Obama's timing sucks for the moment. Nobody knows if he can hit somebody, and, post- the last five years, that matters. (That's one of the things that I worry/wonder about with HRC.) Maybe it won't in '08.

This may be a completely unfair reaction, because I'm not coming up with specific cites, but my sense of what 'triangulation' means is a tendency to call other Democrats dirty hippies -- that Obama on religion, for example, says things like: "Surely, intolerance from the religious is wrong, and just as surely, intolerance from the secularists who object to a public recognition that this is truly a God-fearing country is wrong. I think we can strike out a middle path."

It's a rhetorical complaint, that he's too quick to go for the Sister Soljah moment, rather than a substantive one. But if it's valid, it's an important complaint.

Nice post. I wonder if part of the knee-jerk reaction results from considering Lieberman's history as someone who seems to have started out genuinely trying to be bipartisan-in-a-good-way but seems now to value being known as bipartisan more than what actually passes into law. Not a *rational* reaction, mind, but Lieberman's history is pretty strange, from VP nominee to primary loser to leaving the party.

Looks like someone's got a mancrush.

yeah, as LB in 2 says, I'm pretty sure Duncan Black is on about the statements about religious tolerance. Obama did come a lot too close to accepting the right-wing narrative that all liberals are a) atheists, and b) intolerant.

which just makes me reflect on how much I hate these irrational, pathetic, despicable bible-beaters. for their broad-brush smears.

Lieberman went wrong because he's a wimp, and easily buttered up. I think these are more personal failing than idealogical ones.

Obama can actually be pretty tough. Personally, I find myself kind of receptive to his "civic virtues" routine.

Just to keep this grounded in reality, does anyone have quotes from Obama on religion?

I'm not coming up with any memory of Obama doing that sort of thing outside the religious context, in which case I suppose the secularists can suck it up and take it for another campaign. But if he triangulates like that in other contexts, it's a problem.

LB, were you thinking of something like this?

"One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me?" he tells me. "And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me. It's all just exactly what I would expect."

This is what I think of as triangulation. (In other Congresses, what goes on in the legislative process may have been relevant, but the last few have been so weird and contentless that I'm afraid to draw many conclusions from them.). And as carefully as he chooses his words, people get the message.

9 was me.

Saying "people who are intolerant of religion are wrong" is not the same as saying "liberals are intolerant of religion." The former doesn't even imply the latter where the speaker is avowedly religious himself.

I mean avowedly liberal.

7--
"Just to keep this grounded in reality"

you face a choice, ogged: are you a blogger, or not?

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

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. So 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.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html

Also from the speech slolrnr linked:

Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation -- context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God.' I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs -- targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers -- that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

Yeah, I've seen those; would anyone describe that as "triangulation?"

I've testified about this before, but my moment of "Atriosification" came when I watched Durban, Obama, and Jan Schakowsky during a rally to oppose the Social Security push in the spring of '05. That was a time to stand up and say no, and if what Obama was doing that day wasn't triangulating, then I don't know what the word means.

I'm a bit nauseated by the overpowering attraction he generates; like all experienced, well-informed and battle-scarred people I'm wary and more than a bit contemptuous of fence-sitters and people who want to be saved from politics. I'm probably jaundiced and too suspicious of the shallowness, as it seems to me, of his appeal to many people.

My parents' generation of politically active liberals loved Stevenson and often despised Kennedy, at least before his election. They had good reason to, but Kennedy could win. If not exactly embraced, he had at least to be accepted, and I'll be willing to do that.

Anybody who tries to build bridges with the religious must be cast of of the democartic party. Cast out, I say!

Yeah, I think 2 catches it.

Also, re. the post itself, "they don't want to go back," who? The lefty blogs? Eh, who cares? The party? This matters, but I don't see evidence of that, actually.

Here's a link to a pissed-off Talk Left post quoting the objectionable speech:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

His 'best' seems unfair -- there are Democrats out there talking about their religion all the freaking time. And his 'worst' seems to overemphasize what is a very, very, small group. And this is in a speech where he earlier said he couldn't dismiss Alan Keyes as a nut because he's religious -- that speaking in terms of religion should guarantee you a respectful hearing.

He wasn't torturing puppies, but I wasn't happy with the speech.

Is there anything to object to in 14, aside from the term "Judeo-Christian" (which probably deserves the rejoinder, "ever met one of these Judeo-Christians?")?

Are any of you actually invested in electing an atheist?

18: Man, I love it when you play the wingnut nitwit.

Seriously, the speech linked here offends people?

Yes, I would describe it as triangulation of the worst kind, when he constructs a strawman Democratic position -- or just re-uses John Gibson's -- and points out how he's tolerant, not like those other Democrats.

In reality, every Democrat in the Senate voted for the resolution in support of the Pledge of Allegiance. I've never heard a Democrat take to the floor to denounce AA for brainwashing people for Jesus. But 'everybody knows' that the ACLU hates religion and Obama is using these tropes to remind you that he doesn't. Conciliatory, it ain't.

You know what part bugs me? This part:

It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God.' I didn't.

"I didn't." Thank you, Mr. Data Point.

he had at least to be accepted, and I'll be willing to do that

Can we expect Obama to start the Vietnam War?

I've never heard a Democrat take to the floor to denounce AA for brainwashing people for Jesus

Speed the day. This should be Nancy Pelosi's first speech of the New Year. Maybe we can get a denunciation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving too.

I see it as pulling up the ladder behind him. He's saying "Democrats don't talk about religion, but I do" when he could just as easily be saying "Democrats talk about religion, just like me."

21 -- are any atheists even running?

Look, as a citizen I don't care what he says about religion; I expect no major changes on religious policy or rhetoric from a Democratic White House that would be worse than those coming from a Republican White House. This in itself wouldn't make me not vote for him. But I don't like it.

I may be unusually militant about separation of church and state questions. Obama can talk like this if he's willing to vote like, I dunno, the ACLU.

See what AWB wrote a few months ago about the background of that mega-church phrase he used in the keynote, "Awesome God." The good news and the bad news is that we now have a candidate with a religious dog whistle.

Oh, wait, you weren't kidding? I'm terribly sorry.

Baa, the offensive bit is the implicit claim that tolerating the openly religious is new or different for Democrats. Our last two Presidents were born-again Christians; the three front-runners for the 2008 election are all publicly devout. Most Democrats, like most Americans, are Christians. Devout African American voters vote Democratic as a block.

Try this as an analogy (I'm sorry, Ogged): "I take the middle ground on sex education: I think Republicans are mistaken when they advocate abstinence-only education, and Democrats are mistaken when they advocate required orgies. I think teachers should simply provide information on birth control and on teenagers' developing sexuality on an academic level." Even if I agree with the guy on a policy level, as a Democrat, I'm going to be annoyed with how he characterizes me.

I'm not sure to what extent Obama actually does this, but that's the complaint, not that he builds bridges with the religious.

A conciliatory tone costs you very little, especially if it's addressed towards Republican/conservative/religious voters, as opposed to powerful politicians. If it's effective, great. Beating up on your own side is a bit different....Obama does have a tendency to set up liberal strawmen that I don't like. There was one New Yorker article in particular I remember reading that pissed the crap out of me, where he explained that the Democrats should stay quiet on detainee issues because Americans love their country and don't want to be told it's the root of all evil in the world. Right, like those are the two options. As if you can't use American's positive image of their country to argue against these policies.

On the other hand, liberal blogs are not fair to him. He is far above average for a Senator. There's this persistent myth that he voted for the bankruptcy bill that is flatly false, but just comes up again and again. And he gets crap for invoking religion in his speeches when his language is: (1) apparently quite sincere; (2) completely inclusive; (3) contains no insult to liberals or atheists; (4) damn good rhetoric--downright moving at times.

Is there anything to object to in 14, aside from the term "Judeo-Christian"

Well, historically it's kind of bollocks to suggest that the morality behind the Constitution or Declaration is Judeo-Christian. It's small-r republican, skeptical, heavily influenced by classical thought.

29, exactly. The religious rhetoric is just going to be there, and I'm not convinced we're any worse off for it. The complaint seems to be that he's throwing other liberals under the bus on religion. But I don't see it. He may be setting up a straw man, but the closer is "we can do better," not "I'm different." I see that as meaningful.

Writing under his own name, Sausagely has said that Obama is thought to be moderate but actually is pretty liberal, whereas Hillary is thought to be liberal but is actually quite aggressively centrist. So Obama would still be the anti-Hillary (in addition to being Saddam Hussein,, Osama bin Laden, and the anti-Christ).

From an electoral point of view, Obama's ability to appeal to traditionally non-Democratic groups is a big plus. Same as Clinton's. I have very mixed feelings about Clinton, but would support him again faute de mieux. (The American people are not much like me.) But I would be unsurprised to see Obama triangulate against me once elected.

I think that the reptile-brain reluctance to elect a female or a black President has to be taken very seriously. I would not be at all happy with a losing campaign whose great accomplishment was to show that a black man or a woman can be nominated by a major party to be its Presidential candidate.

Obama was giving a speech to a religious group, and 1) what he said is just a very good "I hear you" and 2) he's not obviously wrong: have people forgotten Howard Dean's unbelievably clumsy attempt to seem religious, when it was clear that he disdained it? And given that some of the most prominent liberal blogs (drum, yglesias, atrios) are pretty explicitly anti-religion, it's hardly a stretch to say that "some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant...."

It's bollocks to suggest there aren't religious overtones in those documents, seems to me.

4 cuts to the core of this whole discussion.

(I wasn't saying that he never insults liberal or atheists when talking about religion, only that I've seen people get angry even about speeches that don't, about going to megachurches at all, etc.)

It's bollocks to suggest there aren't religious overtones in those documents, seems to me.

I didn't say that. I said it's bollocks to call it "Judeo-Christian."

Can we expect Obama to start the Vietnam War?

A joke version of a hard question. Recklessness, conservatism were the reason my elders disliked him. But I believe Jamie Galbraith's argument that JFK had decided to get out. Article of faith, I suppose.

I think there's still a pretty big rhetorical disconnect between the Democratic party and Democratic activists communities. The activist communities spend a lot of time monitoring and obsessing over the big, soul-of-a-nation types of battles: torture, war, due process and so on. The party -- including Obama -- is still deeply uncomfortable with those battles and with the very idea of being partisan.

This may enable pragmatic, productive and helpful compromises on legislation, but it also enables a poisonous illusion among Democratic politicians that they can just steer clear of the big, contentious issues. Yet the story of the last several years of American politics is that the Dems have succeeded to precisely the degree in which voters (and activists like the Kossacks) have demanded they take a stand on the big, contentious issues. The activists may be exasperating, or may sound boring because they're hammering at the same persistent problems over and over... but they've also often been right.

In view of all that, Obama's talk about being "ambitious enough" sounds a little hollow when he hasn't (that I know of) staked out a position on torture, one of the most urgent issues facing his country today.

have people forgotten Howard Dean's unbelievably clumsy attempt to seem religious, when it was clear that he disdained it?

See, Ogged, this is an asshole thing to say about Dean. Dean's been a churchgoer his whole life. What, you're the Christian police and get to say that mainline Protestant denominations don't count? Saying that someone who goes to church 'disdains religion' is nonsense, and it's nonsense that feeds into a pernicious myth about how Democrats are going to ban the Bible.

If you want to complain about Dean's political skills, go ahead. Looking into his soul in a manner that doesn't comport with his actual life is exactly the sort of bullshit that I'm griping about.

Shit, gotta go swim, but I'm in agreement with Katherine's 34 (pending a look-see at the NYer article).

32: I missed that one. Is the dogwhistle something like "Like, dude, God is totally awesome, you know?"

LB, I don't care about Dean's soul, but I do remember (I'll look up the cites later) reading his attempts to seem religion friendly and cringing.

Oops. Looking above, I see he has staked out a position on torture and detainee issues, it's just worse than I thought.

Here's a link on Dean's religion. That's the problem with rhetoric like Obama's -- you come out of it thinking "Sure, most Democrats are dirty, dirty, God-hating hippies. But maybe they can change, and hate God a little less." It's not doing us any favors.

48: Again, you read Dean as disdainful, because the God-hating liberals narrative is so strong. It's bullshit, and it hurts us.

44: no, he's okay on it. His voting record is solid, his speeches have been good, he's cosponsored a few bills. Has not our side in the foot the way Clinton has at times (she makes her first good speech on the subject that I recall during the MCA debate, then comes out in favor of torture in a ticking time bomb situation. Stupid, stupid, stupid.) Just no leadership to speak of.

45: I don't think he disdained religion. I do think it's either: (1) not a major force in his life or (2) a completely private matter for him, and his attempts to talk about it looked forced and awkward.

I'd be willing to denounce MADD. Given that its original founder left b/c they had become practically prohibitionist, it shouldn't be too hard.

And given that some of the most prominent liberal blogs (drum, yglesias, atrios) are pretty explicitly anti-religion,

And this is crap too. What are you talking about? Yglesias isn't anti-religious, he's a secular Jew. He's all over his freaking blog saying that we should give in on things like prayer in schools because they aren't all that important. If he shouldn't be visible at all as a non-devout Christian, than I suppose he's a problem, but he's nothing like anti-religious. The other two are more firmly secular, but damned if I know what you mean by anti-religious.

53 -- Mother-hater.

45: I don't think he disdained religion. I do think it's either: (1) not a major force in his life or (2) a completely private matter for him, and his attempts to talk about it looked forced and awkward.

That's a problem with Dean's political skills -- he's an old-money WASP, and they're awkward. But the assumption that any Democrat not actually belting out a hymn at any given moment is trying to ban religion from the public sphere is a silly one, and one that hurts us badly.

Taking a deep breath now.

The religion of the Founding Fathers tended strongly toward "Natural Religion" or "Civil Religion" which was not specifically Christian and not friendly toward institutional Christianity. The devout church-going Christians stood out as exceptions.

I looked at the first 16 Presidents or so, and there were very few active churchgoers among them, several who seemed not to be church members at all, and several who explicitly distanced themselves from the organized churches and maybe from Christianity itself. Details not available at the moment.

Several Episcopalians, a few Unitarians, a few Dutch Reformed, a tendency in a few toward Presbyterian / Methodist ambiguity, and two (Andrew Johnson and Lincoln) who seemed unchurched.

Episcopalians are born into the church and are counted as members unless they explicitly renounce. Unitarians were virtually Deists.

Andrew jackson, IIRC, was the most religious.

More ranting from LB! Come on, LB, you know you want to do it! The people demand it!

I think it was right to get behind Kennedy because he looked like a winner, and I'll get behind Obama if the dynamic plays out the same way. Right now, he really does look like the most liberal and gracefully political among the electable candidates. But it's early days yet.

Way back when, TNR ran a cover story about Dean's 'religion problem.' Seems that Dean would have a lot of trouble competing with Bush's 'heartfelt faith.' Reading between the lines, it seems that the big problem is that Dean's Unitarian church has politically incorrect views on Israel. (Well, it is TNR after all.)

58 -- does Jackson really count as a founding father? He was only 10 when the declaration was signed.

Yeah. I've been arguing heatedly with Ogged here -- I'm not on a vendetta against Obama. If the religious triangulation is the worst thing about him, I'll be a punching bag through another campaign and be happy about it.

OT: I just used a version of Cryptic Ned's line "not everyone enjoys music that can't possibly be enjoyed by anyone" as a translation problem on my symbolic logic final exam. (I had to get rid of the word 'possible' to avoid making them write boxes and diamonds.)

I'm more or less fine with Obama. He seems like the best of the lot, and I'd pick him easily over everyone but Edwards. But I think it's useful--in that it warns him that he dare not stray too far, and in that it allows him to show that he's not beloved by the hippies--for people to hammer a bit at him on his bipartisanship. OTOH, I think there's a decent chance that, if he gets the nomination and lit ooks like he might win, someone will kill him. In which case his successor candidate will win in a landslide. So maybe energy spent worrying about Obama is wasted.

I hate God, but the Democrats have never seemed to care much what I think about anything whatsoever. If someone pays me enough I'll go around making angry anti-Democratic atheist speeches.

As I understand, the irreligious community, if it were a sect, would be the second largest after Catholics. YMMV. It's sort of hard to distinguish the actually unreligious from the unchurched believers in homemade religions, though.

second largest after Catholics

I think Islam beats us out too.

56: agreed. But the pressure to talk about your religion if you're either not religious or are visibly uncomfortable talking about it is stupid.

It did piss me off that Congregationalism was portrayed as this hippy dippy new age religion invented by granola eating hippies in the 1960s, when the freaking pilgrims were Congregationalists.

62: Two different groups: Founding Fathers, and the first 16-17 Presidents. Among the Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry was notably Christian, and there are several others. Few or none of the biggest names (Washington, Adams, Madison, Franklin.) Hamilton, oddly enough considering his shadiness (or is it really?) was the most churchy of the big FFs.

68: Obama is also a Congregationalist, to rope him back in to the discussion.

In both New England and the Midwest flaunting your religion tends to be frowned on. A cheesy half-rehabbed con man like Bush can sucker a lot of hapless, ignorant Christian folk with his dogwhistles, regardless of whether he believes any of it, whereas these same people would be put off by a quietly devout Northerner.

In both New England and the Midwest

My understanding was that the Bible Belt was slowly assimilating the Midwest in this regard.

You want to see triangulation? I'll show you some triangulation. (See also Bérubé's reply.)

Side note: at the MLA, the poor ASL translator's going to have to sign-spell "J. Alva Scruggs" and "Turbulent Velvet."

52: Right you are, I had forgotten about (for instance) this speech.

70: did not know that.

Obama's church's website makes for interesting reading. Reading about their "Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness'" and reading this quiz on the Iraq war by the pastor leads me to think that Obama's churchgoing is going to be a force AGAINST selling out.

73: I think that falls more under "self-promotion" than "triangulation".

My understanding was that the Bible Belt was slowly assimilating the Midwest in this regard.

Yes and no. I've watched these forces playing out in my own family, and what a historian of the seventies, whom I don't know the name of but slol might, has called the "Southernization of American Culture" is definitely observable in the small Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan towns I'm familiar with. But my mom's UCC congregation, in a town of 4000, was a revelation to me. Liberals, or at least "Union men" (and especially women) are not scarce, even if it's harder to identify them by how they decorate their houses or vehicles.

The comment linked in 73 explains LB's 63 pretty well, I find. You get two kinds of liberals: Those who are committed enough to the cause and are happy and eager to be punching bags if necessary, and those who are not happy and become Greens.

I think in the last 5 years virtually every segment of the Democratic party has been a punching bag, not least because the pro- and anti-war factions have both had a turn.

The UCC is actually the result of a merger between the old Congregational church and the American branch of one of the German (Lutheran) state churches.

His church is very well-represented at my school -- it's said that the church pays for the seminary education of its members. Not sure exactly how that works, since it seems like a church with a million pastors isn't an ideal situation.

Presumably the idea is that they will be missionaries to other congregations.

76: Not at all. That's the most wrong-headed, long-winded (and thus exhaustive) definition of "triangulation" currently available on the Internets.

to 78, which was me, I will add that this also goes a long way towards explaining why Democrats have a lot fewer 'core supporters' than Republicans do. Democrats can still win an election every now and then, but not due to any durable constituency. The evangelical conservatives are dead certain that Bush won't abandon them on abortion, and I believe even the elusive pro-choice Republican does not triangulate against the freaks who attack women going into abortion clinics. Perhaps if s/he did, this coalition, too, would begin to crumble.

Are Democrats more inclined to speak ill of organized labor now than they once were?

The sole church service I've been to in the last five years was at a church affiliated with the UCC.

When the officiating minister prayed for a fair and just living wage, I actually got a little scared. I've never heard such explicitly political causes from the pulpit, let alone ones I had sympathy with.

Agree that "Judeo-Christian" is a stupid term. To the extent that the writers of those documents had religion--and they did, to an extent--it was purely Christian. Albeit a very different, more liberal form of that religion than we see much today.

We all basically agree that Daily Kos is uninteresting, right? Necessary--I mean I'm glad he's out there. But I don't know when the last time it was I read Kos, or what I would get out of it if I started.

The last UCC service I went to, the sermon was (to simplify) about how Ruth and Naomi were lesbians. It was pretty well-done.

That was also the last service I went to.

I don't read it closely, but I scan the headlines on RSS, about like I do with Atrios. If there's a current 'big story' ricocheting around, it'll show up there in a timely fashion.

Whenever I am particularly riled up about something, as with the torture bill, I will look at Kos or Atrios. And I looked at them during the elections. But I don't think I'd want a candidate who would pick Kos as favorite blog. Not because it's particularly liberal, but because the choice would seem incurious.

so I guess I do know when the last time was. and what I get out of it is feeling riled up, when that's what I want to feel.

I'm holding out for the UCC service when someone fornicates with devil in the apse. What day is that on?

87 -- I'm pretty sure Obama's favorite blog is the so-called "Apostropher"'s.

"Judeo-Christian" is an OK standin for "Deist". I wouldn't call the Constitution purely Christian though; Deism could involve a respect for non-Christian monotheisms.

In the Lutheran Church, loudly professing your Christianity is prohibited by doctrine -- there are Bible passages in support of that (against people who pray loudly in public). In my mother's local ALC church council there were at least two Nation-reading liberals and at least two Pat Robertson devotees. The direction of movement is rightward, though, and like all mainline churches the congregation is aging. There's a pop young-adult service with an electric guitar which I have never attended.

W/r/t the "contemporary" service, a lot of people like to draw comparisons with the introduction of the organ into churches, which was "the electric guitar of its day." Though my overt response varies based on the situation, my internal response is always the same: "Oh, fuck you."

Even worse is the U2-charist.

Well, it certainly is unfair when people are described unfairly, QED. The idea that there is *no* history of the American left being hostile to religion, is, well, preposterous. The wall of separation logic -- now superceded by the Equal Access Act and similar approaches -- really did suggest that religion should be actively excluded from the public sphere. Lots of liberals still talk this way.

If I may indulge in my own analogy fashioning, what Obama did, I think, is a much weaker version of Newt Gingrich apologizing for the record of the American right on civil rights. Now, one can pound the table all one wants and say that oppossing affirmative action is nothing like being against civil rights, and the imputed 'concession' damages honest egalitarians on the right. But, you know, whatever. Now, you may think that the record of the left on religion is far less shameful than the record of the right on race. I would agree with that. But again, what Obama did was exceptionally mild.

38 gets it right. Obama is talking to a bunch of religious people who have heard the same public discourse we all do.

It's a stereotype. And I don't see a way for Obama to make inroads in quite a sizable moderate religious contingent unless this is addressed. It doesn't matter if it's 100% true; they believe it, and so I don't see a way to start that speech without acknowledging that impression.

To the extent that the Democrats want to reach out to moderate religious types, this is going to have to happen. Because there are plenty of screeds against the religious right wing, and the religious rightwing deserves it. The problem is that there's nothing comparable coming from the Democratic party that's friendly to devout-but-not-psycho religious types, and my sense of it is that those people tend to get defensive when liberals criticize the insane types out of some sort of vague solidarity. Just like a prof could be baited into defending Ward Churchill because he's so damn tired of attacks on the liberal academy even if he thinks Churchill's a goober.

We can say "I don't have a problem with religion, just religion being rammed down my throat" but as rhetoric goes it's about as convincing as "I don't have a problem with Hispanics, but I am worried about the crime."

Agree with Cala. (And, it appears, baa.)

54:

"... The other two are more firmly secular, but damned if I know what you mean by anti-religious."

Just believing religion is a bunch of nonsense (even if you are not strident about it) is enough to make you anti-religious in many eyes.

Recall, though, that when the discussion started we were answering the question 'why is Obama called a triangulator?' not 'is it beneficial/good for politicians to triangulate?'

As long as we're moving to the second question, I should also ask if it's OK for those being triangulated against, like people more concerned about separation of church and state than about the acceptance of religion in the public sphere, to badmouth the politicians who do the triangulating, or do they have to be happy punching bags the whole time?

Agree with 94. Now let's see how Obama handles his real estate mini-mini controversy...

"Just believing religion is a bunch of nonsense"

I agree.

56 - I think it's fair to say that Dean comes from a mainline northern Protestant tradition that is less comfortable either evangelizing or making a lot of public pronouncements about one's personal relationship with God. It doesn't just suck that Dems are now presumptively godless heathens unless they talk about how they're different than other, godless heathen Dems; it sucks that we've written one of the dominant strains of American Christianity so wholly out of the discussion. Here I think that the actual socio-economic makeup of the journalist and pundit class, particularly in high-status positions, makes a big difference.

Right now I'm a lot angrier about people who compare organs to electric guitars than I am about Obama's rhetoric.

101 -- It does make me want to sometime get a chance to describe somebody as "the Randy Rhoads of the pipe organ". Who that will be, when I will get the chance, only God can know.

.Just believing religion is a bunch of nonsense (even if you are not strident about it) is enough to make you anti-religious in many eyes.

I think this is the sense of it, but I'm not sure if it's unique to religion, but of any strongly held belief. I am stomping all over the analogy rule today because it's a stupid rule. Take anything dearly held: feminism, evolution, habeas and associated rights, whatever. Now have someone say, sincerely, with their best honest expression: "Wow, π is sure is a bunch of bullshit. But I tolerate your opinion."

102.--That's part of the reason the comparison rankles; the organist is usually invisible. I say this as somebody who has sought out organ concerts and has heard virtuosos.

(Also the reverse comparison -- electric guitar to organ -- is almost a commonplace.)

There's a Leonard Bernstein orchestral piece called "Slava" that has all the usual insanity plus an electric guitar. The weird thing isn't the electric guitar, though, but that the oboe has the cue notes to play it if there isn't a guitar.

Bonus points for anyone who can figure out how my train of thought got here.

Pwned by 77.

94 - No matter how much outreach to religious voters the Democrats do, they're fighting an enormous public and media perception that they're not the PARTY OF GOD like the Republicans. Cala, the last time this came up on Unfogged, you made similar comments, and people pointed out any number of ways in which the Democrats were trying to couch their policy prescriptions in ways to point out the underlying moral and Christian virtues, but you didn't buy it, because you knew the Dems were hostile to religion. I'm not saying you're wrong -- obviously, voters actively hostile to religion in the public sphere are going to prefer Dems, and your own reaction is a perfectly cromulent example of the truth of the claim that Dems aren't doing enough to appeal to religious voters. But it's just not the case that "there's nothing comparable coming from the Democratic party that's friendly to devout-but-not-psycho religious types". Is Obama supposed to stand up during the Democratic convention and giving thanks that he is not like other candidates -- the extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as these progressive income tax advocates? Other than that -- and possibly even then -- I'm not sure that this media narrative is ever going to go away.

106 -- was it a "fuck to oboe" thing? Or, weren't you talking about clarinet briefly on the electric guitar thread?

Yes! Score big points for the Clownæ's battle-scarred short-term memory!

But it's just not the case that "there's nothing comparable coming from the Democratic party that's friendly to devout-but-not-psycho religious types"

I know I'm repeating myself from last time. So, a test. No Googling. Top five liberal religious blogs. ogged rattled off a list of secular ones a few posts ago. Surely the left religious movement is just as prominent.

And the electric guitar doesn't have anywhere the range that the organ has. Oo, this comparison is just getting me madder and madder.

I'm not willing to concede that Obama "traingulates," because, as I said in the post, I think the terms implies dishonesty.

JM -- I was using "organ" in a different sense in 105.

110: What are the top-five conservative religious blogs, though? I get what you're saying, I think: a lot of them make specific reference to religion more often than we do. And that seems fair. But, contra Brock, we're not trying to be as religious as the Republicans; we're just trying to offer up the ante and hope that people are willing to make decisions on other grounds. Obama seems to be trying to do that.

I will leave it to somebody else to make fun of -gg-d's potentially humorous misspelling in 112.

The left religious sites are not as well-known because of the contingent fact that Atrios, still one of the main traffic directors among liberal blogs, is stridently anti-religious by any definition. Probably the biggest liberal religious blog, the Right Christians, shut down because of total lack of support from the mainstream liberal blogs. Slacktivist got some good traffic from Atrios, but that was almost exclusively for the thing making fun of Left Behind.

I don't really notice the big conservative blogs linking to explicitly religious sites, either. Instapundit could give a fuck, for example.

107, the problem is that no amount of triangulation is going to make it go away. Obama could use his status as a religion-friendly liberal to try to combat that enormous public perception; instead, he uses his status to reinforce it, which works out great for him but not so good for everyone else.

Violin also was "the electric guitar of its day."

The analogy with race works and doesn't work. People know which party is more in their corner, whether those people are black or religious. But being black seems to be politically much more important to blacks than being religious is to most religious people (loud wingnuts notwithstanding). So I think Tim is exactly right when he says, "we're just trying to offer up the ante and hope that people are willing to make decisions on other grounds."

116: Yeah, but you'll see fairly constant references to religion at Sullivan's, The Corner, and American Scene, for example. OTOH, whenever Amy Sullivan shows up at Drum's or (IIRC) Tapped, she gets hammered, even when she's largely right.

no amount of triangulation is going to make it go away

That's true, because triangulation is dishonest, and isn't going to fool anybody. But Obama seems genuine, and people seem to accept it.

The violin, sure. That actually makes sense.

Triangulation, as I understand it, means saying "Here's the left, here's the right, I'm something else." I suppose the word has a sort of dishonest ring to it, but this may be because it's often something that people do to mislead. It's not a word like 'pandering' that exists solely for its negative connotations.

114: You're right. Strike my 110. Let's take the premise, ignoring 116, that the Democrats are wonderfully supportive of religion, that there are many well-publicized alliances between Democrats and moderate religious groups.

There's still a perception to combat. I mean, if the Democrats don't want to reach out to moderate religious types because it's not their base and it will alienate the base they do have, that's fine. But to say 'but we are religious and we shouldn't have to do anything more!' just isn't going to convert the moderate guys who might be tempted on some of the issues but for the constant barrage of ACLU/war on Christmas/secular humanist/prom queen murdering babies rhetoric on the other side.

Fine. No amount of using the stereotype to your advantage is going to make it go away, because that only reinforces the stereotype. Better?

Better?

I dunno, I've already decided to have you killed.

119: This is where I disagree. I do think that for a religious person, it does define someone's life. Perhaps not to the same extent, not that I'd know how to quantify it, but saying 'Religion at home, secular in public' to someone who is trying to model their life around a faith just saying 'Here's this really important part of your life, but goddamn, no one needs to see that, put it away.'

125: I'm not sure that's true. Given a religious Dem President who isn't hostile to religion, and who is believably religious himself, people will end up giving Dems credit for not being quite so terrible to the religious. The problem arises when you go to that same well, over and over again, while President. That's what people allege Clinton did to the Democrats.

119 isn't meant to be presciptive, and I could well be wrong in my perception that there are a lot of people who self-identify as religious who are willing to support a candidate on other issues, as long as he doesn't alienate them on religion, whereas even a whiff of not being fully on board with, say, that NAACPs positions, will kill a candidate with black voters.

110: You know, Cala, drawing the line between religious and secular doesn't work -- a secular blog (one not focusing on religion) can be written by a religious person, and you wouldn't know unless they mentioned it. Does Bitch meet your standard? Because she's Catholic, and a believer. I doubt that's a response you're happy with.

Are you complaining that liberal bloggers don't focus on religion enough, or that they're atheists? I'm sure they're more likely to be atheists than the general population, but that's a feature of the internet, and applies to right-wing bloggers as well.

If you want people with a religious focus, what I'm coming up with off the top of my head is Amy Sullivan, but she's moved around from blog to blog -- I'm not completely sure that she's blogging now -- and Hugo Schwyzer, for people with a focus on religion. I can't think of any more bloggers who focus on religion on the right.

125: I don't think it reinforces the stereotype, because against the stereotype you have Obama, who supports all these liberal positions, makes all these liberal allies, and is still a Democrat. If nothing else, he's an easy counterexample to "Democrats are all against religion."

122 -- my question is, if the organ was the electric guitar of its day, then to what do we compare the electric organ? Is it an acoustic guitar?

whereas even a whiff of not being fully on board with, say, that NAACPs positions, will kill a candidate with black voters.

That's not true. See, e.g., Clinton. The difference between race and religion is, in large part, the difference between being a (visible) minority and being, if not the majority, at least the plurality.

Given a religious Dem President who isn't hostile to religion, and who is believably religious himself, people will end up giving Dems credit for not being quite so terrible to the religious.

Like Clinton and Carter? Nothing's going to kill the stereotype except pointing out that it's nonsense.

The ACLU regularly takes cases in which some individual''s right to express religious speech in public has been unfairly squelched. They also take cases in which the state has gone too far in the direction of establishing religion of some sort.

You know who's got the atheists back on this? Eugene Volokh.

That's not true. See, e.g., Clinton.

Which Clinton? If Bill, drop the NAACP bit, because that was just a way of not writing "the black agenda."

132.--But I don't accept that the organ was the electric guitar of its day. Not provisionally, not for argument's sake, not on a train, not in a plane.

Yeah, why don't you angel-hating hippies leave Amy Sullivan alone?

I agree with ogged that the race:religion analogy doesn't quite match up. But I do think the GOP is in a hole with respect to race, and they should try to climb out. And that the same is true with the respect to the dems and religion. The holes aren't equally deep or equally important, however.

130: 110 was badly phrased. I'm going to let people jump on that for an hour, and when I come back, I'll say again what I'm saying now: there's a strong perception that the big liberal guns (blogs, base, whatever) are not just secular, but anti-religious. This doesn't seem to hold for the right end of things. The big conservative secular guys don't have that. Now, it's probably just them pandering to their base, and it may not be any on the left's fault, but I don't see that going away.

You know, Cala, drawing the line between religious and secular doesn't work -- a secular blog (one not focusing on religion) can be written by a religious person, and you wouldn't know unless they mentioned it.

This, though, is just silly strategy. "We're not anti-religious, we just never speak of it and mock those who do but you should look into our heart of hearts and figure out we're sekritly religious."

At some point, secular liberals are going to have to finally realize that the only way to kill religion is to have an established state church. I lean toward the United Methodists for this job, but there are a lot of great candidates.

Nothing's going to kill the stereotype except pointing out that it's nonsense.

Disagree entirely. I don't think people got convinced that integration was a good thing because others continually pointed out that a lot of the stereotypes about African-Americans were total nonsense. They were convinced because integration was effectively forced on them and it largely worked out. Arguments by themselves do very little work in convincing people of anything, I think.

Democratic politicians have not been hostile or condescending to religion. Really, I'm having a hard time coming up with an example. A lot of individual liberals are. Obama might well have experienced this, or he may be triangulating.

Ogged, here's the New Yorker article in which Obama pissed me off. Here's the excerpt:

When I asked Rahm Emanuel if he thought that the Democrats should make civil liberties a focus of the upcoming campaign, he replied, "Middle-class American families are proud of their country. Economic security is the issue we should be talking to people about." Obama, making much the same point, said, "Americans want to feel good about themselves and their government. They can be called upon to sacrifice, and they can be ashamed when we fall short of our ideals, but they don't believe that the main lesson of the past five years is that America is an evil hegemon."

Then there's a Q & A with the author of the article, with a similar description:

Senator Barack Obama and I were talking about Senator Russell Feingold and his desire to make issues like N.S.A. wiretapping and Guantánamo Bay a central part of the Democratic platform. Obama, who is pretty liberal, said, We have to go gently. Of course, we're Democrats and we'll do it differently when we get in power. But Americans feel good about their country and they don't want to be told, over and over, that their country is a failure.

whenever Amy Sullivan shows up at Drum's or (IIRC) Tapped, she gets hammered, even when she's largely right

Amy Sullivan doesn't show up to talk about religion. If she did, I don't think she would get hammered. She shows up to talk about talking about religion, and she, as Obama is accused of doing (I think probably fairly, but I'm sleepy, so I don't want to take a position), promotes the stereotype that Democrats--Democratic politicians!--are hostile to religion, and for that matter, she lectures liberals about their tone while being laughably incapable of communicating well with the audience she putatively wants to persuade, when really, a few meager bones, like, "hey, I know who's really excluded from the discourse," might do wonders for her project.

Does Bitch meet your standard? Because she's Catholic, and a believer.

I suspect my status as "a believer" depends very much on who you're talking to. My dad, for instance, is convinced that I'm not.

Just saying, not really the best example around. Though I do agree that a lot of people who are quite firm in their faith, in a way more traditional sense than I am, are nonetheless perfectly capable of separating church and state.

137 -- You do not like it, so you say. Try it! Try it! and you may. Try it and you may, I say.

I'm not talking about a strategy, I'm saying that calling a blog secular or religious is a false dichotomy.

I'm not sensitive to this, so it really is possible that there's more to it and I've missed it. But how 'anti-religious' is Atrios? I'm thinking that he's very anti Religious Right, but that's politics. And he's anti-Amy Sullivan, but that's for pretty much the same reason I'm pissed right now -- that she makes accusations against the Democrats globally that don't make sense. But is he posting things like "I'll grit my teeth and vote for a Christian, but I hate doing it, they're all morons"? Or what?

the GOP is in a hole with respect to race, and they should try to climb out. And that the same is true with the respect to the dems and religion.

Distinction being that the GOP actively supports racist policies, whereas the Dems don't actively support anti-religious (read: anti-Christian) ones.

103 I think it is worse with religion. For example I believe in evolution but only as the best available explanantion for empirical observations. I don't believe that belief in evolution is the way to everlasting life or anything like that. In theory at least I am willing to abandon evolution if a superior explanantion arises. I think for many people religion is much more deeply felt and the possibility that it is the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus is very threatening.

Of course there is also a large group of people who are sort of agnostic but participate in religion for social reasons who would be less threatened by skeptics.

Wow! It's Tia!

136: Yeah, Bill. But "the black agenda" is much broader and more confused. Early in his Presidency, there were many prominent African-Americans who wondered whether Bill would or was in the process of selling them out for the white vote. He didn't actually do a hell of a lot for African-Americans, either. But, to the best of my ability to tell, African-Americans realized that he would sell them out no more frequently than any other group, and probably a bit less. He wasn't hostile to their interests, and was at least mildly favorable. And that was enough. Obama's trying to do the same thing with the religious: he might not help them, but he won't go out of his way to hurt them, and they won't be the first group he throws under the bus.

Maybe a better way of putting this is: just because it's a stereotype doesn't mean it doesn't have an element of truth in it. The stereotype isn't nonsense. And even if it were nonsense, it does not seem to me that the way to remedy the situation is to insist that religious people who believe the Democrats are hostile to them are deluded. Obama would have been less effective saying: "You think we are hostile to you? think again, idiots! That's a lie peddled by our enemies!"

140 is the best thing ever said on this blog.

But how 'anti-religious' is Atrios?

I'd call him "virulently and unapologetically" anti-religious. Didn't he recently have a series of posts about all the dumb things religious people believe and how we have no obligation to "respect their beliefs?"

The stereotype isn't nonsense. And even if it were nonsense, it does not seem to me that the way to remedy the situation is to insist that religious people who believe the Democrats are hostile to them are deluded. Obama would have been less effective saying: "You think we are hostile to you? think again, idiots! That's a lie peddled by our enemies!"

Sure, and if he cried and wet himself that would also be ineffective. But if he talked about his own religion whenever he felt moved to, without badmouthing other Democrats, that might help.

Thanks, Katherine. Ugh, that's a tough call, because I think he's totally right--Americans don't think and don't want to hear that their country is an evil hegemon--but shit, someone has to convince them that it's on the way, even if it's not there yet.

(hi clowae)

Thanks to smart things said on this blog, I'm wary of telling actual religious persons what they should believe and do, but it would be swell if there were a way to say something I take to be both true and important, that stuff like wanting to remove "under god" from the pledge really isn't particularly anti-religious.

It's ironic that evangelicals, whose theology is all about faith, should be caught up by works-- that is, they seem to see the outward trappings of piety as at least more important than they should be, and at worst as constitutive of faith, which is exactly wrong by their lights, as I understand them.

without badmouthing other Democrats

I find this criticism a bit strange. What's wrong with saying "We need to do a better job of reaching out to religious folks"? It seems like good advice.

stuff like wanting to remove "under god" from the pledge really isn't particularly anti-religious.

Yeah, but neither is being anti-affirmative action necessarily anti-black, but....

Self-criticism doesn't come much gentler than what Obama said in that speech, LB. Even if you stipulate that the American Left and the Democratic party has never been hostile to religion in any meaningful way, the fact that this perception exists in the minds of religious people makes it sensible to ackowledge it. Given that the stipulation is false, it makes even more sense.

155: Of course he's right. I don't see that as a tough call at all. (I think I just talked myself into being pro-Obama.)

We need more people to argue publicly that pledging allegiance, under god, to a flag is sacrilegious.

If you don't think that Atrios is anti-religious, you need to get your anti-religious-dar tuned up.

Atrios on religion:

I'm not hostile to religion. I don't much care about religion. I'm not much interested in it. This isn't strange. Most people aren't much interested in religion other than their own, if that.

I'm not sick of religious people. I think it's great that they're free to believe and practice their religion in any way they want. I'd like to keep it that way.

I am sick of people who keep claiming that the Democratic party is hostile to religious people and controlled by secular liberals who are hostile to religion. If by "Democratic party" you mean "some people who post anonymous comments on the internet" you may have a point. Otherwise, the idea is ludicrous.

What's wrong with saying "We need to do a better job of reaching out to religious folks"? It seems like good advice.

Saying it privately as advice to people you're working with is fine. Making a speech about it is branding Democrats generally as God-haters. You can't tell the difference?

Given that the stipulation is false, it makes even more sense.

Acknowledging it in a way that assumes its truth doesn't make sense.

158: As with the DailyKos criticism, the problem with a politician saying it isn't that it's not true; it's that there is a different subtext when a politician says it. He is shaping reality as well as describing it -- persuading religious folks that (other) Democrats don't speak to them does not help Democrats get elected, and it doesn't even really help Democrats solve the problem. (He does have the opportunity to talk to his colleagues in private if he wants.)

The religious folks are the ones who should be saying that to the politicians, not vice versa.

I realize that Goldberg's interview is probably just paraphrasing the exchange quoted in the article...but the "of course we'll do it differently when we get in power, but shh! don't tell the voters we've tortured people and imprisoned them without charge and shattered Iraq--they want to feel GOOD about America" is exactly the sort of condescending assumption about voters' stupidity/immorality that I've expressed hopes of Obama not making.

You just don't have to choose between handing out Noam Chomsky essays and staying silent. The rhetorical approach here isn't all that hard. You quote Washington on the treatment of prisoners, Truman and Eisenhower on preemptive war, you talk about how we led the way on Geneva. You talk about specific cases where we've tortured innocents or torture has led to bad information or we've locked up victims of Taliban/Al Qaeda human rights violations in Guantanamo. You read excerpts from Alice-in-Wonderland CSRTs.

McCain is great at this, as far as the rhetoric goes (on substance I obviously don't have much use for him after the MCA fiasco.)

It really wouldn't be that hard. If you know the material and are as good as rhetoric as Obama, the speeches write themselves. It would be a great political move for the primaries and not cost much during the general.

163: It's perfectly possible that he is, and I missed it-- I'm just not remembering specific attacks on religion. Was there something glaring, or just a miasma of seculardom?

143 is right.

The democrats don't have any anti-religious candidates, but Amy Sullivan likes to pretend they do.

Making a speech about it is branding Democrats generally as God-haters.

And that is how you read Obama's speech? I think that is exceptionally strained.

Honestly, I wish the Democrats did have some stridently anti-religious candidates.

There's another angle to this that's bugging me. As Obama's recent megachurch adventure demonstrated, the problem is not so much that Democrats are anti-Christian as that Christians are anti-Democrat, so much so that they won't even allow Democrats to pander to them.

These people have a vested interest in making sure that no politician can be seen to be pro-Christian without toeing the conservative Christian line on many issues, principally abortion. It doesn't matter how religious Obama is, if he's pro-choice then he is the Antichrist and should not be allowed to speak in God's House. This is a much bigger problem than Atrios' feelings about going to church and it suits these evangelical bigwigs just fine if Democratic pols and activists go around pointing fingers at each other for not being pro-Christian enough, when really, no Democrat will ever be pro-Christian enough unless they become a Republican.

I know that Obama can't go to a megachurch and say this, but my point is just that this problem is not going to be solved by Democrats shunning Howard Dean for not seeming religious enough.

We could run PZ Meyers for something.

I think that is exceptionally strained.

I disagree with baa here. I think it's just strained.

Seriously, saying that Democrats need to do a better job of connecting with religious voters is, in addition to being true, not the same as saying that they're god-haters.

The beginning of 172 shouldn't be construed to be speaking about Christians in general, but rather, the bigwigs referenced later.

>I find this criticism a bit strange. What's wrong with saying "We need to do a better job of reaching out to religious folks"? It seems like good advice.

This isn't what Obama is doing. He is just putting down some straw democrats in front of religious groups. That isn't helping matters.

Seriously, republicans don't try to get black votes by saying "some republicans are racist but I am not" or have signs like "vote jones, a non-racist republican".

167: ctd....To say nothing of quoting the bill of rights and the Constitution!

Really. The idea that you can't defend the U.S. Constituion--separation of powers, habeas corpus, the rule of law--because voters LIKE America and don't want to be told it's an evil hegemon shows a real failure of imagination. Obama taught Con Law at Chicago. And he didn't have much trouble striking exactly the right balance on Iraq--"I'm not opposed to all wars, I'm opposed to dumb wars"--at the time of the invasion. He knows better than this. That's what made me so angry.

But because Obama is Obama, my reaction is not to not vote for him--it's to daydream about advising his campaign on these issues. I think a lot of people are looking for someone to ride in on a white horse on the moment (I'm probably especially susceptible to this--a real romantic streak about politics that I probably should have outgrown by now), and he's pretty good at making people think it might be him. Whether it actually is I have no real idea.

without toeing the conservative Christian line on many issues

I don't think anyone expects us to win over evangelicals, but there are plenty of people who can be convinced that Democrats are not hostile to them.

He knows better than this. That's what made me so angry.

Yeah, that response his NYer response is unsatisfying, but hasn't he been good on this in his speeches?

Seriously, saying that Democrats need to do a better job of connecting with religious voters is, in addition to being true, not the same as saying that they're god-haters.

Really? Take yourself as an example.

What you knew: Dean spoke about religion in a manner that struck you, probably correctly, as strained.

What you concluded: Dean disdains religion.

And you're as little primed as anyone to think bad things about Democrats. There's a perception that Democrats are globally alienated from religion, and that this alienation reflects active hostility. This perception is powerful, and wrong, and feeding into it at all, which Obama is doing by making speeches about how Democrats need to work harder at connecting with Christians, is a bad thing.

I am completely happy with Obama connecting with Christians. The 'awesome God' speech? Great. I don't want him harping on how alienated from Christians other Democrats are.

I've said before that I'm not impressed with Obama and annoyed with those who are, but that I can be persuaded to back him if he looks like a winner. And fighting for organ music in Reform Synagogues occupies a lot of my time and energy, so I'm out of energy for that.

But I note that GFR links to polls showing Edwards is strongest against Republicans, including McCain. How'd it be we talk about that?

I can't think of any more bloggers who focus on religion on the right.

The Anchoress, baby!

feeding into it at all, which Obama is doing by making speeches about how Democrats need to work harder at connecting with Christians, is a bad thing

I don't think so, actually. I think he opens the topic back up. Right now, it's very hard for a Democrat who talks about religion not to be seen as pandering, but Obama has the gift of seeming genuine, so I think he can make it possible for less skilled politicians to come up behind him andnot be dismissed. This is now just speculation about how things will play out with people I don't really know, of course...

polls showing Edwards is strongest against Republicans

To me, this seems like a no-brainer. Edwards is clearly the strongest candidate among the ones who have announced or quasi-announced, and I'm a little surprised that there's any doubt about it.

As long as there's a sizable contingent of evangelical leaders shrieking that every Democrat is the anti-Christ, the Democrats will never shed their association as anti-religious. Trying to work around these guys will never work -- this, too, only reinforces the perception that Democrats can't get along with religious leaders. Besides, plenty of Christians already do vote Democrat, many of them out of religious conviction. That factr doesn't break the association either.

I think that the hostility directed towards Obama for going to that megachurch was probably enlightening to a lot of people, so good for him for doing it.

I'm not impressed with Obama

This I don't understand, if you really mean "not impressed" and not "don't like" or "don't agree with." The guy is impressive.

I love how opposing actual life-improving policies that benefit African-Americans is the same as opposing a 50-yr old anti-Communist edit to a weird civic incantation.

Right now, it's very hard for a Democrat who talks about religion not to be seen as pandering, but Obama has the gift of seeming genuine, so I think he can make it possible for less skilled politicians to come up behind him andnot be dismissed.

You think he's making it easier for everyone else to look genuine by exhorting them about it publicly? "I know this doesn't come naturally to you, but force yourself to talk about religion more." That's going to look natural.

Edwards is clearly the strongest candidate among the ones who have announced or quasi-announced

You really think so? I like the guy a lot, but even I think he seems callow.

I think that the hostility directed towards Obama for going to that megachurch was probably enlightening to a lot of people, so good for him for doing it.

Absolutely true.

184: Eh. Edwards didn't perform up to expectations in '04. Maybe those expectations were unfair, or maybe he was (as I think is often claimed) restrained from being better by Kerry. But, as we find out every NBA draft, potential is a lot more attractive than known quantity.

169: He gave an good speech on the MCA, which was after the New Yorker article.

He hit the right notes. To his credit, he had actually read some of the Guantanamo hearings, and saw exactly what was wrong with them. But I got the impression that he had read up on things and put it together in the last 24-48 hours, perhaps (it's hard to know this) partially because of pressure from him from liberal blogs. It was very tentative, a real contrast from his usual speaking style.

So as I said before: good on these issues, as Democrats go. Not great. Solid voting record but no real leadership.

The article just really pissed me off at the time, and it's the same sort of setting-up-of-liberal-strawmen that others complain about re: religion. But these are completely venial, as politicians' sins go.

189 gets it exactly right, except for that liking the guy a lot part. Oh, I'll line up, if he gets the nod, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

I think 172 is very perceptive. Of course, this is the art of the possible -- the political goal for Obama and other Dems is not necessarily to get the Megachurch vote (although a mass conversion would be gratifying and consistent with the theological concept of "miracle") -- it's to get the vote of those who consider themselves more traditionally religious than many modern-day Dems (sorry LB) but who are profoundly uncomfortable with the ideological/moral absolutes of the far right. In that sense, Obama's aim is pretty good.

You think he's making it easier for everyone else to look genuine by exhorting them about it publicly?

I do, even though I recognize that it's counterintuitive. I think it hinges on Obama's personal gifts as a politician, which allows him to get people to reconsider the relationship between Democrats and religion. Now, a Democrat who didn't have the skills to reopen the discussion on his own can do a "like Senator Obama has been saying..." and give his "I love God, too" shpiel.

FL, did you title your Christmas gift thread the way you did because of the discussion about Catholicism, 'cause if so, I just got the joke.

172: No one's saying win over the wingnuts. They're unwinnable, and they can fuck off. In fact, conflating 'reach out to moderate Christians' with 'hug a wingnut' is exactly the sort of problem I'm talking about.

I do, even though I recognize that it's counterintuitive.

A bone, at least.

94, etc.: A LOT of Christians are already Democrats and liberals. What's at issue here is an opening to certain sorts of theologically and politically conservative Christians.

I would frame it in a lesser-evil way, rather than triangulating. Conservative Christians have been flimflammed by a criminal organization that thinks they're suckers and morons, and they've been suckered into supporting a disastrous war. Perhaps we can convince them that Democrats aren't as bad as that.

In fact, conflating 'reach out to moderate Christians' with 'hug a wingnut' is exactly the sort of problem I'm talking about.

But how do we reach out to people who are already inside our party? The people Democrats are alienated from are the wingnuts. Most Democrats are Christians, most of those what you'd call moderate Christians.

The problem facing liberal believers is that the political right and the evangelical movement (and its fundamentalist and pentacostalist kinfolk) have conditioned a lot of Americans to believe that a profession of individual faith takes on social meaning only when you want the collective to Do Something. It can be as simple as calling for a national day of prayer or as thorough as attempting to repeal Roe v. Wade, but the idea is that faith only matters for political personalities when it leads to explicit policy.

As others have already said this is directly contrary to at least one of the big strains of American Protestantism. And it simply leaves no room for the person who believes that their duty to God is to preserve the liberty, security, well-being, and freedom of conscience for all of every faith and none.

I'd just like to remind you coastal elitists that my heartland state, Minnesota, not only has elected a Muslim to Congress just now, but also has recently elected an atheist governor (Jesse "Religion is a crutch for the weak-minded" Ventura.)

So all y'all can go screw yourselves (not literally. And no offense intended.)

I know Cala retracted her challenge, but I thought it was funny, because I, an anti-religious Democrat, could instantly name 3, including one (Body & Soul) that at least used to get a lot of Atrios-love, and another (Slacktivist) that I read, um, devoutly. And I don't frequent many blogs at all, as these things go.

So what do we have, once again? "I know those damn Dems are anti-religion. No, I don't have any evidence - I don't need it. The fact that I believe it is proof!"

Explain to me how Obama contrasting himself with unnamed anti-religious Dems will solve this problem?

even I think he seems callow.

You may want to examine what wins American presidential elections. It's not much different than a high-school student body president contest.

202: Hey, I read both of those, and didn't think of them as religious (although isn't Jeanne D'Arc shut down these days?) What was the third?

Theoretically pwned by 195, but essentially you've just set up a religious test for Dems. Lovely.

Look, Jesusland is shrinking - can we just secede and get it over with?

196: I'm not saying win over the wingnuts, either. It is a genuinely difficult problem to solve, but I repeat that Democrats can't shed their reputation for being anti-religion as long as wingnut religious leaders are preaching that Democrats are wicked and anti-religion. They're saying it for political reasons, but I don't believe all of the people who hear it realize this.

You may want to examine what wins American presidential elections.

And in that spirit, I have to admit I'd like to have a strong white male candidate in the mix. A black dude and a woman as our front runners? Bad times.

I note that GFR links to polls showing Edwards is strongest against Republicans, including McCain.

Greg Mankiw did a nifty little calculation using the Tradesports contract prices to calculate each candidates odds of getting elected if they win the primaries.

Since we can assume that the candidate only wins the general election if they already won the primary, we can divide the total probability of their winning the general election (given by the price of one open contract) by the probability of getting the party nod in the primaries (given by the prices of another contract) to get each candidate's "electability" given their winning the primary.

Here's a few probabilities using the current prices:
McCain: 54.9% = 28.0/51.0
Giuliani: 78.6% = 11.0/14.0
Romney: 58.8% = 9.4/16.0
Clinton: 44.3% = 24.2/54.6
Obama: 67.7% = 12.6/18.6
Gore: 63.2% = 6.0/9.5
Edwards: 52.1% = 5.0/9.6

Guy Smiley is trailing badly in the nationwide electability estimate and Giuliani is a strong lead (which actually makes a lot of sense to me). It's a pretty unfortunate indicator for Clinton though.

You may want to examine what wins American presidential elections.

Don't you condescend to me, you red-headed redneck. I'm trying to think of how I'd unpack "callow" and in student body terms, I guess I'd say he doesn't seem like a leader, but a good number two. It's not precisely that he's inexperienced--so is Obama, after all--but that he's not the guy you'd turn to in a crisis.

Giuliani is a strong lead (which actually makes a lot of sense to me).

Anything giving this result is just wrong -- he's going to crash and burn at high speed. If he pulls 10% in any primary I'd be stunned.

199: I think Obama's rhetoric (with the caveat that maybe only Obama can deliver it right now) is a start. I'm basing this on a wholly unscientific study of my parents' parish. Sometime after 2001, the homilies all took a hard right turn into things that could be lifted from Pat Robertson. It's not uncommon, if I go to Christmas Mass, for my dad's friends to joke about how I must be being corrupted in graduate school, etc. Let me tell you about the joy that inspires some other time.

I have no idea why the local Catholicism in my area went nuts, but my guess is that it was politicized times, no one wanted to be quiet, and the Democrats didn't seem welcoming any more, whether that perception was reality-based or Republican-fueled. But I do know that to a man, my dad's friends were very impressed by Obama. "That man gets it. Now, he's the sort of guy I could get behind. Did you see his speech at the convention?" No caveat. No worries that his policies are too liberal. Not even a peep that he's pro-choice.

I think there's a decent shot at getting the moderate Catholic vote back (it's trending evangelical lately) with this sort of move. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my thoughts on it.

"I know those damn Dems are anti-religion. No, I don't have any evidence - I don't need it. The fact that I believe it is proof!"

Did you buy your strawman at the factory or knit it yourself?

Giuliani is too high. He polls well, but all most of the country knows about him is his best couple weeks. He's not going to be able to keep up the whole "America's Mayor" thing indefinitely.

Also, I have a hard time imagining that Republicans nominate someone pro choice, and if they do I think you're going to see a damaging third party candidacy (it doesn't have to win that many votes to be damaging if it's drawing them all from the right)

210: That's exactly what this says though. Note that Giuliani has a very low chance of getting through the primary, because he'll have a hell of a time with the Republican voters. However, if he makes it through the gauntlet, he'd be one of the most appealing possible candidates to the nation as a whole.

Speaking for myself at least, I think this makes total sense. I'm a pretty hardcore Democrat voter, but my main objection to Giuliani would be the fawning he was willing to do for Bush in the 2004 race (as did virtually every other Republican with any national stature).

re: Dean and the religion problem: Dean's Unitarian? (wayy back at 61) I used to go to a Unitarian church. Do they really count as Christians? I can see how being a Unitarian would be not a whole lot better than being an atheist. In my experience, unitarians are religious in the sense that evangelicals understand the term, and are rather disdainful of what they see as the hubris of evangelicals and catholics.

"are religious" s/b "aren't religious"

213: he's terrible on civil liberties. Terrible terrible terrible. He has no familarity with foreign policy. If he wants to police the world like he policed New York City we're going to have problems.

And, okay, I was overlooking that this assumes a primary victory, but I maintain that even if he does a third party pro-life challenge is a real potential problem.

What is interesting about Apo's "Is Barack Obama The Anti-Christ?" trolls is that they're worried that Obama is the anti-Christ precisely because he's so appealing. And these people are unstable, literalist, freaks.

214: No. That was a dumb mistake on my part, made because I hate religion and can't be bothered to keep them apart. He is a Congregationalist. (Although I partly blame the TNR article for laying it on so thick about how Congregationalists are all a bunch of yoga-loving liberal hippies, when everybody knows that's actually the Unitarians.)

no one wanted to be quiet, and the Democrats didn't seem welcoming any more,

I don't mean to argue with your perceptions, and I'm not denying that organized religion has been becoming more hostile to Democrats lately -- there is a problem. But when you're talking about a period in which the Democrats RAN A CATHOLIC FOR PRESIDENT (and the Catholic heirarchy debated refusing him communion because of his pro-choice voting record), characterizing it as the Democrats not being welcoming to Catholics seems bizarre. Doesn't choosing a Catholic as the spokesman for our national party get us any points for being welcoming?

LB is 100% right about Giuliani. He is going to be President like Tyronne Lu is going to the hall of fame. He divorced his wife on TV!

Also, Edward's isn't merely callow, he looks like he'll blow away in a light breeze, and he's a pretty boy.

I haven't seen a lot of recognition here, except from LB, that one thing we're dealing with here is an organized smear campaign. Smear campaigns have to be dealt with, but it's important not to take them at face value.

I'm willing to go on record as saying that, while I am a Democrat, the Democrats are much more religion-friendly than I would personally like them to be. It's a smear to say that the Democrats are paying any attention to my opinions.

I haven't seen a lot of recognition here, except from LB, that one thing we're dealing with here is an organized smear campaign. Smear campaigns have to be dealt with, but it's important not to take them at face value.

I'm willing to go on record as saying that, while I am a Democrat, the Democrats are much more religion-friendly than I would personally like them to be. It's a smear to say that the Democrats are paying any attention to my opinions.

my main objection to Giuliani would be the fawning he was willing to do for Bush in the 2004 race

Dude, the main objection to Giuliani is that he's a megalomaniacal authoritarian.

I'm a pretty hardcore Democrat voter, but my main objection to Giuliani would be the fawning he was willing to do for Bush in the 2004 race (as did virtually every other Republican with any national stature).

If he makes it through the primaries, come back here and I'll tell you why to loathe him. Let's just say that he's not exactly an altar boy.

I think Giulani and Romney are a dream come true. Republicans have spent decades sucking up to that evangelical vote. A gay tolerant adulterer and a Mormon? BWAHAHAHAHA.

222: Neil is also all over it.

225: A Mormon who promised the Log Cabin Republicans he would be a stronger voice for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, no less.

It was a lie, of course, but still.... You can't suck up to the voters of Massachusetts and turn on them that quickly without people noticing.

Has Pataki given up yet?

Who would notice?

Ok, fair enough, you people know Giuliani's politics far better than I do, I've only known the pundit-love given to the man for his so-called fiscal-conservativism, social-liberalism. Once his views become more widely known, they'll be reflected in the new prices if they really are that anathema to the American public.

Still, the numbers are not good news for Clinton or Edwards, two people who have been getting a lot more substantive attention paid to their views in national media.

As we're still sorta on religion, i'm going to take it as an opportunity to link to this Rown Atkinson stand-up skit.

re 208/210: an important thing about these kinds of 'electability' numbers is how to interpret their conditional nature. There's an *inevitable* bias against front-runners, for the very simple reason that if a dark-horse wins the primary, there's good reason to think it was because something has happened in the intervening time to make the dark-horse suddenly look very good, and hence increase their general-election prospects. For example, Fontana Labs' electability number calculated by this method should be damn near 100%, because if some pseudonymous blogger actually managed to catapult from nothing to Democratic standard-bearer in a little over a year, that would tell you something quite awe-inspiring about his political ability.

Bottom-line: it's not at all surprising that Hilary's and McCain's numbers are low; it's an artifact of the method used. Not that I have any better methods.

The NY state legislative assembly might, seeing as they're being called into special session to vote on that Iowa-pandering law on civil committment for violent sex offenders.

But nobody else would, you're right.

I'm getting back into my area of prejudice again, but I don't think anyone should underestimate the Religious Right's determination to be deceived. The ones I've known are quite decent and even warm and charitable face-to-face and person-to-person, but they're terrified of the world further away than about 20-30 miles -- especially cities and foreigners. Sp what they're really looking for is a protector who'll tell them that everything's going to be all right.

This isn't necessarily even correlated with limited experience. someone can spend quite considerable amounts of time doing business in foreign lands, and come away with it only with the idea that foreigners are defective people who live defectively. (The more so if you're in a military context, of course.)

233 was to 229.

(That said, the contrast between Gore and Edwards' numbers is certainly interesting. You could tell a conditionality story to blunt its import--something along the lines of, 'if Gore gets nominated, it's because the Democrats are confident and want to stick with a reliable guy they know better' but there's gotta be some underlying data in there, still.)

Whatever Kerrey was about in 2004, it wasn't "Dems nominate Catholic 'cause they're OK with religion." It was more like "Wealthy windsurfer waffles wepeatedly." But I'm not bitter.

People point to Tradesports like it means anything, but it also was predicting a smashing Dean victory right up to the point where it didn't happen. All Tradesports reflects is the conventional wisdom at any given point.

Yeah, that's really true about tradesports, at least as it relates to politics. Where the "wisdom of crowds" seems like it would be most effective is when there are lots of pieces of information that are hard for any one party to amass, and then the aggregate knowledge, when reflected in the price, is more illuminating than whatever slice of information you have access to. But with politics, anyone can get a handle on the basic relevant facts, and the aggregate opinion of a bunch of people with all the facts is...conventional wisdom, not a useful synthesis.

In addition, you're gay.

In addition, you're gay.

This appears to have silenced all dissent on the issue. Maybe it should be the new hovertext.

Go Go Obama '08!!

As the token radical, I think Obama should go as religious as possible. Fiscally conservative, hawkish as possible, run to the right edge of the Democratic Base. Give Southron liberals and moderates absolutely no substantive reason to oppose him.

Then he loses 49 states to McCain in the general, and America begins to understand itself a little better. Same applies to HRC.

I cannot stand Edwards, because of the callowness, and because the theme that only a Southron Democrat can get elected will be reinforced. Hell, even if Edwards loses it will get reinforced.

Since McCain is gonna die, I would vote McCain/Brownback for my first lifetime Republican vote. President Brownback is my wet dream.

Nah, I am a pretty "heightening contradictions" but nuclear war and gay ovens are a step too far. I take it back. I would stay home or vote Green or libertarian.

LB, you're missing that Obama is engaging the "Democrats are hostile to religion" stereotype ironically. He can't just pretend the stereotype doesn't exist.

In conclusion, "Mothers Who Think" is a splendid department title.

Denkendemutterabteilung

In conclusion, "Mothers Who Think" is a splendid department title.

Knew you'd come around eventually.

Truly, it is the finer mind's title of choice.

Next, you'll learn to appreciate the value of calling men shrill.

I'd love to, B, but I'm learning to appreciate the value of calling men shrill.

And then, the value of shrill men.

However! You're doing well on the "humorless" and "pissing off Ogged" bit, so there's hope yet.

I want to learn to have a finer mind too. How should I think about fashion magazines?

242,243:240 comments on this micro-issue drove me insane sorry.

I read every one of them, and they were wonderful.

Can I be shrill as a baritone? Basso profundis?

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ (UCC) denomination and attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, according to UCC News.

"The United Church of Christ has now merged with the largest gay church in the world, called the Cathedral of Hope, in Texas," LaBarbera notes. "And so they're welcoming in churches that are embracing homosexuality, so they've become one of the most liberal denominations in the country."

What Obama needs is to learn how to speak to religious people. Going to this phony liberal church isn't fooling real Christians.

I'm a bit bewildered by the "callow" label as applies to Edwards. As compared to whom? George W. Bush? Ronald Reagan? Of any of the candidates, Edwards has, by far, the most specific and substantive policy positions. Not that those in any way make a candidate more electable, as we've had a damn poor record with the deep, thoughtful candidates (Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, Kerry), but still.

This sounds like buying into the Republican narrative. The narrow swing demographic that decides presidential contests votes on personality. Now, Obama (who maybe is running and maybe isn't) seems to have a winning personality, but I really, really doubt the country has reached the point where it's ready to elect a black president, no matter what people tell pollsters. I'd love to be proven wrong, but god I'd hate to be proven right.

I like Edwards a lot, and I like him more and more. I could easily see voting for him--in the general in a heartbeat, and possibly in a primary, if Obama disappoints and no one else emerges. (I could also see voting for Clark.)

He looks like he would be cheesy with the hair and smile and what not, but he's actually not.

I'm militantly against voting on electability grounds in primaries, especially when it leads you to think, "okay, I'm certainly not voting for anyone who's not a white male." I try to vote for the person who I think will be the best President. (Political skills are relevant to that, of course, so they don't get totally excluded...but I voted for Dean last time, and I'm still sort of glad I did. Dean really wasn't all that electable, but people first decided he was unelectable solely because of civil unions and opposition to the Iraq war, the latter of which would have been an asset by fall 2004. I'm just too stubborn to vote against someone because they're black, female, Jewish, live in the Northeast, because they agree with me on the crucial issues of the day....anyway, the Democratic primary electorate is collectively pretty lousy at guessing who's most electable.)

There are advantages to being a black candidate. High African-American turnout & more favorable press coverage. And as black candidates go, I think Obama would have an easier time than a whole lot of them. We'll never know whether the US would vote for a black candidate until we take the chance of nominating one.

Also, I'm not sure whether it should influence me that Obama's hq is likely to be in Chicago, but it does. I want to try to get involved in some substantive policy way--I don't know if that's possible; I've never done anything but the usual entry-level volunteer stuff; but this time around I'm a lot more qualified.

Katherine, my one bit of advice about getting involved is that the earlier you do it, the better your chances of being able to do something interesting, before the all the jealously guarded positions are filled. That's particularly true if you want to work for Obama, who every ambitious and conscientious young lawyer in the country with an interest in politics is going to want to work for.

pledging allegiance, under god, to a flag is sacrilegious.

This is an excellent point. Are there no longer any Protestants in America?

edwards looked a lot less used car salesmanish on the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdcb81YWWnI&eurl=

Katherine, if you do manage to figure out how to get involved, let me know. what it is I've been thinking the same thing; I'm going to be in Chicago, and I think it's about time for me to do something political besides read blogs.

Historians, M/tch, anyone else who feels like giving me advice: I'm looking to buy a gift for someone who happens to be going on vacation to China. And I was thinking it might be nice to get some grasp on Chinese history before they go, so either a good quality non-fiction but broad in scope history of China (for lay people) or historical fiction which doesn't get too much wrong, or for that matter a dvd or two.

Has M/tch been to China???

260: I will definitely do that (and feel free to email me--this will help keep me motivated and not just put this off). I have one of his staffer's contact info, and had told her I would prepare some briefing materials (particularly the stuff we were looking at with regard to the CSRTs earlier this fall)...have not yet gotten around to doing so because life has been nuts, and whenever I've gotten time off I've wanted to do something that was actually fun and lighthearted. But that doesn't seem like a bad place to start, even though campaign staff & Senate staff is separate.

I think we have a shot. Paid positions are nearly impossible without a connection, but unpaid are an entirely different story. These are big issues & I would guess we've been following them a bit more closely than anyone he has on staff, since their staffers' responsibilities are divided in many directions. During the debate over the MCA I had the distinct impression that many Democratic Senators had just heard of Maher Arar, and that he was one of the only cases of actual innocence that they knew about.

by the way, are you definitely in Chicago after you finish school? (answer via email if you prefer...)

263, 264: You know, thinking about it now, I guess I have a contact too, as I have a friend who will be interning at Obama's office next spring. That's not really a "staffer", even broadly construed, but it's still something. The CSRTs definitely does look like a place to start, especially since we now have a lot of information.

And yeah, happily, I'll be in Chicago after I graduate (I'll email you the details). I'll probably actually be hitting you and your colleagues up in a year or so, I'll be looking for a number of pro bono counsel in the project I'm going to be doing. Any other Chicago lawyers that want to help out, feel free to email me, too.

Edwards will announce his candidacy after Christmas in the Lower Ninth Ward.

Wow, wondered why my ears were burning.

Anyway, to clarify - Obama's triangulation is more rhetorical than real. One can triangulate by picking a Third Way position, or one can triangulate by picking a position and calling it the Third Way and that's what Obama tends to do. See Tomasky's review of his book in the NYRB. It may be dishonest or he may genuinely mean it, and I don't much care. Dishonesty has an honorable place in politics. My problem with triangulation has nothing to do with dishonesty or personal affront - I don't expect politicians to cater to me in their speeches. My problem with triangulation is that it's a way for a man to win an election, but not a way to build a party's brand. It's a short term strategy to benefit an individual, not a long term strategy to increase the size of the tribe.

As for me hating religion, I really don't. I'd certainly say so if I did. Either as belief systems or institutions religions in general terms don't bother me. I'm sure my contempt for the Christian conservative political movement at times comes across as being anti-religious, but the fact is I'm really not. I don't know why my failure to aggressively promote or link to explicitly religious bloggers should surprise anybody. I'm a secular person, it's not my role to pick the "right Christians" over the "wrong" ones. That's a theological debate they can have with each other. If religious people support a policy agenda which I agree with, great, but I'm not interested in reading religious justifications for those positions.

quick - someone toss atrios a fruit basket

Here you go.

266: The conjunction of "Edwards" and "Lower Ninth Ward" had me staring agape at the screen. "That bastard has mega-rebound mojo." Then I clicked on the link and the world made sense again. (I blame the Houston air. Just breathing it stupids you something wicked.)

Obama sucks. He's TOTALLY a Republican. We should get behind someone more progressive like that nice Joe Biden or Evan Bayh. Hell, this Tom Vilsack person might even have opposed the war in Iraq for all I know.

What Atrios said. Sincerity has nothing to do with it.

My problem with triangulation is that it's a way for a man to win an election, but not a way to build a party's brand. It's a short term strategy to benefit an individual, not a long term strategy to increase the size of the tribe.

That's a good description of what's wrong with triangulation, and Obama has veered into that a bit, but for the most part, isn't he increasing the size of the tribe by making it seem more open to religion? I guess the answer to that depends on how much he seems to be campaigning for himself, and how much he's seen as the standard-bearer for the party.

As for me hating religion, I really don't.

Ok, but when you say things like

For an agnostic/atheist like myself lots of religious beliefs sound pretty nutty to me

there aren't many ways for a religious person to take that--it's more "I'll put up with you" than "welcome to the party."

Lots of religious beliefs sound nutty to me. Lots of religious beliefs sound nutty to religious people, too, even the most ecumenical and open minded ones. Lots of religious people think I'm both nutty and damned, which is pretty harsh really.

Amy Sullivan and Joe Lieberman (Obama's Senate mentor) are the two of the main reasons people distrust Obama's religious talk. To me, the phrase "God fearing" is so meaningless and cheesy, and the fact that Obama used it offends me. Newt Gingrich, who has announced that it is his new mission to put God back at the center of American life and culture, would probably call himself "God fearing": leaving aside the details of his personal life, this is a man who told his followers to call their political opponents "sick", "traitors", etc. Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity and score of other professional haters who merchandise and profit from their anger by stoking other people's hatred and anger, all consider themselves "God fearing", I'm sure. They should fear god, I tremble for them when I think that there may be a just god.

As a skeptic, I don't fear God, I strive in spite of my own human failings to imitate that example of Christ, to treat everyone as I would like to be treated. To remember the least among us, to do what I can to feed the hungry, help the poor, cure the sick. I'm far from perfect, but I try.

Today I read an article about "born again billionaire Phillip Anschutz". There's no such thing as a Christian millionaire, much less billionaire. There are few things in the New Testament that are crystal clear and un-contradicted by something else in the New Testament: This is one of them: you can't be filthy rich and Christian.

No thanks to any of you, but after calling my friend who spent some time after college in China and asking her, the answer I got to 261 (in case anyone else was curious) was Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China and either of Peter Hessler's books.

On a different note, the Giant's play today has me totally lacking confidence in them.

The Search for Modern China

That book is really, really, really, really, really, really long, and by the time I got to the middle of it I did not remember a single thing from the first third of it. There's just too many characters and places of seemingly equal importance. I think a biography of one of the important figures in Chinese history would be easier to read and you would learn more from it.

> Ok, but when you say things like
>
>> For an agnostic/atheist like myself lots of religious
>> beliefs sound pretty nutty to me
>
> there aren't many ways for a religious person to
> take that--it's more "I'll put up with you" than
> "welcome to the party."

What is the position of majority, mainstream Christians on the theory of the Hidden Imam?

Cranky

What is the position of majority, mainstream Christians on the theory of the Hidden Imam?

They think it sounds pretty nutty. But if people who believed in the theory of the Hidden Imam made up a majority of the United States's population, those mainstream Christians would have to avoid expressing their scorn and disbelief if they wanted to get elected. As you probably would, if you wanted to get elected to office here.

WE SHOULD NOT HOLD BACK OUR CRITICISMS OF SKY FAIRY BELIEVERS.

NEVER COMPROMISE. THE GOAL IS CHIMPEACHING THE CHIMPEROR. THIS WILL NOT BE DONE BY NEGOTIATION OR BIPARTISANSHIP. THE COUNTRY IS WAITING FOR OUR LEADERSHIP.

Are you almost done with that computer?

Which brings us, as it always does, back to the beginning - no democratic politicians are running around calling peoples' individual religious beliefs nutty. Some Republican politicians are, one way or another, by directing various degrees of bigotry against Muslims.

One more thing on the nutty issue - the fact that I think they're nutty does not preclude the possibility that they are, in fact, true. I think Young Earth Creationism is pretty damn nutty because of all of the scientific evidence against it, but Young Earth Creationism might actually be 100% true, in which case the joke's on me.

281 is one of the best things I've read all day.

WheRE'd thAt Damn cAPs LOck gO?

I'm surprised at how few of Atrios's commenters left posts here.

there aren't many ways for a religious person to take that--it's more "I'll put up with you" than "welcome to the party."

But there's going to be something like this for everyone. I'm sure there's people here who think my view on guns is nuts. There's people in the party who think any income over a couple hundred grand should be taxed at 90 percent, which I think is nuts.

But so what? That's the Democratic party. No lock step here, never has been. But the religious tend to think they should get some kind of special dispensation for their beliefs. "Oh my, it's just so disrepectful when someone says something detrimental. Don't they know it's my religion.?"

285: Me too. I've gotten a significant amount of residual linkage from my "self-promotion" up-thread, but nothing in terms of comments. I think this says something about the poor quality of his commenters, who would rather build a "community" of like-minded drones then engage in the hard work of political coalition-building. Really, they're all talk, no action--not that that stops them from taking credit for ousting the Republicans. Most of them didn't even vote.

(that should do it, I think)

...Did any of them? You're right, that is odd.

289 -> 285

Oh sure, get the place overrun by fucking hippies.

More! Groovy! Street! Theater!

I was assuming that Rory and Jim came over with the Atrios link, but that's two, and by the time I posted 285, the Eschaton thread linking to this post had over 250 comments. Few of which had to do with the post's content. I know that we who comment on Unfogged have precious little high ground to remark on feral comments sections, but...

242: If you're the token radical bob, what the hell does that make me? (Answer: Just a n00b)

254: The UCC is a lot more of a "real" Christian denomination than any of those Romish "churches". Not to mention the so-called "Protestants" at those awful mega-churches. They're all about 5 minutes away from wheeling out a golden calf to pray too. Anyway, there's nothing further from Christ than the daily practice of 99% of "Christians."

P.S. "Here are some more" "scare" "quotes", "just in case", "you" "haven't had" "enough."

Maybe they're just not rude enough to start throwing bombs in the end of a thread, or not patient enough to get up to speed, or not original enough to have anything to say that hasn't already been said?

I'm sure there's people here who think my view on guns is nuts.

Sure, but we're not actively trying to recruit gun afficianados. Were we, some rhetoric would have to change.

They're all about 5 minutes away from wheeling out a golden calf to pray too.

You know, I think we need a 2006 version of The Grand Inquisitor.

a 2006 version of The Grand Inquisitor

It would have to be prefixed with an "e" or an "i" -- maybe eTorquemada? or YouPurge?

Sure, but we're not actively trying to recruit gun afficianados.

But isn't this part of the Western state strategy? For example, common ground between hunters and environmentalists in preservation of public lands? You don't have to be pro gun to reach out that demographic. But finding common ground with religious groups often seems to entail proving you're pro religion.

finding common ground with religious groups often seems to entail proving you're pro religion.

Or at least that you're not really anti-religion. I'm not sure to what degree those groups are looking for vocally pious Christians to vote for, as opposed merely to people who they're sure won't be distributing atheism manuals in the classroom. The former implies the latter, so it might just be a case of "better safe then sorry" for them.

298: Sort of. But I imagine when campaigning to the hunter they leave the PETA types at home. And you might even start it off with "You know, we hippie types have a reputation for thinking that anyone owns a gun is a redneck with a drinking problem. And we've been bad about that. But we have a lot in common, as the hunter wants the wildlife protected just as much as the conservationists do blah blah blah."

I don't think you'd have to prove you're pro-religion, but you're going to have to manage to look as if you don't tolerate it as a parlor trick. Most of the backlash here seems to consist of people saying "But I'm not anti-religion, I'm just not thrilled about religious arguments in the public sphere." And that's fine, but Obama wasn't accusing anyone of any more anti-religious sentiment than that. Unless there's something I haven't read, which is certainly possible.

.

300!

Curse you, Cala!

The fighting thread is a few over, ahem.

I could take JM. She's in literature.

Oh, no! Another female Unfogged commenter with whom I have to rumble! (Consensus view on JM vs. Tia, as far as I could tell: I'd win in a fair fight, but we wouldn't have a fair fight, now would we?)

JM, we could rumble at UnfoggeDCon, but I'd totally kick your ass.

I dispute that. However, were we to rumble at UnfoggeDCon, I'm sure that many bloggers would be more than willing to publicize the results of our challenge to the whole wide world, so the matter could be settled once and for all!

By the by, who's live-bloggin' the DCon? Will there be wirleless (802.11b/g or better)? I haven't received my packet yet.

"wireless" whoops...

300 - 'Most of the backlash here seems to consist of people saying "But I'm not anti-religion, I'm just not thrilled about religious arguments in the public sphere."'

This is relentless straw, isn't it? Seems to me that people just aren't thrilled about enforced religiosity in the public sphere.

Also, I bask in the rightness of every word from LB above. I'm astonished those arguing with her haven't sued for peace.

The line that Democrats are hostile to religion is fundamentally a Republican smear line. As so many have said, there are no Democratic leaders who do or say anything hostile to religion, and the Amy Sullivans and others who mouth this line can never in fact identify Democrats who are hostile to religion.

There is not a whole lot of difference between the line that Democrats are hostile to religion and the line that there is a war on Christmas.

Democrats are hostile to the policies of conservative religious Republicans (such as abortion), but being hostile to policy positions fundamentally is not hostility to religion. It is the religious conservatives who wrongly conflate the two -- that is because they have such a narrow view of religion in the first instance.

To ever say in any way that Democrats must therefore respond to this false accusation by being friendlier regarding religion is to be sucked into the false message. Attack the assumption at its core -- explain why pro-abortion rights is the religious position. Explain why economic populism is the Christian position. Never buy into the false framing of the issue by religious conservatives.

Obama has stumbled on this, and its disturbing.

Cala, as others have said, what you've got there isn't a problem with the Democratic Party, but with the Republican lie about it and the media's willing repetition of that lie. For decades now the Democrats have been presenting for the presidency men of sincere faith and vastly better life than the Republicans, and Democratic ranks in Congress and state government include a great many women and men who hold devoutly to some form of American Christianity. They are as a group much less likely to be divorcing their wives while they're in the hospital recovering from cancer, or ripping off the government in business deals to supply shoddy goods at fraudulent prices, or saying "fuck you" to their colleagues and claiming it's okay because it made them felt good. When they do sin, they don't seem to be in nearly so much of a rush to glamorize or even just excuse it. (I don't agree with many of their views, but I can see what's in their creeds and apply those standards, as I'm doing here.)

Furthermore, Democratic polices are not only good for the country, they accord better with the gospel's clear directions when it comes to making peace rather than war, tending to the needs of the poorest and the outcast (remember the parable of the Good Samaritan: we are not at liberty to dismiss the needs of people just because we don't like them), accounting faithfully for the resources given into our stewardship, and a lot more.

If none of that counts as much as the right kind of holy talk, regardless of the words behind it, then the one with the Christianity problem is you. Jesus said that it wasn't those who said "Lord, Lord" who would enter into the kingdom of heaven, but those who do his will. He told the disciples who complained of others doing good in Jesus' name without being part of their organization, "What is that to you? Follow me." He said that we are judged by the fruit of our labor. He warned us against ostentatious displays of holiness, as of wealth.

He also warned his disciples that the devil's minions would always spread lies about those who do good work. Look for yourself and see which party is lying about the other, systematically, unrepentently, viciously. Surely the truth of their actions ought to matter at some point? Are you really giving proper weight to reality, rather than lip service?

Presidential Debate, Johnstown, Iowa. January 4, 2004

Norris: Governor Dean, you said this week that you plan to become - to begin including more references to God and Jesus through your campaign swings in the South. Some of your critics and columnists immediately seized on this and said it smacked of political opportunism. Which goes to something I hear from Democratic voters time and time again this year: a frustration that the Democratic Party seems to have a difficult time talking about religion and matters of faith.

Dean: You know, I have grown up in the Northeast my entire life. In the Northeast, we do not talk openly about religion. I spent a lot of time in the South and have a lot of friends from the South. In the South, people do integrate religion, openly, easily, into their life, both black Southerners and white Southerners. I understand if I'm going to campaign from the - for the presidency of the United States, I have to be comfortable in the milieu that other Americans are comfortable, not just from my own region, for anywhere else. I think any columnist who questions my belief is over the line. But I do believe that it is important for the President of the United States to be comfortable everywhere, and I plan to learn how to do that.

[...]

Hardball, October 17, 2004

MATTHEWS: You know, we read a lot in the papers about the concerns of the rest of the country outside of New England that this candidate, the Democratic party, John Kerry, isn't sufficiently religious in his public manner. Do you think New Englanders, when they run for president, have to change their manner towards their religious belief in order to accommodate the more overt religious expression of people in the Bible Belt?

DEAN: I don't think it hurts to openly discuss religion. It is something we don't do all that much in our part of the country. But the truth is, New Englanders have a lot in common, and Democrats have a lot in common with the religious community. I sort of think of the president's party as the Sadducees and the Pharisees. They talk a lot about things but they're kind of the money changers. They make the big money, they give our taxpayer money to the big corporations.

Democrats ought to be, if they're good Democrats, more concerned about working people, the ordinary kinds of people that Jesus really cared about in the Bible. So I think it is fine for Senator Kerry to talk about religion. I think it is in the context of religion that we can relate to people who, for whom religion is a very important part of their life. I don't think we have to give up on the religious community. As long as we make clear our values are not the values of the Republicans who care about the rich men trying to get into Heaven just like passing the camel through (the) needle's eye, I would like to see Democrats stick to their values of helping the kind of people that Jesus talked about in the New Testament. so I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about religion as long as we keep our values.

[...]

The thing that gets me is that there really doesn't seem to be all that much difference between what Dean and Obama are saying here. Whenever I read these debates, I'm put in mind of Fafblog's "If only there was some kinda way to bridge this vast an terrible ideological gap!" post.

I disagree that Obama's "terrible" on civil liberties He may triangulate in news articles, but he was one of a handful of Democrats to sign onto legislation barring extraordinary rendition last year, one of 15 to vote against Michael Hayden. He spoke out and voted against the Military Commission bill, although people are right to say that he wasn't a leader on it.

But "terrible"? Compared to what?

Finally, regarding Amy Sullivan and some of the comments on the unreachability of evangelical voters, you might find this bloggingheads segment from a month-and-a-half ago interesting.