The Obama campaign sent anonymice out to spread the idea that they would not only expand faith-based funding, but that they would also allow faith-based groups to "limit" their compliance with federal religious anti-discrimination statutes to those portions of their programs that receive federal funding. If you have ever worked in a social services program, you will know that the money, it mingles, and there are any number of accounting tricks and fictions that can be set up to allow a religious organization to receive federal funding, keep the fiction of non-discrimination w/r/t to, say, the two "federally funded positions" in their organization, while leveraging federal funds to expand the religious aspects of their organizations and - now, if Obama's signals are true - to discriminate everywhere BUT w/r/t to the federally funded positions.
[quote] And discriminating against neighborhood groups with ties to religion - which is what you're essentially calling for - is just as Constitutionally problematic, in my opinion, as the kind of discrimination the Bush administration is engaging in. [/quote]
Please. I criticized you for adopting the sort of "anti-discrimination" language that Christianists across the country have insisted on using to pretend that they are somehow an oppressed majority in this country (because that is what they want us to believe: that they are oppressed and discriminated against, and that they are a majority), and you swing wildly in the other direction.
Colleges and universities that take public funds are also required to abide by numerous federal anti-discrimination clauses, which private religious organizations are not required to follow. Now apparently Sen. Obama would like to allow religious groups to continue to discriminate, as long as they do not do so in their federally funded aspects. That is a scrim, a curtain, one that will basically allow religious groups to receive federal funds while ignoring federal anti-discrimination laws, and with that I will have absolutely no truck. There is either a bright-line, no discrimination in our organization, or there isn't, and if a religious organization wishes to discriminate in hiring, then it should not receive federal funds. That's not a hardship.
I have nothing against faith and community based social services organizations; I worked for one, and volunteer with and donate to another. I also volunter with and donate to secular organizations. I've also stopped donating time/money to groups whose religious purpose - IMO - overwhelmed their charitable purpose, but I can't do that if the federal government decides to give my tax dollars right back to them.
I didn't say he (hearts) Obama. I was responding to the poster's specific use of language that mirrors almost-directly the kind of language of "anti-Christian discrimination" that Sekulow has worked so hard to push into our public discourse.
I want to see a huge pledged delegate vote for the first viable female candidate at the convention, and IMO, that's not "bad" or "divisive" or mean. Jesse Jackson (and contrary to the contemporary characterization of him as a fringe candidate, he was briefly the front-runner after a suprise win in the Michigan caucuses in 1988) received about 30% of the delegate vote at the 1988 convention. It was a powerful and empowering moment - for me as well, since he was the first national political figure I had the chance to hear in person, four years earlier, when my dad took me to a Jesse Jackson/Rainbow Coalition rally on the lawn of the state capitol in Charleston, West Virginia in 1984.
I was pretty young then, but I don't recall anyone complaining about that.
I will assuredly vote for the Democratic nominee come November, but I am disappointed that Senator Clinton is releasing her pledged delegates. I agree with twinmom upthread: I want to see a substantial minority of the pledged delegates vote for HRC on the first ballot at the convention - not to be divisive, but to mark the historic nature of her campaign.
Contrary to many of you, I do not think that a substantial symbolic first vote for HRC at the convention would be divisive. I think it would be history-making and I want to see it.
supporters are out of step with the rank and file of the Democratic party. In fact, they have no idea what's going on out here. Evan Bayh, really? Clinton's "baggage" ? Are they still on that tired refrain? Have they not noticed that Clinton has drawn essentially half of the vote in a huge primary campaign for the presidency? Do they really think that Evan Bayh will 'unite' anyone but party insiders?
Gosh; so dumb.
Strickland, I admit, could probably deliver Ohio, which Obama will otherwise have big problems winning.
I was being flippant with the quote; I didn't have the exact one to hand and wasn't deliberately attempting to misquote her. That said, I saw the whole thing in context, and what she said was foolish; it played directly into Republican stereotypes about Democrats, and it gives me serious pause about the committment of the party's leadership to the working class. My concerns have been reinforced by the rhetoric floating around the Obamasphere for quite some time.
And I'm not advocating that better campaign = better candidate.
Instead, I was pointing out that Obama's campaign hasn't proved adaptable, and hasn't found a way to break through the aura of elitism that has come to be a very real problem for him. His campaign hasn't performed at all well over the last two months; and that's not because meanies on tee vee said bad things about Jeremiah Wright; that stuff is a non-issue to me. And aside from Wright, the media still carries Obama's water. I'm fine with it; my candidate doesn't need their approval. She managed to inspire record turnout and win by 41 points even with the bobbleheads on television telling all the hateful hillbillies that the damn thing is over, y'all stay home now, hear?
HRC has connected strongly with a demographic the Democratic party should connect with but has had trouble connecting with over the past two election cycles.
Obama peaked in Wisconsin. If he's going to be our nominee, that concerns me and it should concern you. Something's gotta change for the better in terms of his message or messaging if we are to have the convincing win we need in November.
but it was shadow over substance - a cheap zinger instead of "good politics," and one that only serves to reinforce his image as an elitist. The last I heard, Senator Obama wants to be President of all 50 states, and I do believe that that includes West Virginia. If/when he comes back here in the fall, he'll just seem like an opportunist. By contrast, he could've shown some humility and political courage with a concerted two-day swing through the state.