts Obama firmly ahead in my book - even if he IS a product of the political circus of shallowness.

Link

Love the cartoon. Though, I found the Bill Moyers piece on the Reverend controversy more valid in it's message, this one is pretty apt as well. Earlier in the week I was chatting with two rabid Hillary supporters who are both "Spiritual but not religious with a tendency to lean Christian" and they mentioned how wrong the words of Wright were and my main reply was that he's a preacher, he's used to having the freedom to say stupid sh!t and not get called on it, the only difference now is that he's black and the majority of America still fears "angry black men" out of guilt, ignorance and media stereotypes.

Let's take a look at Hillary's church going history that she so often likes to mention these days and dredge up all the stupid rantings of her preachers (and herself). http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/ http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/03/27/clintons-church-skeltons/

I agree with Norm that both Dem candidates are crap this year, but if we're going to judge them on the remarks of their "spiritual advisers" it's pretty ridiculous to even bother having a discussion. I actually do feel bad for Obama that this has become such an issue for his campaign. As much as his pandering is a sad reflection of the state of our nation, it is not only him who is guilty of it, and sadly it is a required litmus test these days in America to be president.

And people made fun of Kucinich for seeing UFOs...

McCain certainly panders but in a slightly different way. He doesn't talk much about his personal faith, rather he makes a big deal out of his opposition to abortion as if that says it all, and relates his little anecdote about being a prisoner of war and the guard scratching a cross in the dirt. Neither Hillary nor McCain make it so personal. Barack's close personal relationship with Jeremiah Wright, at least he portrayed it as a close relationship early on, the pandering, and then further pandering I could no more disown my Pastor, not his beliefs mind you but his Pastor., than my Grandma. Neither Hillary or McCain have pandered in that way and I think that's why the press doesn't focus on their religion like it does on Barack. I don't believe I've heard either regularly quoting Bible verses like Barack has. He's the one that criticized Democrats for not talking about faith enough and then raised it to a level beyond the typical politician, particularly a Democrat. As the dear Reverend would say the chickens have come home to roost. I don't think his treatment has been fair, but I do think he brought it on himself.

Fucking yawn.

Tom Tomorrow and David Rees are the cartoonists of the year every year.

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war73.html

Mr. Fish http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000843 http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002742

Is bitter in a much less funny way.

And Norm, when are you going to get over this lame Reverend wright crap.

All signs point to Clinton being more religious then Obama.

Every person I see interviewed about her past mentions how much she loves the lord. http://www.alternet.org/rights/49251/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives/ http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200710/POL20071005a.html

Obama talks about religion because, he has been suspected of being an atheist, a Moslem, and because he is motivating a black base that wants to here some mention of the lord.

In stead of allowing religion to alter his political beliefs he instead throws religion in the face of conservative supporters that would discriminate Homosexuals.

What part of this debacle do you take such joy in?

All the other candidates have relationships with people that have said and done terrible things.

What makes this anything other then substance free character assassination?

Half the criticism he gets from fellow democrats is that he did not denounce him soon enough and the other half that he is a hypocrite for denouncing him at all.

Clinton and McCain do it too Indeed they do and your point?

Let's make sure we really understand what we're talking about here. It seems to me we may not be on the same page.

First, a little etymology.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Pander \Pan"der\, n. [From Pandarus, a leader in the Trojan army, who is represented by Chaucer and Shakespeare as having procured for Troilus the possession of Cressida.]

1. A male bawd; a pimp; a procurer.

   Thou art the pander to her dishonor. --Shak.

2. Hence, one who ministers to the evil designs and passions of another.

   Those wicked panders to avarice and ambition. --Burke.

Pander \Pan"der\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Pandered; p. pr. & vb. n. Pandering.] To play the pander for.

Pander \Pan"der\, v. i. To act the part of a pander.

Now for contemporary usage.

At askoxford.com, the definition is this:

• verb (pander to) gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire or habit).

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but the careless use of words leads to many misunderstandings, and "pander" is a loaded word that is commonly thrown around in the political arena like so much mud.

For clarity: If you are not indulging or gratifying an immoral or distasteful desire or habit, or ministering to the evil designs and passions of another, it's not pandering.

McCain has clearly pandered, by indulging the likes of Hagee.

I don't know about Clinton.

To my knowledge, Obama has NOT used his church affiliation in an immoral or distasteful way, but rather to invoke a sense of responsibility towards the poor & disenfranchised.

You can argue that indulging ANY religious faction is distasteful in itself, in which case reference my earlier post on community strength vs. intellectual honesty.

Refusal to accept religion as valid on any terms amounts to another form of disenfranchisement. You can tell people bluntly, "You shouldn't believe that crap," but you won't get anywhere that way. Many people have no real problem with, and indeed draw great value from, myth and symbolism. It is their means of tapping into something deeper than the stories themselves. If you can't meet and communicate with people where they are, what qualifies you to lead them?

I don't see how his argument on Wright vs. Grandma qualifies as pandering. To me, he was making a superbly weighted intellectual comment on the role of race, religion, and how freedom of speech among those close to him should not be his personal responsibility. If you see his mentioning of Grandma as pandering in itself, then you didn't listen to the actual message.

Maybe Americans should get it over with and swap Kevin Bacon for Rev. Wright...that way the six degrees would bring down the number of valid presidential candidates by millions, I am sure.

As a pure peice of argumentative defense, Obama's initial reaction to the Wright predicament was flawless and sufficient. Just not in America. That's not his fault.

Clinton and McCain do it too Indeed they do and your point?

My point is that if all three candidates are likely guilty of some of the same activity and whom is the worst is debatable(Mcain actually wins), there is no reason that the press and this blog should spend 90% of their time on this topic criticizing 1 of 3.

Funny that your link to the red Herring article is followed by an effective rebuke of the example.

...is not a good example of the tu quoque fallacy because he is speaking directly to the issue by first pointing out the petitio principii problem with the question that was posed to him.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

McCain has relationships with much worse people that will make some really nasty demands on his administrations.

Clinton has perhaps mentioned her religion less often but in examples listed above show willing to cave to religious demands.

So what is the argument for Obamas religion problem being worse?

Does anyone actually believe that his relationship with Wright real effect on policy?

What is he going to do, shut down that much needed AIDS creation program americans love so much?

To this cartoon directly, I think it does a good job of essentially saying that religious people believe silly things and that is what Obama is being forced to back away from.(I don't find this Cartoon offensive only the unending coverage of this crap everywhere I look)

All well in good in humor, but in a genuine discussion of issues, wright did say some offensive things.

His assertions that Black kids learn differently and are inherently different people then white Europeans is largely hogwash.

There certainly are cultural differences, but Blacks have no genetic predisposition to being right brained. Wrights comments are more black separatist then black liberation.

Does anyone believe that Obama shares these beliefs? Not really. He is half white and was raised by a white family. Is it possible this Reverend tempered his language while preaching before a crowd of progressive mixed race parishioners? Very Much so. And then said everything on his mind when it was time to retire? makes sense, evidence supports it.

So why does this story have political legs? Why do Christians care?

Because it feeds fear of..

Blacks

Atheists

Liberals

If it bleeds, it leads..

I just recently decided I prefer Obama to Clinton because he's called the summer gas tax holiday for the bullshit it is.

And I still think this is funny.

Yes, it's funny. However, the guy's name is Barack Hussein Obama. A certain percentage of the population believe he's Muslim (in spite of the Rev. Wright nonsense, which, at the very least, should have cleared up that misconception). So is it really so hard to understand that, in addition to whatever other reasons he may have for invoking his faith, he may seek to reinforce for people that he's a Christian, rather than the terrorist that some would like to make him out to be?

Norm, Your obsessive dislike of Obama is a total mystery to me. As far as I can remember, Obama has never used religion as a wedge issue. You are disappointed because he hasn't gone out of his way to not "offend the fundamentalists". What do you want him to say? You recently posted an article from a Democrat who called himself a "Realistocrat" - do you really think that a candidate who deliberately alienates religious people has a realistic chance of being elected? Obama has gone as far as one can realistically go, or should realistically be expected to go:

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.”

Furthermore, Obama:

Voted against banning partial birth abortion.

As president, Obama would:

(a) Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research, (b) Support Medical Advancement and Innovation (c) Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research, (d) Ensure Ethical Standards

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.

The list goes on.

Sometimes it seems that you hate candidates who have the political qualities to both win elections and govern effectively. You post Charles Lemos' rants that, as far as I can tell, boil down to a complaint that Obama is too "charismatic". How awful! Why can't we have dull, uninspiring candidates like John Kerry and Michael Dukakis or who'll run a gutless, calculating campaign like Gore.

You're a fundamentalist atheist. You're declaration of non belief in a god is as arrogant as those who declare there is one. I bet you cringe everytime Barack uses religious language. Who cares? Get over it. Barack is the best chance we have of showing rest of America what secular parenting (his mom was an atheist) can produce. There's no doubt the man's brilliant and he has gone on record to say he owes the best of who he is to his atheist mom.

You know, the tripe Norm puts up with here is astonishing. Norm doesn't hate Obama; he simply prefers Clinton. The Moyers piece two posts ago wasn't posted by an Obama-basher, but rather by someone who, I think, feels that this is a non-issue that shouldn't affect the campaign.

And about the cartoon in this post: I don't see what others, including Norm, seem to. It just looks to me like it's bashing religion by pointing out that all preachers spout nonsense, and it is therefore meaningless to call them on it. That's what they do. The only reason Obama is pictured is because he happens to be featured in recent preacher news stories. If something like this had happened to Clinton, I'm sure she would be the one pictured, saying the exact same thing, and I'm sure Norm would have posted it.

i really really would like to thank Norm for the countless hours of fun that onegoodmove has provided us with since Obama and Clinton supporters have started their mud-pie fight. And please, don't forget to save some for Grandpa Simpson in round two!

Here are Bill Moyers quite appropriate comments on Wright and double standards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47MsW9WIFR8

Both Obama and Clinton pander to a fringe group by being wishy-washy on the myth of vaccination "causing" autism.

Hmm, that's funny, last night I was getting ready to post an aside about how much I appreciate that this site attracts such a wide variety of articulate people with coherent views, and really very few trolls.

Then jpaul comes along and, with a narrow-mindedness that is all too typical, sees disagreement and completely misses its purpose and value. Not that we don't hurl the occasional insult, but by and large I see well-considered views posted here even when I don't fully agree with them.

It's called "a rigorous, substantive debate", jpaul. The right wing tends to be pretty poor both at engaging in this and distinguishing it from petty bickering for two reasons:

(a) because it binds itself to inflexible dogmas with little grounding in such pesky, nuanced phenomena like "reality", and

(b) because by default it views new and alternative ideas that don't come from its established "leaders" as insubordination, and categorically rejects them without review.

So it has little choice but to build an empire in the fetid marshes of the lowest common denominator and slow down social progress by forcing the entire nation to contend with regressive, puerile tactics. I'm not surprised that you would enjoy a good mudfight, jpaul - it's your bread & butter. But I'm also not surprised that you can't see how meaningful debate strengthens and advances the common good.

Your sideline antics serve to remind us what we're up against. Thanks for being a uniter.

It's called "a rigorous, substantive debate", jpaul.

So we are having a "rigorous, substantive debate" about whether or not the Rev Wright controversy is "a rigorous, substantive debate."

You just blew my mind...

enjoy the comments! ...though I would like to add to one of the comments concerning a narrow definition of pandering.

Pandering means more than just catering to immoral, evil, or base desires (historically sexual).

It has other meanings today, e.g. like indulging or catering to desires and weaknesses (whatever they are) merely to exploit and allow others to take advantage of those weaknesses or basic desires (i.e, our primal/ lowest common denominators as humans.)

In today's usage, synonyms are 'to please', 'to satisfy', 'to gratify', 'play up to'
'to fawn on' 'to gratify,' 'to humor', 'to put into a good mood' 'to ply'

lurgid,

"To play up to", "to fawn on", even "to humor"...I can go along with those as synonyms. But if you expand the definition of "pander" to include pleasing, satisfying, gratifying, putting into a good mood, and plying, you completely remove all inherent semblance of a negative connotation from the word.

Yet it clearly has a negative connotation in today's usage.

Therefore, hogwash.