Dobson gets it wrong...again

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? ... Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"

                                                                     -Barack Obama

This is one of the reasons I was behind Obama early.  He's able to speak about religion, clearly, openly and directly, to people like me as well as to Christians and people of all other faiths, without dragging us down the rabbit-hole of choosing sides and deciding what God wants "us" to do or not do.  But James Dobson has a problem with this (and specifically, with this two-year old speech).

Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — passages like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

Aside from MSNBC pussing out by saying "Obama said" Leviticus suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination (because, um, A: Obama didn't just say it, he quoted it, and B: the bible doesn't suggest it, it confirms it.  This "Obama said" thing is intended to keep MSNBC out of the debate and make it sound as though they're just reporting on Obama's "interpretation".  Thanks, pussies!), I can't wait to see what James has to say!

Dobson ... accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.

"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

As Obama said, is this traditional understanding of the Bible Dobson's understanding, or Sharpton's understanding? Because they ain't the same thing.  James, you're not the arbiter of tradition, as much as you'd like to think you are.  But hey, thanks for making Obama's point for him!  There are many thousands of biblical literalists whose traditional understanding of the Bible does call for them to avoid shellfish and avoid touching anything a menstruating woman touches (read more about them in this great book).  Anyone who's spent any time with Christians understands that they're, um, human.  And being human, they are complex, and within even one congregation you will find many different "traditional" understandings of the Bible.  So Obama's point stands.  Which would the government choose to teach in schools?

Continuing in his twisting of Obama's speech (likely) or inability to comprehend it (also likely), Jimmy D says this:

Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."

"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."

What is Dobson referring to here?

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.

We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.

But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.

Those are the words Obama spoke, and some of which Dobson will presumably replay in his 18 minute radio screed.  But Dobson is (probably knowingly) very wrong in his interpretation of these words.  Obama doesn't say Dobson's followers "have no right to fight for what we believe"...quite the opposite.  He's saying they have to fight for what they believe through the democratic process - by convincing non-believers that the evangelist's values and policies are right and good.  Is this not evangelism defined?  Is this not what Jesus himself calls on his followers to do?

And far from being a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution, this is in fact a brilliant reading of it, and is a roadmap for Christians who seek wider political acceptance of their views.  And lest we think Obama's just a big ol' anti-religion, 'keep God out of the public square' liberal, let's look at one more quote from that speech.

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

I wonder, does Dobson think this is a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution?  Perhaps he would do well not to argue the Constitution with a professor of Constitutional law...

The alternate reality of Planet HRC

While sitting home sick this weekend (which sucks, I don't recommend it), I had the opportunity to watch the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee decision and related reaction. I also had ample time to consider things about Hillary Clinton's campaign that have been on my nerves for weeks now. Hopefully I get this all out in a coherent fashion!

First off, the RBC not only did the right thing, they did more than was necessary. Both Florida and Michigan were well-informed of the outcome of their changed primary dates, and imporantly, Harold Ickes and other Clinton supporters on the committee, with Hillary's full support, voted last year to strip both states of their delegates. The only reason this is an issue is because she's lost and needs an issue to stir up her supporters.

A (very weak) case could be made for seating the full delegates - tactically, from Obama's perspective, it would really just delay the inevitable, and would assuage Michigan and Florida's voters. Who, of course, have been whipped into a froth about the issue with Hillary's incessant prodding. Realistically, though, this shouldn't happen. Both states knew what the outcome would be of changing their dates, and to give them a free pass would not only send the message that no rules need be enforced, but would be a big fuck you to states like Nevada and South Carolina who would have liked to be earlier, but complied with the rules. Florida's recent complaining that it was all the Republican legislature's fault, not the Democratic voters, rings empty to my ears. Really, Florida Democrats? You let Republicans dictate your party's nomination process? Let's not kid ourselves, they had the opportunity to adapt and use a caucus system to apportion their delegates. So, other than the opportunity to soothe the two state's feelings, the only real advantage to this would have been unplugging one of HRC's many bogus arguments.

Leaving things as they were was, tactically, a non-starter as well. It would have respected the rules, of course, but HRC has worked overtime to get those all tossed out the window anyway (since her campaign didn't understand them to start with, they must not matter). The anger Hillary's ginned up among her Michigan and Florida supporters would have gotten completely out of hand had they just left things alone. (Look at this lunatic for a barometer of the response that would have gotten...this person isn't even from Michigan or Florida, and is this unhinged despite the rules being changed in her candidate's favor!)

So, that leaves us with the solution we've got, which aside from Harold Icke's posturing, was supported by most of Hillary's supporters on the committee. It moves the goalpost out a bit, but frankly Obama should make up that difference this week and "end" it. I say "end" because I've lost faith in Hillary's sense of reason, and until I see differently, I assume she'll refuse to concede until the last delegate casts their vote in Denver. And for you Hillary supporters who are so up in arms about the Michigan uncommitted delegates being given to Obama (and don't forget the four "hijacked" delegates, woe is us!), even if they seated every delegate as is, she'd still be 130 delegates behind, and he'd only need 110 to seal the deal. She'd lose anyway. And frankly, had your candidate not been taking great pains to game the system ex post facto, and had evidence not indicated that Hillary supporters had made efforts to fill those uncommitted delegate slots for the national convention, this action would not have been necessary. Don't like that? Tough shit.

This brings us to the alternate reality on Planet HRC. You see, despite frothing up their supporters with the false hope that she could win if the full delegates were seated, the campaign knew that was never the case. They just wanted to be able to count Florida and Michigan (where, lest we forget, Obama kept his word and removed himself from the ballot) in their interpretation of the popular vote. You see, on planet HRC, if you include Florida and Michigan, both states where Obama respected the rules and agreements and Hillary did not, Hillary leads in the alternate reality popular vote. In the real world, of course, that only works if you throw out caucus states where she lost and ignore the Texas caucus, which counts in the delegate count but went for Obama. But it seems that if you talk to any HRC supporter at this point, their alternate reality has taken over their brain. (shame that the legacy media is buying into this fiction, too)

What other beliefs are truths in the alternate reality of Planet HRC? Well, that Obama will lose nationally to McCain, but Hillary would win. That her primary wins in "big states" translate into electoral college victory, but guaranteed losses for him. That he's run a "sexist" campaign. That he's somehow stolen the nomination from her. That he is, himself, a racist. And if reports yesterday are to be believed, some folks on Planet HRC now believe Obama is a murderer! Hooray - supporters of the woman who will forever be accused by Republicans of murdering Vince Foster now accuse their opponent of being a murderer because he, um, "took" the nomination from her (that chain email should hit the ol' inbox in 3..2..). At least most of them don't think he's a Muslim, although many of them are convinced that this belief is so widespread it will destroy him. Our only hope is Hillary! The one that goes unspoken, but is definitely a subtext here and infuriates me more than almost anything, is the idea that Hillary deserves the nomination because "women have suffered long enough"...which, of course, ignores the fact that Obama is a black man in a country famous for its past embrace of slavery and deeply ingrained racism!

To be clear:
A: No one "deserves" the nomination, except the person who earns it by winning primaries and caucuses.
B: Women have suffered. Blacks have suffered. Neither is comparable. And neither fact makes any member of those classes "qualified" to be President. To suggest so is ludicrous and stupid.

So let's address these. The idea that Obama can't win in November but she will is driven from current polls, which show her doing better than him against McCain in the electoral vote (Obama leads in national preference polls, she essentially ties). There are a couple factors at play here. One is Florida. She wins it, he's losing big. Thanks to Hillary's efforts, Florida is a lost cause. She's been at great pains to paint him as the devil there. The main issue, however, is that Obama is right now at his low point in the polls, after two months of constant attacks against his character and relentless scandal-mongering from the Clinton team. During those two months, aside from the Bosnia lie nonsense and the RFK gaffe, Clinton and McCain have both gone unexamined, both in their character, recent actions, and their history. Clinton and McCain are both at their high point in national polls. Clinton is one big bundle of scandals, none of which Obama has examined (nor has the media!). If she's your nominee, it's one after the other for months and months, plus her generally disagreeable nature during this campaign, and you've got a sad loss for a formerly promising candidate. Obama's seen the kitchen sink thrown at him, and a 10% lead in national polls against McCain is his low point. Cleaning up the electoral votes, even without Florida, is not just possible but likely. The reality is, once Democrats start pounding on McCain, and Democratic incumbents (there are more of them, remember!) start working with Obama, states will swing his direction.

The big state argument is laughably bogus. She won California, ergo Obama will lose to McCain? Fucking nonsense. She won New York, ergo he can't beat McCain there? Honestly, what idiot can actually believe this shit? She's guaranteed him a Florida loss, and my guess at the moment is she'll work to undermine him in Ohio as well, but if I'm right, neither state would be a loss on HIS merits, but rather would be due to HER efforts.

He's run a sexist campaign? He's a racist? He "stole" the nomination? Buh..what!? People in the media have certainly been sexist, no doubt, but Obama's been nothing but deferential throughout. The "sweetie" comment would have gone unnoticed by all but the most determined feminists had Hillary not turned the sexism filter up to 11. And the campaign that harbors Geraldine Ferraro and Harriet Christian ("an inadequate black male who wouldn't have run if it wasn't a white woman running!"), or which openly states they're the choice for "hard-working, white voters" certainly has little room to be casting the racism card. And as for "stole" the nomination...well, if your definition of "stole" is "won more delegates according to the rules", then yes.

Okay, you get the point. Planet HRC has some sort of reality-deflecting atmosphere that creates Harriet Christians. I have friends at work about whose sanity I've come to have my doubts...because their arguments about this have gone so far from being reasonable or rational that I simply can't understand them anymore. But the reality is, the only possible reason for all these Clinton supporters who claim they'll vote for McCain in the fall to actually do so is to give themselves the "I told you so" edge. They want to say he can't win, then work to guarantee it. And that, my friends, is a complete separation from reality as far as I'm concerned. Make no mistake: With Hillary's supporters, Obama wins in the fall. Without them, he (possibly) loses. It's that simple, and it's their choice, not his. Remember this when November 6th rolls around and we examine what happened. Did the fog lift? Did they make the right decision, or not? Time will tell.

*sigh* I've had enough of Hillary

I give up.  It's just become too disgusting to bear. 

Now, Hillary's running an ad featuring Osama bin Laden.  So, finally, it's enough for Switzer.  Fuck off, Hillary.

They're still talking about Obama having to answer "tough" questions at the last debate (and the media, btw, is happily supporting this talking point  the linked CNN article says Obama was "asked several pointed questions").  As I've said, those questions were neither tough nor pointed (and no one other than Hillary, Republicans and the media have suggested they were), they were simply stupid and ill-conceived.

Add to that Hillary's continued opposition to anything Obama says that is plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obviously truthful.  Such as, you know, the bitter nonsense.  Or from this weekend, when Obama suggested that any of the three remaining candidates would be a better President than Bush.  Despite the fact that she's openly said, several times, that McCain is ready to be President and Obama is not, she's now (again, btw) trying to argue that he supports a Republican and thinks McCain would be a wonderful president. 

Uh, Hillary?  A deceased potted plant would be a better President than Bush.  So yes, McCain would be better than Bush.  Luckily for us, McCain will be running against Barack Obama and not Bush (and more importantly - you might take a note - not against you). 

Back to the OBL ad...I've argued that folks shouldn't be so surprised by Hillary's tactics, because this is the very thing people used as justification for supporting her from the beginning - her willingness to campaign like this.  But I truly, and perhaps naively, assumed that Hillary would at least be above this, the slimiest of campaign options.  Does she not remember her friend and (former) colleague Tom Daschle, whacked by OBL campaign ads?  Does she not remember her friend and (former) colleague in the House, Max Cleland, a goddamn war hero defeated by ads featuring OBL? 

Sorry, stupid questions.  Of course she does...that's why she's using it.  Trying to use fear, xenophobia and racism to defeat her opponent. 

I've had enough of Hillary.  I no longer care if Obama goes negative on her; in fact, I hope he goes nuclear.  Rather than destroying the party, which she is clearly willing to do, I'm willing to see her own career destroyed.  This makes me sad, as she has done good and I believe still has good in her.  But if something must be sacrificed to save the Party, let it be her career.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary

Yeah, I've been out for a while. Yeah, everyone's covered this to death.  Whatever, sue me.  My blog, my rules!

I've been defending Hillary lately, despite the increasing difficulty of doing so and the increasing, um, unpleasantness of her supporters.  I don't think she's destroying the party, although she's certainly doing us no favors and making herself no friends.  I don't think she's ruining Obama's chances in November, although she's certainly made his job harder.  My basic defense has been thusly:

• Prior to the primary season really getting going, Hillary's willingness to do anything to win was seen as a strength.
• By this I mean she was willing to go nuclear on her opponent.  Claw, kick, low-ball, dirty ads, you name it. 
• We've wanted a D candidate to do this for years.  It struck us as the way to win (it worked for the Republicans, right?).
• She's doing not only what we'd expect (I mean, we remember who she is, right?), she's doing exactly what we wanted her to do. 
• We just didn't expect this to be the year that her tactics wouldn't be needed, nor that she'd turn her guns inside the tent.
• It's too much of a good thing. 

So, my view has been to tell people to suck it up.  We also thought the Dean folks would never, ever work for Kerry, and they did (in droves).  People get over this kind of thing.  The party will survive, and Obama will have survived the trial by fire folks said he A: hadn't faced and B: couldn't handle.  Confused ol' Grandpa McCain will have to get his shit thoroughly together if he's going to survive the Obamaslaught(tm) in October.

However, I find myself really pissed at Hillary about this "bitter" nonsense.  I mean, I was pissed about the "he said Reagan was great" nonsense before the Nevada caucuses, but this is a whole new level of pissed at Hillary.

Obama said what we all know is true.  People feel their government doesn't listen to them.  They feel that because of this, their economic well-being has been, to put it mildly, placed somewhere between at risk and destroyed.  So when Obama or Clinton or whatever Grandpa the GOP sends out says "hey, we're gonna fix things up and get this mill working again!", folks feel a little bitter about the last umpteen times they've heard this, and rightly assume it's bullshit.  And so they turn to the things they feel they can trust - God.  Guns.  Family values (whatever form that may take in their household).  And they find someone to vote for, since you gotta vote for someone, who matches them on at least those counts. 

This is what our public discourse has become?  That speaking the obvious, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face truth requires an immediate two-week long attack?  That the media not only willingly joins in on this parade of lunacy, but drives it even after both campaigns have moved on?  Is the truth so dangerous and hurtful that we're unable to hear it without being offended??

I know, none of this is news.  Yes, our public discourse has been like this for years, and no, I'm not surprised by it.  Well, I am a little surprised at the depth of the depravity on this one.  Because in this case, Hillary, the self-styled 'hero of the working class', is not just trying to make Obama unelectable, but by doing so is setting the stage for completely shutting down possibly the first real, honest discussion of the plight, and thinking, of working class Americans in many years. 

And this makes me sad.  Draining a shot of Crown Royal in a bar doesn't make you blue-collar, nor does it make you "in touch" with real Americans.  Making up a clearly false, or at minimum grossly exaggerated, story about your background hunting, doesn't make you blue-collar, nor does it make you "in touch" with real Americans.  Heck, Hillary, you don't even need to be blue collar to be in touch with real Americans. 

You just have to understand, and be willing to admit, that maybe they have a reason to be voting for the things they vote for, and maybe they need a new reason to believe their lives can be better.