I must admit that my religious instinct admonished me for not voting for Gloria La Riva for POTUS b/c I was so hell-bent on getting a brother into the White House; so having cast my vote for Barack, I now hope beyond all measure he not only bites the hands of the banksters and corporations who have given the democratic party mass cash, but that he declares 2009 the year of Jubilee!

Yeah baby!

Spiritual anarchists unite!

:) Peace

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Deepak, you write, "There's an urgent need, as Obama recognizes, to heal the fracture lines. The electorate will be healthier if he can undo bitter partisanship, and God can go back to knowing everything but not pulling a lever in the voting booth."

If you think Barak Obama can heal a partisanship that would choose a Sarah Palin to run as a vice presidential candidate then I think you are completely underestimating the seriousness of their calling, truly, this is a partisanship that believes it has an important calling and the only real healing that can be done is by the other members of their Party who have had enough of the religious stance their Party has taken and call an end to it, otherwise, if this election is lost to them they will be only too willing to go back to the drawing boards...

have a great day ruth.....

Deepak,

Just trying to intellectually follow the argument. Hmmm...I assume that when referencing "God", generally speaking, we are talking about a moral God and not an amoral God. Generally speaking, I say, because most people when referencing or thinking about God, do feel that he is a moral God--he "prefers right action over wrong action". So, it then follows that He does have an opinion about this election. Only an amoral God would not have an opinion or a preference. Unless you are talking in huge abstractions in which God, knowing all, prefers nothing. Too abstract for me.
Also, what is this huge infatuation everyone has with Obama? I just don't get it. He doesn't do it for me. I feel no instinct to place my faith in him to unify anyone for any reason. He's charismatic, sure, very self-satisfied, sure, says what people want to hear, Oprah loves him...still doesn't do it for me.
You wrote "voting your faith should be a private matter". Why?
There is no rule that says religious faith should remain private.

"There never will be, and never should be, a religious reason to pick one candidate over another. "

I think that was enough to answer the question, the rest is your typical boilerplate vilification of the right.

Steve

"There never will be, and never should be, a religious reason to pick one candidate over another. "

I think that was enough to answer the question, the rest is your typical boilerplate vilification of the right.

Steve

Steve,

I think the right needs a little vilification. After all you don't find this religious bigotry coming from the left! You have right wing candidates like Elizabeth Dole calling her opponent “Godless”, and evangelicals calling Obama “Evil”. A very large group of the right has really slipped off the track, and IMHO need a good swift kick in the blind side.

Kind Regards,
Stan

Maybe we will all be enlightened by Obama's informercial this evening.

US of KKA !!

But I will buy the vegatable peeler from the infomercial tonight, for sure!

Take care Stan, hope you are doing well

Now Stan you just said that Dole called her opponent godless and many will believe that but you know that's not what happened. She blamed her opponent for taking money from the "Godless Americans Pac". That's what the Pac is called.

But you chose to say she called her opponent godless and deserves to be vilified.

Btw, can you tell me which evangelicals called Obama evil? All I know is that Obama's former pastor said about America, and Father Phlager said some pretty nasty things about Hillary and others.

Steve

13 blasts, 300 wounded, and 48 killed...in India...you know...that country that for all 'Intents' and purposes....

And the mission statement of IB...is something about bringing us all into 'the emerging Asian conciousness...' Well whoopteedo!!! sign me up!!

And poor little ole deluded Deepak....is worried some Christian, who might believe in the 10 thou shalts and thou shall nots, might vote with his faith in mind.....

I've kinda stayed away from the Ann Coulter and Michael Savage brand of conservatism...but maybe they are right.....maybe liberalism really is a brain disorder.....I can think of no other explanation....

y'all have a nice day...gonna go fire up the chainsaw and cut some wood....

Did that just for you Heather....a little sarcasm, a few oppostional pronouns...some macho stuff....didn't wanna disappoint...

:)

That's right Norm, the real battleground will never be India or the Sudan, it will always be here:

E Pluribus Unum replaced by multi-culturalism

In God we Trust replaced by self and emotions

Liberty replaced by equality

Come on Norm, spread the wealth around, celebrate every culture but American and find your self and just trust that, ok?

Have a good one,

Steve

Norm that is not very nice. People died my brother! Our little cultural divide of "left" and "right" matters not at all in light of these horrific bombings!

Hey didn't trucker dudes like you used to pick up bums like me and teach us how to drive: I remember once, 16 or 17 years ago, hitchhiking from Arizona to Washington a trucker offered to teach me how to drive those big ole 18 wheelers . . .

Sounds like fun! Just have to get our Chopra books on audio . . .

Arrrrr

So:

“E Pluribus Unum replaced by multi-culturalism”.

What are you saying Shmuel, that only our way is the right way? Oh yeah, that is right, we are the exceptionally righteous ones eh!

“In God we Trust replaced by self and emotions”.

So we are going to put “trust your inner self” instead of “in God we trust” on our money now? O, that is right, you people consider the American dollar as sacred . . .

Idolaters!

“Liberty replaced by equality”.

Well you got that one right because equality will destroy liberty! The pursuit of happiness is in direct opposition to the 613 mitzvot. In freely choosing to serve God, and naturally by extension each other, human liberty will be conquered by us collectively choosing to serve our fellow man!

But you already know this!

Peace

#6 Stan is right.

#9 Ambasetve wrote:

"Now Stan you just said that Dole called her opponent godless and many will believe that but you know that's not what happened. She blamed her opponent for taking money from the "Godless Americans Pac". That's what the Pac is called.

But you chose to say she called her opponent godless and deserves to be vilified."

____________

One of the ugliest ads of the cycle is an Elizabeth Dole ad that accuses Kay Hagan of being "godless" and even has some woman's voice at the end, over a picture of Hagan, saying "There is no God!" -- the implication is clear.

Think Progress has more:

________________________________________________
Elizabeth Dole ad falsely suggests opponent Kay Hagan is ‘Godless.’»

Facing a close re-election race in North Carolina, Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R) recently released an ad attacking her opponent Kay Hagan, falsely accusing her of being “Godless.” The end of the ad shows a photo of Hagan while a woman yells, “There is no God!” Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuS342L22QI

The only problem is that Hagan is an elder at the First Presbyterian Church in Greensboro, NC, has taught Sunday School and accompanied youth mission trips. In a similar move, the North Carolina Republican State Executive Committee recently sent out homophobic mailers targeting Hagan claiming she seeks to advance a “radical homosexual agenda” and wants to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. The Hagan campaign is seeking a cease-and-desist order against Dole for her latest ad.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/29/dole-hagan-godless/
______________________________________________

These are deep reflections on religion, faith and politics, Deepak.

You mention that: “Supernatural beings aren't citizens. Omniscient deities don't make choices (since they already know every outcome in advance)”.

What do you think would happen if we all admitted that agnosticism is the only reasonable approach when it comes to deities, the supernatural and the paranormal? Agnosticism simply means that one can neither prove nor disprove God's existence, and one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural or the paranormal. But in a probability equation one side outweighs the other heavily.

What would happen if we simply reasoned that in the absence of evidence we should withhold judgment? That we should not pretend to know the unknowable?

And Deepak, do you know that whenever your old friend Skep, or Skeptisch, posts something on IB, he is banned within days.

You said once: “P.S. Dear Skeptisch, please come to NY at your own expense and I will make sure you can experience spoon bending for yourself. If you can't, or don't want to do that, then stop talking over and over again about the same thing. It’s boring”.

To my knowledge Skep has not mentioned spoon bending since you asked him, but he is still very much interested in coming to New York.

He will be in Cuba for the month of November but is available anytime after.
Thanks in advance for any kind of response.

A plenty of political discussion here and elsewhere, understandably goes after "Godless," the Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) ad that all but declares that Democratic challenger Kay Hagan is an atheist.

I can certainly agree that "Godless" is disgracefully dishonest, and that it's an ugly attempt to play on North Carolinians' religious bigotry.

Yes, Dole's ad is false. Yes, it is an attempt to play on voter bigotry. But there are plenty of Republican ads this cycle that meet those two conditions. It wasn't an ad, but Sarah Palin's repeated claim that Barack Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" is, I think, measurably worse than "Godless"; it is (1) just as false and (2) an attempt to tie Obama to terrorists, who (I hope we can all agree) are generally worse people than atheists are.

There is an overtone in a heck of a lot of the reactions, both from political professionals and from ordinary people, that being called an atheist is an unbelievable affront--"beyond the pale," and so on. "Palling around with terrorists," yeah, that sucks, but atheist--whoa, that's outrageous!

Even Alex Castellanos - the father of attack ads, the man who designed Jesse Helms' legendary "white hands" ad - thinks it's beyond the pale:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM-7Itc3kTo

Ed Rollins on CNN also condemned it. Ed is an high profile Republican campaign consultant and advisor and was the national campaign chairman for the Huckabee campaign.

You've really gone past the point of no return when even Alex Castellanos and Ed Rollins can't stand by your ads.

It will be a tremendous victory for decency when Dole loses.

But, I suppose it's hard to blame Dole given the religious climate she's trying to run for Senate in, but Kay Hagan is not winning a lot of friends in the atheist community today. Writes biology professor and king of the atheist blogosphere PZ Myers:

"I've written a couple of posts decrying the tactics of Elizabeth Dole--who uses the act of talking to atheists as a smear--and favoring her opponent, Kay Hagan. It seems Ms. Hagan doesn't like us very much, though.

QUOTE:'Democratic Senate candidate Kay Hagan angrily demanded Wednesday that incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole take down a new ad that questions the challenger's ties to an atheist political group, calling the spot a slanderous and pathetic attempt to maintain political power.

Hagan's attorneys sent a cease-and-desist order to Dole's campaign, saying the "libelous" ad should come down within 24 hours. The order promised legal action if the ad stays on the air.'

So…being called an atheist is "slanderous" and "libelous", huh? Oh, well, then. Never mind, North Carolina, it doesn't matter who you vote for in that election, you're getting a loser. I suppose you should still vote for Hagan, but only for her party and not because she's on our side."

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/with_friends_like_these_1.php#comments

I wouldn't go as far as PZ; I'm sympathetic (in a hand-over-the-eyes, "please make it all go away" sense) to Hagan's need to get votes from plenty of North Carolinians who are virulent atheistophobes. Still, I'm a bit disturbed by the combination of (1) the heavy level of indignation she--like so many of her supporters--is launching in response to "Godless" and (2) the general lack of criticism, from the same indignant critics, of the nasty bigotry that Dole's ad promotes toward atheists.

Where is the political voice to say "Kay Hagan isn't an atheist, but so what if she were? Who would dare to tell a young atheist boy or girl that he or she couldn't grow up to be President?" (Not to mention the offense this presents Article VI, section 3, of the U.S. Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause )

I wish the liberals who are angry at Dole and "Godless" would take a hint or two from Powell's "Meet the Press" appearance. It's not just Hagan who is being bashed in that ad, and I worry that Hagan and her supporters are tacitly/implicitly endorsing that attack.

As a damn proud atheist, I hope the undercurrent here isn't what it eerily feels like. Fine, Kay Hagan isn't an atheist--but if she were, for f***'s sake, so what? Do we agree with Elizabeth Dole that North Carolinians shouldn't vote for an atheist for Congress?

Here's Colin Powell on 'Meet the Press':

"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America."

The really right answer is, what if Kay Hagan is an atheist? Is there something wrong with being an atheist in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.

Right, IB'ers?

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

boy, Deepak what you write really gets under our homie repubs very thin political skin....

skinny, you write..."I've kinda stayed away from the Ann Coulter and Michael Savage brand of conservatism".........really, you have? hmmmmmm could have fooled me....

need to goggle now..ruth

A foot note to Preity’s # 17

What if he were Muslim? Colin Powell on Muslim Americans.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=dYELqbZAQ4M

Let's hear from another infamous woman Republican this election season, "McCarthite" Michele Bachmann (Congresswoman up for re-election from Minnesota 6th district.)

"And during those dorm years, when I was busy studying, the Lord put in my heart, that if I would be diligent and I would be steadfast, He would take me to law school. And I thought, law school? I have no interest in going to law school. But I put that in His hands and I put in His plan, and I put it in His hands, and pursued that, and eventually He did, He took me to law school.

And I went to the first Christian law school that there was in the United States, down at Oral Roberts University, where they taught the law from a Biblical worldview.

And from there, my husband said "Now you need to go and get post-doctorate degree in tax law." Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says: Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands... "

--State Senator Michele Bachmann, October 14, 2006, speaking at a church in Minnesota.

There is such a thing as moral high ground and it is possible not to be standing on it! And if you are into God, Guns and Gays and are awaiting the rapture, you better ask yourself, “Why am I doing this”?

I'm back....

Amba writes, "Come on Norm, spread the wealth around, celebrate every culture but American and find your self and just trust that, ok?"

I guess in some eyes Deepak just doesn't show enough "love" or "appreciation" over American culture as your average republican would deem necessary especially since his place of birth was India and not the "good ole USofA."

No, criticism, of your Nation, especially, your Party is not a trait that republicans are comfortable with....even when criticism is called for, in fact, needed, in order to set a wrong, right, or an injustice....just.....it is all blind loyalty...right to the very end....

and poor John McCain is now paying his price for his blind loyalty and boy I am happy for that....because it will save this Nation another eight years of internal discord, of constant distraction with partisan jealousies, and we will finally be able to.......start......spreading the wealth and I am not talking money, folks......I am talking ideas, enthusiastic beginnings, charting new roads, opening some windows and some doors and letting out all the.......very stale air we have been breathing for much too long.....yes, a new day is coming.....it will not be without it's challenges without it's enemies.....but we will take it one day at a time....

and one great part of this new day is the fact that the man who may be the new President can handle "criticism"......you are not going to be called "unpatriotic," "unAmerican" if you critique his platform, his Nation, his policies.....why, you might ask, well, because his actual emotional age is that of an adult with a well developed intellect......not that of 10 year old with only the mere beginnings of an intellect in need of developing.....

Yes, the real America....the one we had before Bush and Cheney.....could take criticism, welcome it even, certainly....there was no fear of it...no, it was only after these republican hooligans took to power that Americans were called...."unpatriotic", "unAmerican" "traitors" and all one had to do to be labeled that was leave your "flag pin" sitting on your dresser instead of putting it on you lapel in the morning, yes, so easily those terms were touted these past eight years.....

gee, as I write this I am starting to actually feel the weight being lifted from my psyche, this Nation's psyche....it will be good to live in a very different America than the one nurtured and created by these divisive self serving individuals who have tried to suffocate a Nation's freedom.

have a great day everyone.....

don't worry Steve, Norm....there is room for you, too, in this new America.....that is, if it is voted in.....bring your criticism on our fellow repub homies....

ruth

Cheers and Jeers: Thursday
by Bill in Portland Maine

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Closing Appeals

"Dear America,

Mine.

Mine mine mine.

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me!

Mine mine mine mine mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine!

In conclusion: Fear fear fear fear. Very scary fear!

Sincerely,

The Republican Party

P.S. If you liked Joseph McCarthy, you'll *love* us!"

-

"Dear America,

We.

Us. We. Together. Americans. United States.

Hope compassion equality inclusiveness competence.

Brains common sense community respect hard work accountability.

Action change responsibility. More viewpoints, smarter solutions.

In conclusion: Yes we can.

Sincerely,

The Democratic Party.

P.S. Vote."

Damn. I'm still undecided.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Poll

If McCain loses, will Sarah Palin emerge from this election as an accepted and prominent GOP leader by the Republican establishment?

You betcha!
22% 4470 votes
Probably
11% 2350 votes
Not sure/No opinion
2% 545 votes
Probably not
30% 5940 votes
Thanks, but no thanks!
32% 6314 votes
19619 votes | Vote

There's more...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/30/83418/228/810/646012

#15 Michel. Good point.

And thanks also for reminding us about our - Intentblog's - good friend Skeptisch:

-----------
"And Deepak, do you know that whenever your old friend Skep, or Skeptisch, posts something on IB, he is banned within days.

You said once: “P.S. Dear Skeptisch, please come to NY at your own expense and I will make sure you can experience spoon bending for yourself. If you can't, or don't want to do that, then stop talking over and over again about the same thing. It’s boring”.

To my knowledge Skep has not mentioned spoon bending since you asked him, but he is still very much interested in coming to New York.

He will be in Cuba for the month of November but is available anytime after.
Thanks in advance for any kind of response. "
-----------

#16 Preity. Well said!

dedicated to Amba and Stan....

Amba writes to Stan..."Now Stan you just said that Dole called her opponent godless and many will believe that but you know that's not what happened. She blamed her opponent for taking money from the "Godless Americans Pac". That's what the Pac is called.

But you chose to say she called her opponent godless and deserves to be vilified"

article below...

A new television ad by Republican U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s re-election campaign that ties her rival, state Sen. Kay Hagan, to an atheist group has provoked a threat of legal action from the Greensboro Democrat.

“I can’t tell you how upset I am that Elizabeth Dole is attacking my strong Christian faith,” Hagan said late Tuesday.

Hagan, who is an elder at First Presbyterian Church, said she is incensed by the ad because at the end it shows her picture with a female voice saying, “There is no God.”

Her campaign will hold a news conference in Greensboro today (audio from the news conference) to push back against the ad, and Hagan said lawyers for the campaign are preparing to send a cease-and-desist order demanding that Dole stop the ad.

“The ad is 100 percent accurate,” Dole spokesman Dan McLagan said. “If the truth hurts, that’s their problem.”

Dole is running the 30-second spot statewide, McLagan said.

The ad relies on information surrounding a September trip Hagan made to Boston for a fundraiser. Organized by the Democratic group ActBlue and sponsored by more than 30 people, it was held at the home of Wendy Kaminer and Woody Kaplan. He helped form Godless Americans PAC, a group that pushes to remove religious references from civic life.

The ad features clips of news footage and speeches involving the PAC and a voice-over intones: “Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took Godless money. What did Hagan promise in return?”

McLagan said it was “completely appropriate” to raise the issue, since U.S. senators play a role in nominating and confirming judges who could help the group.

“This questions whether or not Kay Hagan is receptive to their agenda,” McLagan said. Hagan’s appearance at the fundraiser has been referenced in at least two direct-mail pieces sent by the N.C. Republican Party in the past month.

Those fliers helped spark discussions online, but the message has not gotten a great deal of attention from news outlets. This ad puts the issue front and center.

The suggestion that a candidate doesn’t believe in God is damning in North Carolina, where churches play a central role for millions of people, many of whom would not look kindly toward a politician who did not have some belief in God.

“A lot of voters go to church,” said Gary Pearce, a longtime political strategist who has worked mainly with Democrats. “You can’t run for political office in North Carolina as a 'Godless American.’”

Pearce said Dole’s move was risky and indicated that she was uncomfortable with her position in the polls. Public polling has shown Hagan within the margin of error or leading Dole for the past month.

“It’s always tempting to throw a hand grenade at the end of a close campaign,” Pearce said. “The question is whether it blows up your opponent or comes back on you.”

Early voting is already under way, and Election Day is Tuesday.

Hagan was already sensitive to the suggestions surrounding this ad.

Even before the spot began airing Tuesday night, her campaign had taped a radio commercial featuring Hagan’s longtime minister who attested to her church membership and good works. “I teach Sunday school. I’m an elder in my church. I go on mission trips,” Hagan said.

“I was raised going to Sunday school and church every week. I raised my children that way. ''This is the lowest of the low...I just am shocked by the audacity of Elizabeth Dole taking this kind of action.”

Actually, I, and ,I am sure, many Americans didn't know that this group even existed (Godless Americans PAC, a group that pushes to remove religious references from civic life)........ but now thank to ELIZABETH DOLE it now has national recognition so I am positive it's membership will increase because of Elizabeth Dole and her attempt to .........bring GOD into the voting booth, and her attempt to villify...the atheists of America, in the process, by insinuating it is a national crime to NOT BELIEVE in HER LORD! Yes, this is so f-ing REPUBLICAN.....you are either with'em or against'em......and there ain't no in-between or gray....in a republican world.....

have a grand day everyone..

I think it's obvious that the left's new preferred tactic is to
pooh-pooh everyone who disagrees as being a religious knucklehead who has been "brainwashed" by faith. But you know what is alarming to me is the way people just as blindly follow after Obama. As a reasonably intelligent person, he doesn't impress me on so many levels. But noone is "allowed" it seems to question this almighty Obama. With the Rev. Wright thing, all Obama had to say was 'geez I didn't know the kind of stuff Rev. Wright was saying' (even though he'd gone there for 20 years) and that was that...the gushing continued for the almighty Obama.
When Obama says he will sit down and chitchat with the axis of evil, not a liberal out there scratches their head and questions that reasoning, b/c hugs are all that matters even with leaders of longstanding oppressive, evil totalitarian regimes, because Obama is just so "cool" and it just sounds so "cool" that he'll sit down and talk to these bad guys, chitchat, get to know them, hey there man, how ya doin' how's your longstanding oppressive evil totalitarian regime doing? Yeah, do you take sugar in your coffee? Oh that's so cool!!!! And McCain, he's just being grumpy , yeah, he's just a big old grouch not to "chill" with the North Korean leadership for a while. What a big old grouch!
I agree I am starting to think liberalism is a brain disorder. To so blindly follow this Obama not even raising an eyebrow at some of his antics and attitudes. But he's "cool", that's all that matters, and religious people aren't "cool". Super lofty reasoning.

This applies to Olivias' (#26)...

There's an old saying in India (the land from which Deepak came...which apparently made him anti-America and unpatriotic...according to Norm)... paraphrase "After listening to whole Ramayana, this guy/gal asks who is Rama?" You know after the political dialogue for months and months, with 5 days to go, here comes the utter idiocy from uber morons "who is Obama?" Yeah. I won't call conservatism a brain disorder, but I shall say Olivia has a certain disorder.

John,

You know what? I just tried to watch Obama's infomercial, but unfortunately I could only stomach about 3 minutes and 55 seconds of it. I think after the part where we briefly meet the mother whose plight includes having to have her kids make their snacks last for the week (sorry if I am insensitive but that's how I grew up I didn't even know that was a problem) and her husband who's knee was torn (OK sorry I feel bad) probably would've felt worse if that ridiculous music in the background wasn't irritating the hell out of me, but the part where my stomach began to turn was when the scene changed to the almighty Obama perched upon a stage, violins complaining in the background, the man who claims to be the great "healing balm" for our times standing before us, and our hearts should just swell at the sight of him. Give me a break. Call it what you want, I'm sticking with my "brain disease" as you call it John. Obama is such an emotional manipulator, I know all politicians are, but this guy just brings it to a whole new level of B.S.

"I agree I am starting to think liberalism is a brain disorder." ~Olivia

Believe it, and get over it before some real brain damage occurs within your inner numskull.

P.S. Thank goodness, you are not a blind follower of Obama/Hillary or any liberal/democrat. Unlike your presumptions, assumptions and projections we support our candidates not out of ignorance but out of wisdom, and wouldn't want the misplaced support of idiots and hypocrites like you even with your eyes open.

Irvine,

I am careful not to destroy anymore of my brain cells--I think I already lost several thousand watching the first 3 minutes and 55 seconds of Obama's infomercial. Maybe some quick yoga moves would restore the blood flow to my brain.

I always thought talking was preferable to murder, but I guess that just comes from my "superstitious" religious beliefs . . .

Peace

#28

"Call it what you want, I'm sticking with my "brain disease" as you call it John. Obama is such an emotional manipulator, I know all politicians are, but this guy just brings it to a whole new level of B.S."

The fact that you are so mightily repulsed by the Obama ad (or more accurately by Obama), says more about you than about Obama or his policies.

Ads are like a film, not everyone likes a film, a film is rated based on viewer consensus and critic responses. Political Ads are made for that purpose. And there are target audience, there is a huge of portion of electorate who believe he is a muslim, socialist, communists or terrorist, black radical or some elitist who doesn't care about ordinary Americans. Such ads may work to make them comfortable with him, who would othrewise vote for his policies. From several reactions, peopel liked the ad. And we who support Obama are not idiots to see an ad and fall for him. I got to pity you though if you were waiting for this/some ad to make your decisions or to be informed about Obama and his policies. Odd undecideds like you, who had been following the race for many months, and could not decide between the Dem and GOP tickets, are not the target audience anyway. There is a certain large segment of working women (and some men) who typically tune into presidential race in the last week (because of their busy schedules), and try to find out information about the candidates policies before they vote.

Here's a sugestion. You will never like Obama. Your inherent dislike and disgust you keep spewing is clear. But don't make idiotic statements about poeple who do support Obama or the Democratic party.

Vote McCain/third party and get over it. If that is what makes you feel good in the current situation.

"Odd undecideds [...] who had been following the race for many months, and could not decide between the Dem and GOP tickets..." --John

I call them morons. Plain and simple. There is something really wrong with that breed.

The Obama infomercial was slick and inoffensive. So it was pretty much what they were aiming for, I think.

Overall, it didn't change anything in the General Election. Obama got little "bang" for all those bucks. But he really doesn't need a "bang", anyway, so its basically irrelevant.

The Ad was all about taking up a news cycle and running out the clock on McCain. Any discussion positive/negative about the it is a victory to the campaign in that regard.

Missed the Obama 30 min. prime time Ad? Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtREqAmLsoA

I liked the personal vignette stories. The 72 year old retired worker who had to go back to work(at Wal Mart) to pay the 2nd they took out on thier paid off house, to pay medical bills. The retired worker who paid into his pension expecting over $1500/month and ending up with <$400/month

and a Presidential candidate listening, not just riding the wave of the "economic cycle". We're not in a cycle, we are trapped in a deliberate hell hole ditch of a debt prison and concentrated weatlth. Where 1% of the population has control of nearly 50% of the nation's wealth. It's not trickling down, it's raining sledgehammers, and it's leaving a mark on each and every American.

Incredible music. Really luxurious, slow, soul-stirring music throughout. And tying that music to lovely Americana images (opening shot: amber waves of grain) really opens you up emotionally. And again with that retired black couple: the sequence is introduced with some lovely mellow slide guitar, and only after we've met the couple do we see: that old man is playing that slide guitar we've been hearing. And the format had enough room that we could linger on the sound, hear the French horn without a voice over it.

Likewise, the camera work was intimate, lingering on people's hands and faces, soft "magic hour" lighting, stuff you can't get into a 30-second ad because there just isn't room. Like a two-second pause after the end of someone's sentence, and you get to notice the apprehension in their eyes. It's a completely different language, the language of cinema. I noticed the same stuff at work in the Keating Five video they produced. Music, space, patience, pathos.

Yeah, I liked it.

The infomercial was a soft sell. Last night was all about narrative and archetype. Obama and Axelrod understand the power of narrative. The 30-minute program was all about big picture connections with undecideds. Of course, we all (Obama supporters) liked it because we have sipped (gulped) the Kool-Aid. But the tone was something much bigger than education, health care and the economy. It was about trust and the belief that things can get better in the current economic situation. Excuse the comparison, but it was Reaganesque - rife with images of Americana. There were flags, fields, pick-ups, Wal-Mart and even a "common man's" oval office set.

Most of all, undecideds who watched last night saw a person they could believe in.

Note the locations covered: New Mexico, Penn., Virginia, Colorado, Florida. This list look familiar?

BTW - Mentions of John McCain? Na-da. Like Palin, Obama has subtly pushed the narrative past next Tuesday.

Re. #36

Mentions of McCain. Imagine how long McCain could go without mentioning Obama. Does he even have 30 minutes of affirmative pro-McCain material?
I thought the ad was great, except the somewhat disconcerting transition from the woman with arthritis into the energy plan. I wanted to hear about the health care plan at that point, and was left high and dry.

But overall, superb. And I was pleased that they included the bit from the convention about 'big solutions.'

Re. 32

I second that.

That "transition" was jarring, but otherwise excellent.

________

"The Ad" - Report from a Philly Bar
by kmiddle

It's been a while since I diaried here, but I felt compelled to offer the following after watching "the ad" from a Philly bar/restaurant.

Now, this wasn't a "shot and a beer" Philly bar; this was a high-scale, downtown $36 steak-and-Italian place near the convention center. 95% white, upper middle class.

My seat was in the back corner of the bar area, perched on a high stool, with a great vantage point not only of the TV, but of the crowd.
The place was full of revelers awaiting the World Series game. The TV was on but silent.
Then "the ad" came on.

A few observations:

1. After a few minutes, someone asked the bartender to turn up the sound, which he did.
And then the place got quiet. This is a bar-full of crazy Philly phans, chomping at the bit for the ball game to start. And the place got quiet to listen to "the ad". People were actually listening and watching.

2. When it was done, people applauded. Yes. Applauded a political ad.

3. The game coverage came on; and during the first commercial break, a McCain attack ad came on. The reaction was mainly shaking of heads.

4. I don't know what to make of all that, but to me it spoke volumes about Senator Obama, about the campaign he's run, and about the real connection he appears to be making with real voters of very stripe.

And so, back at my hotel room, watching the game, I offer that as an indication that something different IS happening. It's not over -- not by a long shot. But the excitement is growing.

Get out the vote.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/29/211031/71
___________________

Correction: Referring "transition" in #37 (not 32)

37. Posted by John on October 30, 2008 11:54 AM

Obama's ad is targeted post-election at least as much as it is pre-.

I thought the infomercial was powerful and honest in its message, and in its intent. It made me very proud to be American, and hopeful that Obama will be elected. (Normally, I'm very skeptical and resistant to political messages.)

By the way, I listened to it, so its visuals had no effect on me. What affected me was the strength and sincerity in all the voices who spoke in it, throughout.

#35 -- nice critique

#35

Irvine, intelligent writing. I am saddened to see that you have some poetry in you, and that still, Obama has managed to "hypnotize" you. Although I find your review much more impressive than the infomercial (which I find completely unimpressive), it is sad that your intelligence has not provided your fortress against the Obama delusion/illusion. You are too intelligent to be emotionally manipulated by Obama.
By the way, the infomercial is nothing but shameless egotism and self-glorification. Impressive to noone but dedicated Obama worshippers.

Freyja,

"It was about trust...."

And WHY do you trust him??????
Why?????
Because he knows what plagues most Americans, and he knows how to use that to manipulate.
He claims he did not know what the Rev. Wright was preaching--lie.

Heath,

you wrote "normally I'm very skeptical and resistant to political messages". OK...that is a good thing. Might want to examine why you have ceased doing so, and allowed yourself to be "hypnotized".
It should be concerning to you that you have suddenly changed your nature. It should be a warning that emotional manipulation is being used.

Hello everyone,

just came acros this letter written by James Dobson.....I do not thing Mr. Dobson's God will be leaving the voting booths anytime soon....

ELECTION 2008
Obama spells 'persecution,' warns Focus on the Family
Analysts see same-sex marriage, Fairness Doctrine on horizon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 22, 2008
10:53 pm Eastern

James Dobson

What would America look like after four years of a Barack Obama administration?

"Hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" are among the prospects in a hypothetical letter from a "Christian from 2012" released today by evangelical leader James Dobson's political activist group Focus on the Family Action.

Titled "Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America," the piece clearly targets the many evangelical Christians seeking "change," particularly the young, who could tip the election in favor of the Illinois Democrat. At the end of the letter, the fictional Christian laments that these people "simply did not realize Obama's far-left agenda would take away many of our freedoms as a nation, perhaps permanently," pointing to a new, liberal-majority Supreme Court unlikely to change for 30 more years.

"I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat," says the fictional writer. "Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years," America is no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

"Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more," the letter writer says.

Focus on the Family Action, established as a separate legal entity from Focus on the Family, has expanded abilities under the IRS code to lobby for political change.

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for Focus on the Family Action, affirmed to WND the letter is designed to address a "concerted effort by Obama and Democrats to capture people of faith since 2004."

"Certainly, I think, younger evangelicals may be swayed by the rhetoric and charisma of Obama without really having the historical perspective of what allowing liberal Democrats to control government would do," she said.

"I think a lot of Americans are not connecting the dots, that this would be the first time since 1965 that liberals have dominated the White House, Congress and, potentially, the Supreme Court."

Earll affirmed that Dobson has not endorsed Republican nominee Sen. John McCain but plans to vote for him.

(Story continues below)

In a preface, Focus on the Family Action explains the letter is a "What if?" exercise, but insists "that does not make it empty speculation, because every future 'event' described here is based on established legal and political trends that can already be abundantly documented and that only need a 'tipping point' such as the election of Senator Obama and a Democratic House and Senate to begin to put them into place."

Focus adds that evangelicals on both sides of the election should "continue to respect and cherish each other's friendship as well as the freedom people have in the United States to differ on these issues and to freely speak our opinions about them to one another."

Nevertheless, the footnoted letter anticipates an America, under Obama, that realizes the worst fears of Dobson and his millions of supporters.

Among the possible developments by 2012:

Six liberal justices sit on the Supreme Court after the immediate resignation of John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the later resignations of Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Homosexual marriage has been ruled a constitutional right that must be respected by all 50 states.

The Boy Scouts have disbanded rather than obey a decision forcing them to allow homosexual scoutmasters. (The Scouts already had been kicked out of public facilities because of an expansion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover people who engage in homosexual behavior.)

Elementary schools have compulsory training in varieties of gender identity. Courts rule parents cannot opt out their children, because the training is deemed essential to psychological health.

Evangelical and Catholic adoption agencies cease to exist after the Supreme Court rules they must agree to place children with homosexuals or lose their licenses.

Church buildings are now considered a "public accommodation" by the United States Supreme Court, and churches have no freedom to refuse to allow their buildings to be used for wedding ceremonies for homosexual couples.

High schools are no longer free to allow "see you at the pole" meetings where students pray together or any student Bible studies even before or after school.

The Supreme Court barred public schools in all 50 states from allowing churches to rent their facilities, even on Sundays, when school was not in session.

Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act, as he promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, nullifying hundreds of state laws that had created even the slightest barrier to abortion.

The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and TV broadcasts, and television programs at all hours of the day now contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.

As a result of a reversal of its 5-4 decision in the D.C. gun-ownership case, it is now illegal for private citizens to own guns for self-defense in eight states, and the number is growing with increasing Democratic control of state legislatures and governorships

Parents' freedom to teach their children at home has been severely restricted nationwide after the Supreme Court followed the legal reasoning of a Feb. 28, 2008, ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal in California.
The letter also "recalls" a President Obama fulfilling his campaign promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, resulting in a flood of al-Qaida operatives from Syria and Iran pouring into Iraq and completely overwhelming Iraqi security forces.

"A Taliban-like oppression has now taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of 'American sympathizers' have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed," the letter says. "The number put to death may soon reach into the millions. Al-Qaida leaders have been emboldened by what they are calling this American 'defeat' and their ranks are swelling in dozens of countries."

The letter also looks back at an explosion of terrorist bombs in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds and spreading fear across the nation.

"President Obama in each case has vowed 'to pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,' but no arrests have yet been made," the letter says.

Obama 'tested'

The hypothetical letter plays on vice presidential candidate Joe Biden's warning to fundraisers last Sunday in Seattle that some hostile foreign country will test the inexperienced Obama in his first six months of office.

In early 2009, the letter says, Russia "followed the pattern they had begun in Georgia in 2008 and sent troops to occupy and re-take several Eastern European countries, starting with the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania."

But the Russians don't stop there, occupying over the next three years former satellite nations, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, "with no military response from the U.S. or the U.N."

By 2012, health care has been nationalized with a single payer system patterned after the United Kingdom and Canada.

"The great benefit is that medical care is now free for everyone – if you can get it," the letter writer says. "Now that health care is free it seems that everybody wants more of it. The waiting list for prostate cancer surgery is 3 years. The waiting list for ovarian cancer is 2 years."

Care also has been limited for older Americans, the letter says.

"Because medical resources now must be rationed carefully by the government, people over 80 have essentially no access to hospitals or surgical procedures. Their 'duty' is increasingly thought to be to go home to die, so that they don't drain scarce resources from the medical system."

Devastated economy

The letter says many Christians voted for Obama because they thought his tax policies were more fair and his "middle class tax cuts" would bring the economy out of its 2008 crisis.

"But once he took office he followed the consistent pattern of the Democratic Party and the pattern of his own past record and asked Congress for a large tax increase," the letter says. "He explained that the deficit had grown so large under President Bush, and the needs of the nation were so great, that we simply couldn't afford to cut taxes at the present time."

Several of Obama's economic policies have hurt the poor most of all, says the letter, because they have decreased production, increased inflation and increased unemployment, leading to a prolonged recession.

"Tax rates have gone up on personal income, dividends, capital gains, corporations and inheritance transfers. The amount of income subject to Social Security tax has nearly doubled."

The effect on the economy has been devastating, says the letter.

"When critics objected that Obama's tax policies were leading to inflation and unemployment, he responded that our goal should not be merely to increase America's materialism and wealth and prosperity, but to obtain a more just distribution of wealth, even if it costs everybody a little to achieve that important goal," the letter says.

The Focus on the Family Action letter also sees gas at $7 a gallon, because Obama has refused to allow any additional drilling in the U.S. But many Democrats openly applaud the high prices since they reduce oil consumption and thus lower carbon dioxide output.

Goodbye to talk radio

Another development is restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine," which required that radio stations provide "equal time" for alternative views on political questions.

As a result, "nearly all conservative stations have now gone out of business or switched to alternative formats such as country or gospel or other music. Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010."

The fictional letter writer concludes that Christian share much of the blame, having chosen Obama because they believed he "sounded so thoughtful, so reasonable."

"And during the campaign, after he had won the Democratic nomination, he seemed to be moving to the center in his speeches, moving away from his earlier far-left record," the letter says. "No one thought he would enact such a far-left, extreme liberal agenda."

Earlier in the letter, the fictional writer notes that after many Supreme Court decisions, particularly those that restricted free speech, Obama "publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond anything that he ever expected or thought that it would do."

"But he has also stated repeatedly that he had sworn to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,' and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for these decisions were now the law of the land."

Americans should have known what they were getting into by choosing Obama, the letter says, his record "was all there for anyone to see."

"The agenda of the ACLU, the agenda of liberal activist judges in their dissenting opinions, the agenda of the homosexual activists, the agenda of the environmental activists, the agenda of the National Education Association, the agenda of the global warming activists, the agenda of the abortion rights activists, the agenda of the gun control activists, the agenda of the euthanasia supporters, the agenda of the one-world government pacifists, the agenda of far-left groups in Canada and Europe – all of these agendas were there in plain sight, and all of these groups provided huge support for Senator Obama. The liberal agenda was all there. But too many people just didn't want to see it. Christians didn't take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him. Why did they risk our nation's future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of history."

well, now, we know what keeps James and his flock up at night, on guard, scared out of their wits....EVERYTHING.

is it me or is James a bit too preoccupied with homosexuality......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....gee, seems a tad bit unhealthy for this leader of the flock to be so, well, scared out of his mind about the status of homosexuals in our Nation....I don't know maybe a group hug would help....a group of homosexuals giving Mr. Dobson a nice big hug....to temper that fear of his...yeah, I think that would help him a bit....

Calling all homosexuals.....please give Mr Dobson his hug today.....ruth

Not at all, Olivia.

Have you asked yourself why you characterize a guy who is, in his essence, sincere, as manipulative?

Trying listening to the infomercial, without watching it -- the audio quality is better in the video on the main page of Obama's site. Most people can read others more accurately by ear than by eye.

When I'm in big meetings, I close my eyes (which drives other people crazy) to get an accurate take. Without boasting, I can say I'm almost never fooled by people when I judge them by ear. I can hear lies, bs and inconsistencies pretty accurately.

See if listening to the infomercial gives you a different take (of course, you'd need to do it with an open mind, as an experiment).

#45 I wonder, Olivia, how life could proceed without some form of 'hypnosis,' 'participation mystique' I've heard it called.

Where did you spring from, Heath? :))

well whoa...all the old-timers are back...damn!

and the amigos are stirring the pot...again...its a great day in the country...the brother is on the cusp...damn!

and flabs will need a fresh supply of CR and C...to drown his sorrows when the votes begin to roll in tuesday nite...

the fall, dear Ed
hola, Irish

Heath,

He is slick, not sincere.
There is nothing soulful or sincere about him.
I am also a good judge of character. Obama understands the discontent felt by many Americans and has managed to package himself as a kind of "messiah" (if you will) or "deliverer". It is a very carefully crafted package, one need only see, really, how cool and calculated his responses are to understand it is not heart-felt and to understand that it is a carefully measured act. This is just my opinion. I can see how dedicated intentbloggers are to Obama. It is just funny that all intentbloggers feel he can do no wrong. Well, I guess if he gets elected, we'll see what kind of president he is. But I must say, I do think he will be a terrible one.
Also, with the medium of film, I cannot close my eyes. The visual maneuvers in that infomercial were designed to make Obama appear as the "healing balm" of American malcontent. Don't like budgeting your food money? Obama.
Don't like having knee injuries? Obama.
Don't like losing your pension? Obama.
Don't like gas prices? Obama
Have arthritis? Obama

heather...damn girl!

There's an emotional quality in your posts that tells me your reaction against Obama is not purely objective.

I don't know if you were around during the primaries. I was an HC supporter then.

After Obama won, I had pledged to support him because I'm a liberal, but my heart wasn't fully in it. It took a little while of watching him, to see if he was consistent, strong, and if he could deliver on his words. Once I saw he could do these things, I put my trust in him. I'm comfortable with my decision to do so.

If you're genuinely interested in why I'm supporting Obama now, if you haven't read the NY Times endorsement of him, you might want to do so. My views are pretty much in line with it. It's here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html

(or click my name)

Your sense that he's misleading people, etc., sounds strange to me. A deceptive quality was what I was one of the things I was on the watch for, as I was considering my support for him. I found nothing deceptive.

One doesn't need to be hot-tongued to be passionate-hearted. I personally believe that Obama feels things more deeply than either McCain or Palin do. I think he feels them so deeply that his feelings go underground, and people who are used to drama can't always see what he's going through. This quality, of keeping his cool even when he'd rather not, is what's called, variously: grace, good temperament, strong character. It's a strength, not a weakness. You see, it's very easy to appear passionate by mouthing off. It's much harder to keep your mouth shut and act rationally when you're feeling very passionate. I believe Obama is able to do the latter. It's one of the reasons I support him, in fact.

You certainly can listen to a film. I do it all the time. I work from home a lot, and listen to American, Hindi and French films as I work. I often get more from a film by listening to it than by watching and listening. Try it sometime. You'll be pretty amazed at what you pick up. You listen to music, yes? You don't always watch music videos to do so, correct? You can listen to film dialogues the same way.

If you have the guts to be open-minded and try the experiment, try it with Obama's infomercial. Of course, if you don't, I'll always think you were too scared to try it, because you don't want to find out that Obama's not so bad after all.

merde, Irish... :)

As my baby doll RM would say, "holy mackeral"!

Good stuff going on here all!

Groovy

#44

"He claims he did not know what the Rev. Wright was preaching--lie."

That's ignorance and bullshit. Not surprising your disgust after all these months.

Obama said he didn't know about that particular Wright sermon from 2001. And he didn't. He was not in Church attendance on that particular Sunday, FWIW. Even his campaign didn't know, until those sound bites from a footnote of his larger sermon after 911 was repeated ad nauseam 24/7.

Here's conservative Andrew Sullivan on the full context of the sermon:

"This strikes me as worth a look. Here is Jeremiah Wright's sermon from which one Hannity clip has been culled. After 9/11, Wright is making a classic pacifist case against what he calls "the insanity of the cycle of hatred." I don't agree with it, and he clearly equates the death of innocents in American warfare with the deaths of innocents in 9/11. But it does fall within the boundaries of a certain kind of Christianity. It does not seem to me to be Chomsky so much as a left-wing Biblical pacifist message. He is also self-critical, which you don't get from the edited version. He is calling Christians to examine "my own and your own relationship with God," in the wake of a moment when we all sought to fight back against the evil of al Qaeda. I don't agree with his moral equivalence. But I do see the roots of this message in a version of liberation theology and Christianity, rather than hatred of America as such. He includes himself as someone who needs to examine his own conscience and consider what he regards as a cycle of violence. I think the cable news clips are a little distortive and make more sense in fuller context.

Let me add that I do not believe that patriotism means never criticizing one's own country, especially if one criticizes one's own complicity in its failings. That's especially true for Christians who are sometimes called to make their fellows very uncomfortable in their loyalties. In the days after 9/11, I would have been furious about that sermon. But from a distance, I do not see it as political so much as a form of radical Christianity."

If you like an "unbiased" view, here's the highly respected Bill Moyers of PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/watch.html

Bill Moyers reflects on his interview with Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

May 2, 2008

BILL MOYERS:Welcome to the Journal.

I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam, "Who's telling the truth over there?" "Everyone," he said. "Everyone sees what's happening through the lens of their own experience." That's how people see Jeremiah Wright. In my conversation with him on this broadcast a week ago and in his dramatic public appearances since, he revealed himself to be far more complex than the sound bites that propelled him onto the public stage. Over 2000 of you have written me about him, and your opinions vary widely. Some sting: "Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a race-hustling, American hating radical," one viewer wrote. A "nut case," said another. Others were far more were sympathetic to him.

Many of you have asked for some rational explanation for Wright's transition from reasonable conversation to shocking anger at the National Press Club. A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist. Many black preachers I've known — scholarly, smart, and gentle in person — uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course I've known many white preachers like that, too.

But where I grew up in the south, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else; a safe place for the fierce thunder of dignity denied, justice delayed. I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched. Or if my great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a constitution that proclaimed, "We the people." Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Connor, and Jesse Helms. Even so, the anger of black preachers I've known and heard about and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic.

That's not how Jeremiah Wright came across in those sound bites or in his defiant performances this week. What white America is hearing in his most inflammatory words is an attack on the America they cherish and that many of their sons have died for in battle ? forgetting that black Americans have fought and bled beside them, and that Wright himself has a record of honored service in the Navy. Hardly anyone took the "chickens come home to roost" remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences. My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being. But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated, while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test. Does this excuse Wright's anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You'll have to decide or yourself. At least it helps me to understand the why of them.

But in this multimedia age the pulpit isn't only available on Sunday mornings. There's round the clock media — the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content. So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help — people who for their own reasons set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn't running for president with the man in the pew who was.

Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering Catholic-bashing Texas preacher who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins. But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee's delusions, or thinks AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right. After 9/11 Jerry Falwell said the attack was God's judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.

Jon Stewart recently played a tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the oval office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America. This is crazy; this is wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't.

Which means it is all about race, isn't it? Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school. What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettle some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship. We are often exposed us to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I've never seen anything like this ? this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner before our very eyes. Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race. It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said "beware the terrible simplifiers".

#58 I wrote: "Obama said he didn't know about that particular Wright sermon from 2001. And he didn't. He was not in Church attendance on that particular Sunday, FWIW. Even his campaign didn't know, until those sound bites from a footnote of his larger sermon after 911 was repeated ad nauseam 24/7."

Just to clarify, in fact Obama admitted that he knew Wright made inflammatory remarks at times. But as he also said, the sound bites, the ones he wasn't aware of, were not 'just' inflammatory. He is being honest here, not typical political lying, which would have been easy.

Here's the Rev. Wright interview with Moyers in question.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Watch the video/read the transcript(Wright's only interview was with Moyers on PBS after the controversy):

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

And tell me Rev. Wright is the monster the 24/7 media made you believe.

Freyja,

OK, so he DID know. Thank you for being honest about that. He DID go there for I believe 20 years, had the Rev. Wright baptize his children, had his whole family attending services, etc. OK, so, why are there masses of people who want him to be president? This guy's beloved pastor rants about "Goddamn America"? Do you and others understand this guy (Obama) wants to be the leader of America? Do you see how those 2 things, when combined A) Obama wants to lead America, be in charge of the army, etc. and B) his beloved pastor says goddamn America is really not a good combination?

Hi guys, some of you know me as a long time reader of intentblog, and even fewer know about my political affiliations. I rarely comment though, nowadays, but today I want to share something important with you: I voted for Obama.

When I turned 18, I made my family proud and registered to vote as a Republican. I could not have fathomed the political rollercoaster that awaited me.

Four years ago on election night I jostled for position around the bar in the band room of our fraternity house, it was like watching a road game. Almost all of us voted for Bush, including me, except for one die hard kerry supporter we were sure to mock every time they called a state for our boy dubya. Poor guy. He was the only one not drinking and I'm pretty sure I called him a "f***ing pansy" a few times. I've tried to forget the other mindless drivel that shitted itself out of my mouth about Kerry; thank you very much to the winning combination of poor critical thinking skills + televised propaganda. We even had t-shirts with this this on the back of it, I thought it was hilarious.

Two years ago, long after the reality of our foreign policy predicament was depressingly clear, I voted a straight blue ticket. If it were an option, I would've voted a straight "not-red" ticket. I kept my registration checked "Republican," for ideological reasons, namely my advocacy for smaller government, which I still feel is best.

Less than a year ago, I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

Today, I voted for Barack Obama.

And I'm sure you're all thinking, "Wow, what an unbemotherf***inglievable monumental shock. Who could have possibly expected someone at intentblog to vote for Obama. This is EPIC!"

To the none of you who seriously thought that, calm down. I'm not writing this because my position is shocking, or in an attempt to sway any votes (as if there were any seriously left to be swayed here), or to encourage you to get out the vote. I'm writing this for a purely cathartic, personal reason; because I'm quite sure I'll explode if I don't vent somehow, in someway, about this almost virally infectious political season.

[Rant]

Am I the only one who is locked in some horrifying political Orwellian nightmare? But it isn't just a nightmare, it's a crazy, quantum "what the f***" circus nightmare of a nightmare. The kind of things nightmares have nightmares about when they're not being nightmares.... I honestly have no idea where to begin, or where I am, for that matter. Let's just pick something at random. How about that horrendous three word noun that has been force-fed to my cerebral cortex. Did somebody say "Joe the Plumber?"

Sweet Slidin' Jesus on a stripper pole what in the f*** is going on with Joe the Plumber? Truth be told I sent my mother a link to that video encounter Before the debates. I had decided on my vote a few months prior and after seeing the video I sent it to my mom, I felt it showed my candidate practically applying the rhetoric of his campaign to a real world situation, and I wanted her to see it. Maybe she'll mention it to her friends, I thought. "Bulletproof." I felt vindicated about my presumption of his commitment and intelligence, and importantly to me he didn't come across as a politician....and I abhor politicians. Now I'm going to jump ahead here, past my shock at the unpredictable ascendancy of Joe the Plumber in the public eye, and for the sake of argument, just go along with me. Forget the fact that the conversation revealed a depth of understanding by Obama about the application of economic policy, forget that the hypothetical scenario being discussed very likely would end up better for "joe" under Obama's plan than McCain's, forget that Joe's name is Sam, forget that Joe was stretching the truth at the very best and being a schilling-douche at worst (Uncle Keating, was it?)...forget everything. Everything except for the fact that this political tool now has a PUBLICIST and is attempting a COUNTRY RECORD DEAL. This is the point that a casual political observer would glibly offer the cliche pronouncement that, "You can't write this stuff." Well that's just incorrect. YOU CAN ONLY WRITE THIS STUFF. The real question is What the F*** is it doing in my reality? I mean seriously, how is this happening in the actual universe? The only answer is that we exist in a pocket of space time that is dictated by the whims of an author of political satire writing his brilliant masterpiece, "Thank God We Don't Live Over There: A Novel about Political Inanity." You think it can't get worse, and then.......

BAM! Sarah Palin!

Everyone together with me now....."What. The. F***." I have never been so insulted in my life. You know what made me turn on Bush? No WMDs in Iraq and suspending Habeus Corpus didn't help, sure.... But somewhere along the way, I became convinced that I could do a better job. I'm betting some of you know the feeling well. I wasn't even 21 when I first had that thought, but I was convinced I could be a better President than the man sitting in the oval office, and that realization was devastating. I was just starting to figure the world out and somehow I found myself demonstrably smarter than the man in charge of the free world? Put a different way, this fucking idiot has the launch codes? And just when I thought I couldn't lower the bar any lower for the highest office in the land for the country I'd die for, in comes a tv-anchor/beauty-pageant-winner/crytal-meth-capital-book-banning-mayor gliding in on her helicopter fresh off an aerial hunt for wolves, and all of the sudden George Bush looks like Norman Borlaug, and I'm trying to kill myself with a wooden spoon to the ear. Man walked with dinosaurs, no global warming, witchcraft! Take your pick. Apparently if you believe one crazy thing, the media will harp on it until you're extinct, yet if you believe a hundred crazy things, you somehow become immune to criticism. If, just last year, 365 days ago, you would have asked me to give a list of ideas that would categorically disqualify someone for the office of President of the United States, I swear to God "man walking with dinosaurs" is number 8. The next time you're near a time machine and want to make someone cry, go back to about a year ago and tell me my number 8 is wrong. Matter of fact, if you want to be nice about it, kick me in the balls for 5 hours and then tell me number 8 is wrong, at least then I'd have something to distract me from the pain.

I could go on, but I won't, I'll simply leave you with this. If only because if you are wondering why a conservative republican like me voted the way I did, so here goes...

I believe in small government. I believe that our constitution is the greatest achievement in the history of humanity, born our of the spurns of the Enlightenment, a monument to secular rule, civilized dissent, and individual liberty. Yet, when I entered the voting booth today, I didn't base my vote on policy, or ideology, or affiliation. I didn't vote in the hopes of a bigger government, or a more liberal social policy, or for the advancement of a political party. I didn't vote "for" a Democrat or "for" a Republican or "against" the greater of two evils. I didn't vote to change our policy in Iraq, or to get troops into or out of Afghanistan, or to give homosexuals the right to marry or to ban prayer in schools. I didn't vote for experience and I didn't vote for change. I voted for the one thing that has been categorically absent for as long as I can remember noticing: Reason. Anybody can latch on to policies and advance them blindly on faith alone, both sides of the aisle have demonstrated that for decades, but for the first time in my life I feel like I have a leader who would listen to an argument and actually change his position if he were wrong. Naive? Maybe. But what an inspiringly audacious Hope it is.

It may seem small, but after living in this circus for entirely too long, it's everything. Now go vote so we can take this f***ing tent down.

"OK, so he DID know." #61

I said he DIDN'T know about the "goddamn America." part of that particular 911 sermon. Pastors are not saints and they say crazy things(all of them do) and the oppo research could find only a couple of offensive soundbites from his thousands of sermons over 20 years. That should give a hint.

What Obama DID know is that Wright had some offensive political views from liberation theology point of view, like most pastors do.

See Bill Moyers interview if you can bring it to be open to learn something positive about Wright and Obama.

Wow this clearly unhinged Olivia really has some brain damage.

Thanks Freyja for the Bill Moyers video. He is one of my favorite media personalities, an intellectual with integrity and vast experience.

apparently god has told 23% of texans that barack is a muslim...

this must the pro america parts of the country...and where is the nut from?

Good stuff Freyja and Michael

Watch this become real big in the remaining days. Personally I respect the guy even more after this. What other American politician would have the courage to quote these passages of the bible?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmS_vULPxw&feature=related

If this was already posted here I apologize.

I think Barack Obama might be the nearest approximation to Third Jesus that American Presidential Election has.

Nature:

"This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7217/full/4551149a.html

PS. Speaking of "Axis of Evil" (mentioned by a reader upthread,) FWIW the neoconservative, David Frum, who actually coined that particular term for the Bush administration prefers Obama over McCain on foreign policy and absolutely as the next president of USA.

BTW the conservative foreign policy big weight Ken Adelman who actively promoted the Iraq War invasion, who was famous for calling it a "Cakewalk," is voting for Obama.

A few days ago he authored a Huffington Post article entitled "Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama"

#70

For Nature, the premiere science journal, to endorse a candidate is highly unusual. In fact this never happened before. Nature was founded in 1869.

Michael #62

Thank you for voting for REASON.

All I've ever wished for is for reason to prevail. I can respect any position that is based on reason. Though I'm guessing you and I would disagree very deeply on many things. I'm so glad that we agree on this most important of qualities. It's a quality I have always admired about Obama and it's why I feel terrific having voted for him.

Great comment Michael. But I have a bone to pick with you.

I am a Democrat because I believe in small government, one that doesn't intrude on people's civil liberties. And a government that is "small" by virtue of its transparency.

Republicans have been the party of Big Brother despite the idiotic conventional wisdom.

Michael,

Thanks for making me laugh so hard!

Thanks for expressing my feelings in a most colorful and entertaining way. I really enjoyed your stream of consciousness, sort of late night after a glass or 6 of wine-style.

Here's hoping that more conservatives who value reason over demagoguery, idiocy, McCarthyism, Joe the Plumbery, bamboozlement, Fox newsiness, etc..will see the light as you have.

Bless you.

Re. Michael

Gooooood rant! Very nice work.

At last Ruth has some real competition.

Current circus tent coming down in 4, 3, 2, 1...

Is that coffee you smell?

Yes? then good morning!

And welcome to MY life since election night 2000 when i fell asleep to "President Gore" and woke up to...wha-???

Went to bed certain that it was Gore's night. Woke up to a feeling of impending dread -- that was prologue to a future that turned out way worse than I thought possible at the time.

I won't be going to bed this time around until Fox calls it for Obama.

@62

Well, rhetoric like "small government is good" is the problem.

The term 'efficient government' better fits my pragmatic stance.

And of course we now have the biggest government ever.

#62

Dude, you're still an idol worshipper:

"I believe that our constitution is the greatest achievement in the history of humanity, born our of the spurns of the Enlightenment, a monument to secular rule, civilized dissent, and individual liberty."

That's some crack smokin' there --- that's why you got fooled for years, and why you'll be fooled again.

The constitution has some very good elements -- it also has some very crappy elements. Most of it is irrelevent administrative trivia -- necessary in it being there, but irrelevent in it's specific form. Some of it has become so outdated as to be only interpretable by the high priests of the law -- no one knows what it actually means.

So, it's like most human institution. Putting it on an altar is an abdication of your responsibility for thought.

But then again, that's a bad habit you have.

Michael:

Now that is a rant...
you got that right.. =)

I sum up my (sincere) feelings about small government thus:

I wish the government be as small as it CAN be to do what it MUST do.

I don't like the idea of a sprawling, endless, wasteful government, nor a mediocre one (who does, right?). But I believe firmly that there are some things the government does better than individuals or corporations, notably pooling our efforts and resources to handle Big Issues, especially given the exponential increase of complexity in the challenges we face as a growing nation within a broader 21st century world.

Chris:

Now's not the time for bickering is it?

It's probably better at this point to welcome the guy rather than attacking as soon as he comes through the door. Don't you think? His comment does not seem like an appropriate one for a debate. It seems better suited to offering a chair and an open mind and offering a "thank you" for his rationality and reason.

Indy:

I think you'd find that you are are in the EXTREME minority.

"I believe that our constitution is the greatest achievement in the history of humanity, born our of the spurns of the Enlightenment, a monument to secular rule, civilized dissent, and individual liberty." --Michael

I am right here with him and I'm liberal as hell...

@81

It's still a phony Republican talking point.

And I hope he comes to realize it.

As per the Obama informerical, I'm glad that most of you didn't react like I did. When the commercial opened with amber waves of grain--yes, just like in the anthem America--it amped up my cynicism real fast. And so did the presidential brass music. And so did the talk about hope, which comes off as saccharine to me no matter who's talking about it. I remember when they showed a speech where Obama was rattling off a list of promises, I even heckled at the screen "And a chicken in every pot!" And this is from someone who already voted for Obama. But then, I'm a little weird. Or maybe just too cynical.

#61 Freyja,

You are very naive (on top of obviously having swallowed a dose of Obama propaganda) if you think the Rev. Wright was normally preaching to play nicey nice and that his hate talk and hatefulness was not well known in his community. If you want to think Obama was normally sitting in the pews listening to a nicey-nice pastor saying nicey-nice things you're deluding yourself. Do you think the Obama people are going to admit "Yes he is a hate-filled pastor and Obama was well aware of that, I mean geez he was there for 20 years what do you think he is deaf, dumb and blind?" Of course not.
But any sensible person should know that the hate talk was not just a freakish aberration from normal nicey-nice talk.

Not that I should be swayed into a response by straw men arguments but I'll reply anyways. I can understand the scenario under which someone posts something that obviously disagrees with the majority here and out come the personal insults. Of course pointing this out no doubt will be labeled as "whiny", even though the person may just be pointing out the facts.

I can understand people who see Obama's ad as a stunt that's purely an attempt to get people to vote emotionally if they can't vote rationally. But that may not mean that that person is going to vote for McCain, which s/he may believe seems to be the automatically stupid response/assumption from/of every dimwit who sees a criticism of Obama as a glowing endorsement for McCain. Rather, in that person's view it may be that s/he let the country decide who is the "best of the worst" to run the country (or cast the vote for a 3rd party candidate). But then, it's typical of some of us to react to some people in a way... because of their tedious, malicious, half-cocked horseshit is so repetitive and their skull so thick that appealing to their sense of reason doesn't get the job done as quickly or effectively as giving a good hard reaming. I know they like to think that they're important, but every dipshit on the internet has regurgitated those pathetic arsenal of dishonest and counterfactual talking points to such an extent that I have them memorized.

If you're going to try to inflate your own already bloated sense of self-importance by delivering the same tired old cliches offered by every other half-cocked jackass who decides that s/he'll look really smart and considerate and oh-so-careful if s/he takes the easiest, most reactionary kind of cynical approach to the candidates possible, then you shouldn't be surprised when people see straight through your act and see you instead for the vacuous, ineffectual, empty-headed tit you really are.

F*ck you.

Re. 78

I beg to differ. First off, thanks for the comment (to you and everyone else). Secondly, I realize the language was lofty, but I wouldn't change it in hindsight. No one here has any reason to know this about me, but I'm in law school and am pursuing a career in either international or constitutional law (my passion for human rights driving the career train on that one).

To respectfully disagree, I don't think that its mostly "irrelevant administrative trivia," I personally find the articulation of the bill of rights stirring, when viewed in its historical context. On the other hand, I would never argue that the constitution was inerrant, or anything of the sort, one need only look at the infamous "3/5ths" rule if one needed convincing, or the need for us to pass amendments granting womens suffrage, among other things.

To be short: I admire the constitution in the same way I admire this country.

The most profound thing about it all is that it is an ideal; one that we will never reach or own, but the pursuit of which will make us all the richer, so long as we're fortunate enough to let this experiment continue.

Re. 83

Small Government...my personal definition, anyway...is an abstract concept where government serves three purposes as efficiently as possible, and is eternally limited by the people from whom its power is derived.

In no order whatsoever:

1.Protection from external threats. (i.e. military invasion)

2. Preservation of internal security. (i.e. court of laws)

3. Works not capable of being undertaken by individuals. (i.e. infrastructure, roads, police, fire dep't)

That is, as it stands this hour, my perspective on the best mode of government. It is not, to me, merely a republican talking point. Talking points are shit. I have reasons for my beliefs, and if you can prove me wrong, then hot dammit, I'm the better for it. I'd be happy to have the discussion, but give me a little bit more credit if you please.

Chris, can't disagree with that!

87, Michael

I have a feeling that you are going to metaphorically kick ass in the name of humans everywhere. Glad this planet has you aboard :)

From a lawyer-turned-middle-school-teacher for whom Barack Obama's more-than-passing acquaintance with the Constitution is one of the strongest reasons to vote for him (among the hundreds of very good reasons), I say "Hear, hear!"

And your response was far more civil than the previous comment by Indy deserved.

87 dude...if are that smart how come u could not see what a basket case u were hooting and rooting for 4 years ago? i think u are just following the crowd which ever way the wind is blowing...when everyone else is jumping off a sinking ship and grapplin' at any straw or llifraft u wound have to be suicidal to stay on that ship...and that caner dude is like the skipper of the vessel that has hit a berg and listing...and u were unfortunate to be on it in the first place...

but like they say...better late than neva...u hear that amigos?

Strong language #86.
Didn't your mother teach you any manners?
I don't agree with 98% of the stuff said on here and I don't have a hissy fit.
Sorry for offending you so strongly.

#86,

Oh and by the way, your clumsy verbal acrobatics in whih you squash 5 mismatched cursewords together in a row does not make you (under any of your pseudonyms) or your candidate look any better.

The republican mantra about Democrats being for "big government" is another myth. Democrats ideally want an 'efficient' government and one that intervenes only where it makes sense. You know, this whole "government for the people by the people" thingy. I can't fathom that Republicans still see themselves as being a "small government party" after their Department of Fatherland Security, the wiretapping, the buttsex hysterics and obviously Hanky Panky's $700B bailout. This is small government, people? By what fucking metric?!

Hey Michael,

We come from the same ideological background BUT, if you don't mind, answer this question for me. Is healthcare a right, priveledge or responsibility? Being a small government conservative I don't want the government in charge of healthcare anymore than you do, but, at the same time, in this day and age, in a country as prosperous as ours, can we not agree that everybody, rich and poor, deserve basic healthcare when sick?

There has to be a better way than what we conservatives (libertarians) are offering especially given the results of "our" power in this century.

Viewed the Obama infomerical. I can't believe I watched all thirty minutes of it. And I especially can't believe that it wasn't a waste of thirty minutes ...

Personally, I found the little vignettes about ordinary Americans a bit off-putting — political sentimentality makes me cynical. I was more interested (instinctively) in hearing Obama simply speak about his policies (Not that I am not informed of them.) I was most impressed with a superficial factor: wouldn't it be cool to have a president who could open his mouth and say something and not sound like an illiterate hick?

I believe I'll be able to tolerate this fellow at the helm for a time...

It's encouraging, that the odds on favorite to win this thing is at least just a little bit different than your average politician.

But I am still amazed that someone as cynical and snarky as I am can still be moved by hearing this man speak. I actually think that he truly believes what he's saying. And it makes all the difference.

Re. 94

Beautiful description.

You hit the nail on the head with that one. Great comment.

Ref #94

About health care:
The US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and others. Universal health care is provided in most developed countries, in many developing countries, and is the trend worldwide.

Some posters and bloggers repeat the same dung ad nauseam and have faith it will miraculously become the truth. To replace ignorance with the pretension of knowledge just shows a tendency for dishonesty.

Olivia writes, “I am careful not to destroy anymore of my brain cells--I think I already lost several thousand watching the first 3 minutes and 55 seconds of Obama's infomercial. Maybe some quick yoga moves would restore the blood flow to my brain.”

Say no more, dear, and good luck!

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence”.
RD

"Personally, I found the little vignettes about ordinary Americans a bit off-putting — political sentimentality makes me cynical. I was more interested (instinctively) in hearing Obama simply speak about his policies (Not that I am not informed of them.)" ~Vanessa

I see your point, but this is why no one has ever gotten very far with the talk-seriously-about-policy (which also means detail) approach. Consider, for instance, Hillary Clinton's 90's health care fiasco. The reason that was a fiasco (and caused all of us to live in a country with a crappy health care system for another couple of decades) was because she talked seriously and gave details.

I'm not saying that I like marketing (and/or framing). and I am absolutely under no circumstances advocating bullshit. I'm just advocating for, and I believe in the possibility of, literate, engaging, well written abstracts. The fact that they occur almost never in the wild does not mean they can't be done.

I think the Obamamercial was not necessarily a good example of a literate abstract ... it was as you imply mainly marketing (especially the vignette's) but there was a bit of that. A couple of minutes worth.

The vignette's did include some very interesting detail about style. This will get analyzed again and again, of course. This is how Obama's team recreated their own Joe the Plumber. The Kennedy imagery recast in a more pedestrian format; The POSITIVE reference to white flight was hysterical ... although I may be the only person on the planet at the moment laughing at that particular joke (which was not incidental ... every detail of this production was intentional, guaranteed).
Substantively, the linkages that were made between the fiscal crisis, the war in Iraq, and health care were brilliantly done (in abstract form).
Personally, I think the war-healthcare-economy links were the main reason to do this. You can't do this in an one minute or less ad; this sort of construct is the basis of every speech, but only a few people see the speeches, and the press does not report this level of detail. It is too much for them.

I'll post this here too just for chutes and ladders!

Vote No to Proposition 8!

Second costliest campaign? Gay rights in Calif.

“Even the presidential candidates weighed in on Proposition 8: Sen. John McCain endorsed it and Sen. Barack Obama opposed it.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein oppose the measure, which critics say unfairly denies one group a basic right.

The founders of Google, Yahoo and Adobe Systems took out a newspaper ad Friday encouraging Silicon Valley residents to reject it.

If passed, it would overrule the state Supreme Court decision in May that said preventing gays from marrying was unlawful discrimination”.

People, this is a matter of separation of religious belief from that of government legislated law. Marriage may be held to be a religious precept in Islam, Judaism, and Chrisitanity, but government has no right to politically define “marriage” in these terms: this is the very definition of - freedom from others’ religious dictates -!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Amen