HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

NYT:

Late Monday night, in the Carolina Inn in Chapel Hill, N.C., Barack Obama's long, slow fuse burned to an end. Earlier that day he had thumbed through his BlackBerry, reading accounts of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.'s latest explosive comments on race and America. But his remarks to the press this day had amounted to a shrug of frustration.

Only in this hotel room, confronted with the televised replay of the combustible pastor, did the candidate realize the full import of the remarks, his aides say. At the same time, aides fielded phone calls and e-mail from uncommitted superdelegates, several demanding that the candidate speak out more forcefully.

As Mr. Obama told close friends after watching the replay, he felt dumbfounded, even betrayed, particularly by Mr. Wright's implication that Mr. Obama was being hypocritical. He could not tolerate that.

The next afternoon, Mr. Obama held a news conference and denounced his former pastor's views as "divisive and destructive," giving "comfort to those who prey on hate." And so, with those remarks, a tightly knit relationship finally came apart -- Mr. Wright had married Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, and baptized their children.

Theirs was a long and painful falling out, marked by a degree of mutual incomprehension, friends and aides say. It began at the moment Mr. Obama declared his candidacy, when he abruptly uninvited his pastor from delivering an invocation, injuring the older man's pride and fueling his anger.

If you care at all about the intersection of religion and politics, this show was an absolute must-watch.

I don't care what you thought about the man before, because whatever it was, it was wrong.

It's impossible to excerpt much without losing the meaning - although PastorDan has tried admirably here - so I implore you to either watch the video or read through the transcript. And to convince, I'll offer up the conclusion of the show, the one part I think truly does stand on its own:

BILL MOYERS: Our denomination, the United Church of Christ has called for a sacred conversation on race in America. What are the steps that you think from all of your experience can be taken to move race relations forward?

REVEREND WRIGHT: I think there are many - to start using Bill Jones' paradigm, about how one sees God. Your theology determines one's anthropology. And how you see humans determines your sociology. To look at how we've come to see race, and in others of other races, based on our understanding of God who sees others as less than important. Less than my people. And where in our religious traditions are there passages in our sacred scriptures that are racist? They're in the Vedas, the Babylonian Talmud, they're in the Koran, they're in the Bible. How do we grapple with these passages in our sacred texts? The same way you grapple with Judges:19, where it's alright for a preacher to have a concubine and cut her up into 12 pieces. We gotta argue with our texts that are, as we've been struggling with, battling with, wrestling with, anti-Semitic. The Christian, "The Jews killed Jesus." No, we gotta come to grips with, you know, these texts were written by certain people at certain times with certain racist understandings of others who are different. That different meant deficient. That doing that with adults and starting with kids. that begins the conversation that Senator Obama talked about that we need to have. And re-writing the curriculum in our schools to tell the truth in our schools.

UPDATE: The reaction from O'Reilly and Gingrich to this interview is even for them quite shocking. Leaving aside the fact that the show hadn't even yet aired, thus meaning that they couldn't have seen more than a few out takes, the idea that Moyers "dislikes America" is so absurd that I hardly know what to say.

Does this sound like someone who hates his country?

It's just a fact: Democracy doesn't work without citizen activism and participation, starting at the community. Trickle down politics doesn't work much better than trickle down economics. It's also a fact that civilization happens because we don't leave things to other people. What's right and good doesn't come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it - as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit - to believe that the flame of democracy will never go out as long as there's one candle in your hand.

Just because I disagree with your vision for the country does not mean I hate I the country. I shouldn't even need to say that, should I? Why do I need to say that?

When Sen. John McCain appeared on ABC's This Week this past Sunday, he was asked his opinion about the endorsement he received from Pastor John Hagee. Despite Hagee's long history of, well, insane views about religion and politics - including claims that the Catholic Church is the "Great Whore" and that Hurricane Katrina was god's response to a planned gay pride parade - here's what McCain said:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?

MCCAIN: Oh, probably, sure. [...]

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you no longer want his endorsement?

MCCAIN: I'm glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything. And thanks for asking.

Leaving aside the nonsensical "anti-anything" bit, I'd love to know why McCain is allowed to take such a ludicrous position. It would be one thing if we were talking about a few random comments that Hagee had made in the past but never repeated, but that's not what we are talking about at all.

Here's Hagee just yesterday on Dennis Prager's radio show:

HAGEE: Yes. The topic of that day was cursing and blessing. ... What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God, in time if New Orleans recovers and becomes the pristine city it can become it may in time be called a blessing. But at this time it's called a curse...

PRAGER: Right, but in the case, did NPR get, is this quote correct though that in the case of New Orleans you do feel it was sin?

HAGEE: In the case of New Orleans, their plan to have that homosexual rally was sin. But it never happened. The rally never happened.

PRAGER: No, I understand.

HAGEE: It was scheduled that Monday.

PRAGER: No, I'm only trying to understand that in the case of New Orleans, you do feel that God's hand was in it because of a sinful city?

HAGEE: That it was a city that was planning a sinful conduct, yes.

No doubt the liberally biased elite media will turn this into the firestorm of controversy it deserves, right? McCain once railed against "agents of intolerance," but now he condemns their remarks while happily accepting their help and support. What a maverick! What an honorable man!

Seriously, where does the Washington Post find these people? So what if there are more Catholics on his speechwriting team than any other president in history? Do they really think we're supposed to measure a man's religious ideals by the people he employs to write for him? What's next: if we find out one of his speechwriters is secretly an atheist, we'll know some part of the president is secretly an atheist too? Really?

And if the president is so Catholic, why won't the Pope eat dinner with him? George and Laura are hosting a State Dinner in honor of the Pope on Wednesday. These things don't just happen accidentally. They are negotiated well in advance with a great deal of diplomatic care. Absolutely everything is planned in almost excruciating detail. The event was even planned to coincide with the Pope's 81st birthday. But at the very last minute, the Pope has declined to attend. Won't be showing up. Why? Maybe its the war. Maybe its Bush's recent admission that he authorized torture. Who knows? Either way, the Pope won't be in attendance at his own State Dinner / birthday party.

Here's a question I'd love to ask Daniel Burke, the author of this ridiculous "Bush is the first Catholic president" piece in the Post. If not only the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, but also Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have declared our war in Iraq to be immoral and unjust, how can anyone say with a straight face that "Bush has shown great deference to church teachings." Are you kidding me? Look at this nonsense:

But even when he has taken actions that the Vatican opposes, such as invading Iraq, Bush has shown deference to church teachings. Before he sent U.S. troops into Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein, he met with Catholic "theocons" to discuss just-war theory. White House adviser Leonard Leo, who heads Catholic outreach for the Republican National Committee, says that Bush "has engaged in dialogue with Catholics and shared perspectives with Catholics in a way I think is fairly unique in American politics."

That's all it takes to be a Catholic? To show deference by engaging in a dialogue? I think actual catholics might take offense to the idea that their religion is so shallow. "You don't have to agree with us. All we want is to talk to you! Forget all that business about confirmation and communion. What we're looking for is a good dialogue!" Yes, when I look back at the history of the Catholic Church, that's exactly what I see. What utter and total nonsense.

The Washington Post really can do better than this. Really.

Via TPMe:

"I'm not vetting my pastor," Obama told "The View." "I didn't have a research team during the course of 20 years to go pull every sermon he's given and see if there's something offensive that he's said."

As Greg Sargent then points out, Obama may not have vetted his pastor, but there's no doubt Republicans will.

Let me be absolutely clear about this: this will backfire. I realize that the GOP thinks it has the religious right on lockdown, but if it starts actively going after a well-respected minister in a very public way, I can assure you it will make many, many religious Americans extremely uncomfortable.

Obama's answer rests on a premise that most Americans will both respect and admire. He is essentially saying, "I wasn't in church to play politics. I was there to worship God." Religious diversity is something most Americans see as one of this country's greatest strengths. And if that's true generally, its particularly true about our diversity of Christian faiths. So the GOp might think attacking his religion is a winning strategy, but I doubt it. A clever response or two, and suddenly you've become the party that is attacking someone's Christian faith. And there is just no way that is going to work. Mark my words on this one... If they keep this up, there's gonna be one hell of a backlash coming.

So yesterday, Hillary declared that had Rev. Wright been her pastor, she would have left her church.

A week ago, Hillary's pastor, Dean Snyder, had this to say about Rev. Wright:

"The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth."

So Chris Orr wants to know: does this mean Clinton will now choose to attend a new church?

Tristereo thinks so:

Of course, Huckabee will lose a general election. But in the process of losing, maybe even by a landslide, the worst subculture of rightwing extremists and religious fanatics may very well gain a mainstream audience and an influence over that audience that makes their current reach look trivial. Let's not forget, folks, that the current "conservative movement" is traced to Goldwater's landslide defeat.

That is a very real risk and the reason I cannot muster any snarky whoops at Huckabee's win in Iowa.

Now, at least one commenter pointed out that all the GOP contenders are equally awful, implying that the great thing about Huckabee is that he would be uniquely weak in a general election, and therefore his win in Iowa is great news.

That viewpoint represents a failure to recognize the uniquely dangerous qualities of Huckabee and the reasons why you would really, really want to prevent him and his followers from gaining any more national attention. Here's one: There are extremely good reasons why this country's founders went out of their way to discourage the kinds of bald appeals to religious exclusion Huckabee wallows in.

I think this gets it precisely backwards.

These opinions and viewpoints already exist. All Huckabee's candidacy is doing is shining a very bright light on them.

Watching our national media and political establishment react to Huckabee's rise has been - for me, at least - incredibly illuminating. I've long assumed that everyone took religious conservatives seriously. As I've said numerous times before, these people say what they mean and mean what they say. But watching everyone else react, I now see that our professional political classes have never really internalized that. And nowhere is that more true than on the right. For more than 25 years, conservative politicians have been able to campaign using the language of religion, but govern focused almost entirely on economics. And religious voters, it seemed, were content to allow them to do so. But no longer.

And that's why I think Tristereo has this backwards. Huckabee's candidacy is forcing everyone to wake up and realize that these people aren't joking. When they say they want to make this nation a "Christian nation," they mean it. When they say they want to put the Bible at the center of our legal system, they mean it. When they say they want to save this nation and the world for Christ, they mean it. This isn't a joke. It's not a game. And Huckabee is forcing people to realize that.

Will his candidacy give these views "more national attention?" Absolutely. But that's precisely what this country needs. You don't defeat a movement this big by ignoring it. You defeat it by standing up and forcing it to back down.

In a crowded field, Huckabee can build a coalition that delivers the GOP nomination. But in the general election he will get stomped. 1964 began the national conservative movement; 2008 will end it. Huckabee will force the "Reagan Democrats" to come home to the Democratic Party. He will convince the Millennial Generation that the Republican Party is the party of the past. He will shatter the link between economic and religious conservatives. In short, he won't build on what Goldwater built. He will tear it down.