This makes me want to burn a flag.

Fireman's blind, the conductor's lame
something something something sad-luck dame

This makes me want to burn a flag.

Awesome.

Pittsburgh's congressman is in that group, but he's also very good on just about all the issues we should care about, including standing up for mash-ups.

I just looked at Apo's post, and the thought popped into my head that Apo is demographically perfect for either Hillary or McCain: a white, middle-class, married Southerner with kids.

Get with the program, Apo! Science says you're a Republican with possible DLC leanings. What are you, some kind of anti-evolution flat-earther? Do what science tells you to do. Science doesn't needany fucking outliers.

Sure, Apo purports to be a pansexual perv, but we only have his own word for that. And even so: in what sense does that make him less Republican?

Damn, if I had known Barbara Ehrenreich posted there, I would actually check out Huff Post once in a while. So Hillary's nuts, but it's a net gain for me.

Huffington has the most diverse writers anywhere, on both sides of the fine line between stupid and clever. I quit going because there was so much crap to sort through.

For a crazy person, Ariana is wonderful, and yes, I know how it sounds for me to say something like that.

Apo is demographically perfect for either Hillary or McCain

Aside from the whole socialist, atheist, hedonist part.

6. Ehrenreich has her own blog. She cross-posts at Huff-Po occasionally.

See those are all statistically insignificant outliers. Don't be an outlier, Apo! Be scientific! Be all that you can be! Respect the bell curve!

And don't give me New Age pomo shit about "long tails".

Here is an article from 2003 by Jeff Sharlett in Harper's on his experience in the group. Presumably the forthcoming book will cover this plus more.

And don't give me New Age pomo shit about "long tails".

But, but, but...

Bad things happen to people who screw up the norm, Apo.

Clinton's rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing "religious freedom" in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

Wait, what?? Did she really?

Fucking bitch.

I think they're talking about the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. I have to say, I don't even remember this one - or that Kerry was also a co-sponsor. The ACLU's complaint about it was pretty appalling, and it didn't even raise the pharmacist issue, though others did.

5, 7, 10, 13 Which means you must disclose your tax returns to the Unfoggedariate to win back the high ground.

There's a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

I doubt very much that Clinton is a lot more vulnerable than Obama, frankly. In order for Clinton to be more vulnerable, this fellowship would have to perceived (either by 'middle America,' or by the media who claim to represent that mythical entity) to be well outside the religious mainstream. Which it probably isn't, or wouldn't be. I'm sorry, but "Clinton attends weekly Senate prayer breakfast" is just not the stuff of which scandals are made.

It sounds creepy and tacky to me. But I am neither a typical voter, nor a media person who claims to be taking the pulse of the same.

I quit going because there was so much crap to sort through.

Even their rss feeds are nearly unreadable. And yet:

What most impresses advertisers--and depresses newspaper-company executives--is the site's growth numbers. In the past thirty days, thanks in large measure to the excitement of the Democratic primaries, the site's "unique visitors"--that is, individual computers that clicked on one of its pages--jumped to more than eleven million, according to the company. And, according to estimates from Nielsen NetRatings and comScore, the Huffington Post is more popular than all but eight newspaper sites, rising from sixteenth place in December.

I have spent a great deal of time in churches and around religious people, particularly when I was a child, we never engaged in anything that was or could have been called a "prayer breakfast." Is it like a game of round-robin grace-saying? Exquisite Corpse where the winner is the first one to find something that rhymes with "St. John Chrysostom"? "Woo! Jesus!" chest bumps?

I hate this godless culture.

19: But, see, if you're talking "rhymes with 'St John Chrysostom?'" you're probably not talking mainstream American religiosity.

St. John Chrysostom / faint, wan, nom nom nom!

My dim recollections of prayer breakfasts is that they invariably involve a casserole made of Jimmy Dean sausage, eggs, torn pieces of white bread, and colby cheese. I can't speak knowledgeably as to the casserole's theological signficance, but the ritual seemed to liturgically standardized.

Sacrilicious.

Come on, Knecht. I expect better from you. Provide a just-so story as to the theological significance of the meal within the next fifteen minutes, if you please.

Well, I believe the layers of the casserole recapitulate the Gospel story. Beginning at the bottom, we have the Jimmy Dean sausage, representing the swine that were driven into the sea after Jesus cast out the demons. After that comes the torn pieces of white bread, symbolizing the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Then comes the egg, symbolizing the New Covenant promised to the disciples in the last supper, which is mixed with milk(sort of like wine for tee-totalers). On top you have the crusty melted cheese, representing the transfiguration.

Alongside the casserole you have orange juice, representing the sweet hope of redemption from our sinful nature, and donuts, whose circular form represents the eternity we will spend in the bosom of Christ in heaven.

In what respect does the egg symbolize the new covenant, and the cheese the transfiguration?

Egg=inception, cheese=melty. Come on, young w-lfs-n.

In what respect does the egg symbolize the new covenant, and the cheese the transfiguration?

What are you, some kind of atheist? God said it, I believe it, end of discussion.

I call shenanigans on Knecht's admittedly creative extra-biblical exegesis. Nobody who has recently posted about baking hot cross buns during Easter Week can reasonably claim to remember, or even to dimly recall, anything like a typical prayer breakfast.

I don't think Obama can bring this up, but other people should.

Yeah, they probably should, but as noted, unless it's reported in a way that doesn't strike people -- where by "people" I mean consumers of main stream media, not readers of Yglesias or whoever -- as just "oh, prayer meeting, that's nice," it goes nowhere.

I tell you what! Get enough of the blogosphere talking about it (they are already, probably, Huffington Post being not exactly under the radar), and Jon Stewart will cover it. He often sounds like a reprise of the last day or two of blog news.

No, actually, he won't. Nothing divisive of the Democratic party, I think is his policy.

I seriously doubt many people in philosophy are trying to measure or equate things in any such way

They segregate themselves into "cells." This shouldn't be a hard sell.

The problem with Wright wasn't that he was religious, it was that he was black and angry. The Fellowship is nearly all honkies and thus perfectly fine.

31: Fair enough. I suppose.

Here's one for Russert to ask about:

23. To the world in general we will say that we are "in Christ" rather than "Christian"--"Christian" having become a political term in most of the world and in the United States a meaningless term.

Do you believe that "Christian" is a meaningless term, Senator Clinton? Hmmm?????

And,

In a document entitled "Our Common Agreement as a Core Group," members of the Family are instructed to form a "core group," or a "cell," which is defined as "a publicly invisible but privately identifiable group of companions." A document called "Thoughts on a Core Group" explains that "Communists use cells as their basic structure. The mafia operates like this, and the basic unit of the Marine Corps is the four man squad. Hitler, Lenin, and many others understood the power of a small core of people."

32: If that were the only problem with Wright, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. I have about zero sympathy with "false equivalence," fake "let's-pretend-it's-actually-a-level-playing-field" arguments, where black resistance to/anger against white domination is magically transformed into "well, that's racist, too" and after all, aren't black people just as racist as whites? Um, no.

Problem is, Wright goes well beyond a justifiable anger/call to action, and into a realm of sheer kookiness that includes some really unfortunate ethnic slurs. The man's a loose cannon, is what I mean, and so far as I can make out, almost gratuitously so. The Italians with their "garlic noses," for example. Well, okay, he really meant the ancient Romans, I guess, but then, why did he say "Italians," and do you honestly think this isn't going to matter for Obama come November '08?

Mary Catherine is right, to the extent that 'but Santorum attended it' probably makes Clinton's attending it better in the eyes of those currently wetting their pants because Obama's pastor didn't say 'so those moneychangers in the Temple, they got a raw deal.'

I have never experienced a prayer breakfast because proper Catholics go to fish frys.

But only on Fridays.

But of course. Seriously, it's a family event!

To the world in general we will say that we are "in Christ" rather than "Christian"

"in Cahoots" might be better.

Which it probably isn't, or wouldn't be.

a) All the Hitler-and-his-fellow-totalitarians idolatry is pretty creepy (what Ogged quotes is just a sampling).
b) The affiliation with wingnut preachers, and subsequent adoption of some of their views, should do some damage among Democratic voters if it gets wide enough play (and it really should, especially since one of her selling points is "good on feminist issues" and this story reveals that to be at least partly false).
c) There are probably at least some Dems who still remember what men like Suharto were, and the Family's association with such figures should give them pause.

None of this will hurt her among Republican voters, particularly. Most of those who had enough moral fibre to be creeped out by item a) are already Democrats by now.

39: Zing! You guys see that? Gonerill totally zinged 'em!

What a burn!

41: Father Ted's always got a trick or two up his clerical sleeve. Or else: who's up for a game of table tennis!

The Rev. Moon is a much better target, and we have people at work on him!

None of this will hurt her among Republican voters, particularly.

I'm genuinely unsure about this. Insofar as it confirms perceptions of her as thinking she knows better and being bizarrely power-hungry, it might. It seems she could be made to either defend the organization (which makes things like "'Christian' is meaningless" difficult) or she has to distance herself from it, which sets her up for being accused of joining only out of opportunism.

ogged, seriously, do you think it's a good idea for the Democratic primary to get into one candidate accusing the other of Communist tendencies? How is this different from so many of the criticisms leveled against Clinton for her attacks on Obama?

I am not talking about whether Clinton's involvement with this group is a good and proper thing which we embrace; even if it's not Obama's campaign or his supporters who lead the charge, it's fodder in the general for attacks against the Democrats.

On preview, 40.3: None of this will hurt her among Republican voters, particularly.

No, it's the swing voters. They presumably don't need to hear an intensification of the notion that the Dems want to take your money and steal your children (or the reverse), just like those socialist communists who want your taxes and hide out in secret cabals .. and really, it won't matter much that that makes no sense in conjunction with a purported embrace of Christ, since it's continuous with a tale of perversion.

Zing! You guys see that? Gonerill totally zinged 'em! What a burn!

I'm having dinner with a friend of yours tomorrow.

What?

I have friends?

43: What Emerson means to say is that he has been recently, if not secretly, initiated into the Moonie mysterium, and is now willing to perform mass marriage ceremonies, even against his own no-relationships policy, but only for a considerable price.

I have friends?

OK, well maybe "friend" isn't the right word.

Enemy? Acquaintance?

Why must you taunt me so?

Come onnnnnnnnnnnn email me and let me in on the secret!

I have friends?

The enemies of thine enemies, young Ben. So I guess Gonerill plans to break bread with those arseholes or something.

Come onnnnnnnnnnnn email me

OK, OK.

44: I don't think "Christian is meaningless" will be that much of a problem for Republicans, actually. This is one of those things that sounds like it should sound bizarre to the remaining Evangelical base but actually won't, because "in Christ" is widespread and recognized code for superior piety.

45.1: It's not so much the communism thing as the free-association stew of communism, mafia, Hitler et cetera. Calling her out on the Family connection wouldn't be red-baiting.

It also has the advantage of not being just a tactical maneuver, unlike pretty much everything the Clinton campaign has done since Super Tuesday. The Family is genuinely creepifying for all sorts of really good reasons.

45.2: Sounds about right.

That turned out to be much less interesting than it might have been.

You take the piss and you think I'm going to throw you a bone?

You take the piss and you think I'm going to throw you a bone?

Poor Read.

Calling her out on the Family connection wouldn't be red-baiting.

Yeah, well, it also wouldn't be something that would, you know, actually work. C'mon. Get real, if not actively and actually cynical.

58: Work with whom?

Religion is ok, Mary Catherine, but a cult isn't. Neither is opportunism.

Everything I needed to know...

... I learned while being beaten about the face and legs by the Christian Brothers.

59: With the electorate and/or with the media and punditry who claim to speak for said same.

You probably do need to realize that the Republic of Virtue, aka the Blogosphere, is not necessarily, and often not at all, the same thing as America the Beautiful, and apple pies and Chevrolets and all the rest of it. But who am I to tell you that, after all?

54: It's not so much the communism thing as the free-association stew of communism, mafia, Hitler et cetera. Calling her out on the Family connection wouldn't be red-baiting.

Depends a lot on what's emphasized in the story about the Family. But any way you cut it, a free-association is bad enough to associate with the Democratic party in general. The question is whether you can associate it with a particular candidate without its bleeding over onto the entire party. I tend to think you can, but the increasingly established wisdom around here is that you can't.

So. I don't know, I've actually just read the Ehrenreich piece linked in the post (I'd already read a fair amount about the prayer group), and a couple of her other blog posts, and she's surely not the one to be talking about this. Last sentence refers to Clinton's connection to a fascist-leaning family.

61: Best line I've ever heard about the Christian Brothers comes from a friend of my parents who suffered under their tyranny in childhood: "Too goddamn stupid to get themselves into the priesthood, and too goddamn homely to get themselves wives."

62: WRT the Dem electorate, or at least some portion thereof, a hopefully-not-particularly-starry-eyed 40 to 62.

You probably do need to realize that the Republic of Virtue, aka the Blogosphere, is not necessarily, and often not at all, the same thing as America the Beautiful, and apple pies and Chevrolets and all the rest of it.

Thanks! You probably do need to realize that I will now reserve the right to treat you with absurd, unearned condescension at some unspecified point in the future. Fuck you very much.

63: a free-association is bad enough to associate with the Democratic party in general

Given that the story is about HRC specifically, I don't see how one goes about tying it to "the Democratic party in general." Except insofar as GOP hacks are already trying to do that, but that's already happened and the Family wouldn't seem like their first choice as a further excuse.

Well sure, if Ehrenreich's the only one talking about it, I doubt it will go anywhere.

already trying to do that

(where "that" = "associate Democrats with an incoherent stew of evil")

65: Yeah, thanks for coming out, DS. There's always a B-team.

And please do feel free to throw the "absurd, unearned condescension" at me at whatever point in time best pleases you. Believe you me, I can take it.

DS, I'm just trying to think from the perspective of those weird people who are somehow torn between the Dem party and McCain. It's a reasonable proposal to try to distinguish, in the minds of the electorate, two factions of the Dem party: the Clinton (DNC) and the Obama (outlier, newcomer). What I'm wondering is whether the electorate at large is willing to make that distinction. The party's obviously carrying a lot of baggage, not necessarily from recent Democratic administrations, but also from their apparently horrible assessment of the latest Democratic congress.

It's, as I say, a worthwhile thing: this is the new Democratic party, right? So if Obama's the nominee (likely), that'd be the story to go with. Dissociate, differentiate. So maybe. We all know that the Republicans are still going to pull out the 'they want to raise your taxes and make your daughters have abortions and smoke a peace pipe with the dirty towel-heads' routine regardless.

68.1: There's always a B-team.

Good work! At this rate, we should make it to "I'm rubber, you're glue" in another three comments.

69: Clinton and Obama both have pretty distinctive brands, either Old Establishment/Original Clinton-Brand Antichrist or New-Line Grassroots/Black Muslim Terrorist-Brand Antichrist respectively. Maybe it's possible that a distinctly Clinton-associated story seeps into the Obama brand, but I'm not sure how likely that is.

71: Oh, this is good. Variant brands of the Antichrist. Now we are understanding each other. I see: Clinton is a fascist/Hitleresque corporate type, Obama is a different type. They both believe in god, however you may perceive him. That's pretty much the story as Democrats see it already, isn't it?

So what's with these people who are currently undecided, either between Clinton/Obama or between the Democratic or the Republican parties in general? What do we need to explain to them?

Basically just a question of gut appeal, isn't it? Obama vs. Clinton is the "Yes, We Can" brand vs. the "Isn't it about goddamned time for a female President?" brand, and a question of whether the Clinton campaign is capable of dragging the latter through enough muck that it becomes nonviable in the public mind. Probably already happened.

Clinton vs. McCain is the "I'm not Republican... quite" brand vs. the "I will crush our enemies, including the Original Antichrist, and see them driven before me" brand. Obama vs. McCain is the "Yes, we can" brand vs. the "I will crush our enemies, including the Muslim Terrorist-and-incidentally-Black Antichrist, and see them driven before me" brand.

All those identities are pretty well established, I think.

Those identities are currently framed as you say with respect to the Democratic primary. Truth be told, I don't have much of a clue what Republicans / McCain supporters are thinking, because I think they're running against the Dem party in general rather than against a particular candidate. So far.

With respect to the general election, I think we ain't seen nothing yet, and the branding you propose will necessarily be changing at that time.

None of this is new of course; frex just last month Clinton was caught sucking up to the Moonies.

I don't see why people think this sort of stuff isn't a negative for Clinton. I mean: sekrit sinister meetings with Republicans? At a time when nigh on the whole Democratic voting base is hating on bi-partisanism?

And of course for the hardcore nutzoid Republican base, any hint of Clinton + secret meetings is just a confirmation of their paranoia.

The stuff Ehrenreich talks about it only troublesome to people who are already not Republicans and (mostly) already Hillary-haters, so it's really non-functional in electoral terms. Making too much noise about it could be counter-productive, though. It does bother me, but I was already bothered.

Moon, on the other hand, is a **heretic** who thinks that he's (no joke, literally true) bigger than Jesus. He has an army of zombie slaves. He's a foreigner and a convicted felon. He has his own foreign policy. And he's succeeded in bribing his way to massive influence in the Republican Party and even within the Christian community.

Christianity-wise, he's exactly on a par with Muhammed, who also thought of himself as Jesus' successor and surpasser.

76: Is all that stuff about Rev. Moon true, John? You make him sound almost as bad as George W. Bush.

I call shenanigans on Knecht's admittedly creative extra-biblical exegesis. Nobody who has recently posted about baking hot cross buns during Easter Week can reasonably claim to remember, or even to dimly recall, anything like a typical prayer breakfast.

My anglicanism was acquired in adulthood, Mary Catherine. The religious tradition I was brought up in, while not as scary as AWB's or Blume's, was a long way from high church anglicanism. Our church was the most tolerant, humane denominational choice available in deep Redstatia where I grew up, but we were outnumbered by the Primitive Baptists at the ecumenical prayer breakfasts.

76: you say that like there's something wrong with being foreign. Or having an army of zombie slaves.

And 64 is hilarious, especially the emphatic employment of "god damned" to underscore the Brothers' pedagogical failure.

Yes, Minneapolitan. The operative term is "heretic", though. Far more heretical than a Mormon or a Unitarian. As far as I know Joseph Smoth did not claim precedence over Jesus.

Among believers, the zombie slave part is normal.

62, 65, 68: Canadians! Is that nice? No deviating from national stereotypes, please.

Somebody just wrote a book on the Rev. Moon and his cultish shenanigans, and the author and his arguments are making the interview rounds. So, that narrative is getting out there.

As for attacking Clinton's prayer breakfast and "Christian cells"---that is so going to backfire, unless done really well. There's already such a narrative among self-righteous Christian Americans that they're under attack; going after Hillary as a wierd Christian would probably mobilise the evangelicals to defend her, and the media would backtrack in the face of the display of "authentic values voters."

It didn't work for Obama (so black and angry!) or Romney (so heretical and silly!), but I'm pretty sure Clinton's Christian connections will get the "martyr for the faith" treatment. She's signed up with the powerful religion, after all.

82: A festering stew of resentment seethes unperceived beneath the Canadian's mild manner. Deep down they're all Homolkas, Bernardos, and Picktons.

Yeah, hands off Clinton's piety. Nothing to gain.

57
i did not understand what i have to do with Gonerill and bones
hopefully you did not say that about me
anyway i won't tell you when i'll be in SF, so there

I apologize for the snarkiness of 68.

But I stand by my contention that Clinton's religious affiliations/associations are mainstream American Protestant and agree with jackmormon that attacking her on this front could seriously backfire.

"Those Protestants are crazy! All of them! Clinton's no better or worse than the rest!"

88: Seriously, "those Christians are crazy!" and "the Democrats hate Christians" is what most voters are going to hear if you attack Clinton for belonging to this group.

From wikipedia, a list of recent keynote speakers at the Fellowship's National Prayer Breakfast:

2008 (56th Annual NPB) Ward Brehm, a Minnesotan who chairs the U.S.-African Development Foundation
2007 (55th Annual NPB) Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute
2006 (54th Annual NPB) Bono, Irish singer/songwriter and humanitarian
2005 (53rd Annual NPB) Ambassador Tony P. Hall, U.S. Representative to the U.N. Agencies for Food and Agriculture
1994 (42nd Annual NPB) Mother Teresa of Calcutta
1987 Elizabeth Dole, United States Secretary of Transportation

Totally mainstream. Do I find it creepy that the US President is apparently all but required to attend an annual prayer breakfast? Yes. Would most American voters find it creepy? No.

Barbara Ehrenreich is way off on this one (I don't mean way off in not liking this group, but in thinking it hurts Clinton), and is mostly indulging in wishful thinking.

my phrasing was wrong, i meant i'd have nothing against meeting with Gonerill, of course
though it's not gonna happen irl
it's just ogged's phrase that got me confused
sorry, Gonerill

Ehrenreich, God bless her heart, is not very down with the gente.

Ehrenreich, God bless her heart, is not very down with the gente.

I'd say she has a better claim to being down with the gente than most of her class will ever have.

Also, you gotta love a leftist who names her daughter after a revolutionary martyr.

after a revolutionary martyr.
my mother's coworker had a strange name melscho - abbreviation after marx, engels, lenin, stalin and choibalsan

But Rosa Luxemburg is so Upper West Side.

The National Prayer Breakfast is the mainstream, benign manifestation of the cult. It might be that the press won't do anything with this, but not because it can't be presented so as to creep out the average red-blooded American, who has the good sense to suspect a cult.

Nor is Ogged down with the gente. Unless there are sacrifices of naked virgins, nothing will come of this. (And even then, Hillary will firm up her support in the sacrificing-naked-virgins demographic.)

95: I think you're insane if you really think something can be done with this. Crazy white Christians vs. crazy black Christians is an easy, easy, easy fight to call, if only because white Americans--the group Obama needs to worry about--are much more likely to be familiar with benign instances of members of such white Christian groups. Insofar as Obama has a pastor problem--which I'm not sure is true, anymore--it's a bit similar to Romney's Mormon problem.

read, I think ogged was just remarking on the mixed metaphors in Gonerill's statement and how it might be confusing for a non-native speaker. </standpipe's blog >

Hedonists and defeatists. We'll see, I guess.

People are comfortable with certain types of weirdness, Kobe-killer.

82: Canadians! Is that nice?

One of us is a Quebecois, which doesn't count. I can be mean to foreigners.

87: But I stand by my contention that Clinton's religious affiliations/associations are mainstream American Protestant

I find it rather dubious that modelling one's political tactics after Lenin and Hitler really signifies as "mainstream Protestant," but then, maybe it does. Maybe this would make perfect sense as self-help jargon in an American Protestant context. Come to think of it, that wouldn't surprise me...

The only thing that gives me pause is that other Congresspeople are part of this. If it were only Hillary and a bunch of corporate bigwigs, I think she'd be finished. So I'm not buying that these practices wouldn't freak people out, but I will buy that it might not do her much harm.

(However, the bit about supporting "religious freedom in the workplace" is directly relevant to a major part of Clinton's platform, and I'm not convinced it should be let drop.)

I'm not buying that these practices wouldn't freak people out, but I will buy that it might not do her much harm.

So people would freak out, but not hold it against HRC? Um, OK. That seems to be the same as Emerson's 76: it only troublesome to people who are already not Republicans and (mostly) already Hillary-haters, so it's really non-functional in electoral terms. That represents both sides of the argument, I think, so...comity?

What I mean is that these practices, presented honestly, without the slavish press covering for Congresspeople, or, if you like, presented under Hillary Rules, would hurt her. But they won't be presented that way, so they won't.

Grover Norquist admits to Leninism when he's not being an anarchist. Ralph Reed described himself as a guerrilla of the Viet Cong type.

No problem. On the the next question.

Ogged, yours are not the only crazy homies in the world. The Shia ain't got nothing on us honkies. In a crazy-off, who is to say who would win?

107: Finding out is half the fun! Elect John McCain and we'll get the answer.

102: Other congressman such as former PA Senator Rick Santorum, who is pretty reviled by a large chunk of PA Democrats. Creating a Clinton-Santorum link in voters minds would be a good thing from an Obama perspective.

107: Exactly. You'd think that ogged would be sympathetic to charitable readings of occult Christian traditions.

I expect Scalia's Opus Dei cell and Hillary's prayer group coming to violence at some point, however. Which side should we support?

I don't know which side we should support, but I'd bet on the Opus Dei people being able to withstand a lot more punishment.

I don't know. Scalia probably has his clerks wear his cilice for him, like how Alonso Church used to have his grad students break in his new shoes.

who is defeatist? if you about my little joke, then when it was, in my unstable youth
and sure i'd never put my family through that much pain etc
or may be that was about Clinton or the author, i'm not sure, i think she is free to follow whatever religion she follows

89: Totally mainstream. Do I find it creepy that the US President is apparently all but required to attend an annual prayer breakfast? Yes. Would most American voters find it creepy? No.

97: Crazy white Christians vs. crazy black Christians is an easy, easy, easy fight to call

I don't know why I can't let this go -- now how could that be? And I was so earnest and lengthily explanatory about it last night.

My reading of Clinton's involvement with this group is that it was entirely strategic. You work with the electorate you have, etc. Obama's religiosity is perhaps authentic sincere, who knows and who cares. The fact that it's required of any serious contender for the presidency is, okay, let's call it creepy, but the deviants among us are fools to think a politics devoid of Christian affiliation is anything but dead in the water.

ogged seems to think that a match-off of Good versus Bad christian thinking is smart campaigning. Champion one and villainize the other. This rather horrifies me, to the extent that it accepts as given the discussion of religious legitimacy in the first place.

More fringe religions! Like Catholicism, for instance. It took our only President of a different faith than the establishment to make the non-establishment of faith sexy.

60: Religion is ok, Mary Catherine, but a cult isn't. Neither is opportunism.

The Fellowship Foundation, or whichever of its dozen names best applies in this situation, is rich, mostly white and is a registered nonprofit. Ergo, it can't be a cult. It's only a cult to people who think all secretive insular religious groups are cults, like us cosmopolitan liberals, and people who belong to other insular religious groups. And they aren't known for listening to the media. And opportunism? Everyone says they hate it, but no one actually does.

Semi-OT: Did you all hear that Senator Casey of Pennsylvania endorsed Obama, and Leahy called for Clinton to drop out of the race?