Comments on: The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit."

The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit."

orthogonality — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:07:37 -0800

[Her] prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ,... The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

Whose prayer group? Hillary Clinton's.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:10:16 -0800

I was afraid of that.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:17:07 -0800

God make me dominant over those other wretches. Amen.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:19:07 -0800

This just in: Mother Jones joins the Arkansas Project.

By: chlorus

chlorus — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:22:10 -0800

Christ, that's scary.

By: nasreddin

nasreddin — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:26:22 -0800

This just in: Mother Jones joins the Arkansas Project. Well, at least Anarchists for Hillary popped up to expose this grave injustice.

By: subaruwrx

subaruwrx — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:26:52 -0800

scary

By: orange swan

orange swan — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:27:08 -0800

Does Hillary believe in separation of church and state? Do her religious beliefs inform her poltical decisions? That's what I would want to know, if I were American and voting in the next election, rather than what prayer groups she belongs to.

By: empath

empath — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:27:39 -0800

Hillary scares me shitless. For God's sake, people, do not fall for her bullshit. Vote for phony John Edwards before you vote for her. She and Bill have been hopelessly ensnared by the same military-industrial complex that Bush and Cheney are in. It would absolutely be more of the same-- more war, more tax cuts for the wealthy, more globalization. Please vote for almost anybody but her in the primary.

By: strangeleftydoublethink

strangeleftydoublethink — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:28:06 -0800

No wonder I don't hold a position of power.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:30:43 -0800

Look, there's a strong tradition of Liberal Evangelism in this country and they've done, and do, a lot of good things. Liberal Evangelism is that version of Christianity that critics of Christianity are always saying it should be. We know from her many policy positions that she's not a conservative Evangelical. Having a strong Christian faith is not equivalent to being a cultural conservative.

By: Pseudonumb

Pseudonumb — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:30:45 -0800

No wonder Bubba contracted out.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:32:55 -0800

She and Bill have been hopelessly ensnared by the same military-industrial complex that Bush and Cheney are in. True, but you realize any chump that makes it to the Oval Office will be beholden to that power. But yeah, a more moderate leaning person will pursue a foreign policy that is a few degrees to the left of the current course, which in the scale of the US hegemony will translate into several hundred thousand less deaths.

By: jonson

jonson — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:37:08 -0800

I've always felt that if you are truly religious in the Christian sense, as in, you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt thah there is a God, his son Jesus died for your sins, your belief in him will lead to the eternal salvation of your soul, etc, that you can't help but have your political decisions informed by that belief, any more than your political decisions would be informed by your belief in less "faith-based" concepts. I mean, if you really believed, with no doubt whatsoever that a giant invisible monster lived in outer spaced, watched your every move (and even read your mind) and he was waiting until you died so that he could possibly set fire to your soul for an eternity of torment, wouldn't your every single action on Earth be dedicated to pleasing the the invisible monster? I mean, I know mine are, but I'm just checking with you heathens.

By: furiousxgeorge

furiousxgeorge — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:37:19 -0800

It's hard to scare people with tales of how horrible another Clinton presidency will be when they, ya know, remember the first one.

By: birdie birdington

birdie birdington — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:37:44 -0800

We know from her many policy positions that she's not a conservative Evangelical. I guess I just can't seem to make that work with: The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:41:20 -0800

Well, at least Anarchists for Hillary popped up to expose this grave injustice. I don't like her even a bit, but it never ceases to amaze me at the lengths people go to to make her evil incarnate. Are she and her husband assholes? Yes. Are they evil? Give me a fucking break. It'snot hard to scare people with tales of how horrible another Clinton presidency will be when they, ya know, remember the first one. Fixed that for you.

By: miss lynnster

miss lynnster — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:41:58 -0800

Oh, whatever. Obama's like, totally cuter anyhow.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:43:29 -0800

Hilary never smoked pot did she? I don't trust her for that.

By: davy

davy — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:43:50 -0800

No politician in either "major" party gets to the U.S. Senate without being ensnared by the military-industrial complex, simply because they only let their people get that far. The chances are very good that anybody you vote for in the primaries of either party anywhere have already been bought and paid for. One clue is that the candidate can afford television commercials, direct-mail ads and the other paraphenalia of candidacy: where in the fuck do you think that money came from, little old ladies sending in their change from grocery shopping? It still amazes me that some people don't already know this and think their favorite candidate is "one of the good guys." Sheesh. THEY ARE ALL EVIL.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:44:42 -0800

"I guess I just can't seem to make that work with" Maybe they believe that the Will of God is social justice, which includes expansive human rights, respect for the weak and the poor, limits on corporations which act outside of the moral context, peace and not war, equal rights for women and minorities and gays. Or maybe they believe the Will of God is that we live communally, without property and with love and egalitarianism. These things are not cultural conservative in the present US context. But most or all of these things are demonstrated in the both the history and present activities of many Christians.

By: Abiezer

Abiezer — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:47:55 -0800

Eh, get a grip. Of course earthly power comes from Divine Providence and God's exceeding mercies is that's you bag of Proddiedogma. Your forefathers named a town after the theory ferchrissakes. Didn't stop the later separation of church and state. It's a species of humility from one perspective.

By: padraigin

padraigin — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:48:29 -0800

Fuck it, y'all. Kucinich for the win. please?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:56:21 -0800

... The plain truth is that religionism is incompatible with democracy and with civil society that does not permit religious majorities to oppress and discriminate against religious minorities. Complain all you want, but if you want to live in a true democracy, religious neutrality is a necessary condition. Allowing any religious faction to use government "to order and control the affairs of the world so that the tenets of the true faith are reflected in every aspect of civic life" would mean the end of religious freedom for the rest of us." ...

By: OldReliable

OldReliable — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:56:46 -0800

To be honest, Davy, that's why I trust Bloomberg. He can bankroll his campaign out of pocket, and you gotta love that terminal.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:59:45 -0800

but also remember: ...I would also like to request a moratorium on critiques of liberalism that consist entirely of a flourish for effect – with accompanying air of discovery – of the familiar consideration that liberalism is inconsistent with blanket, categorical tolerance of absolutely every possible act and attitude. That is, liberalism is incompatible, in practice, with any form of illiberalism that destroys liberalism. If something is inconsistent with liberalism, it is inconsistent with liberalism. Yes. Quite. We noticed. Also, it might not be a half-bad idea to notice that liberalism is not incompatible with religion, merely with illiberal forms of religion. Just as liberalism is incompatible with illiberal forms of secularism. ...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:02:04 -0800

The good thing about Hillary and this connection is double-edged i think--so many millions see her as wholly insincere about everything, and focus-grouped to death, so this is seen as just another instance, and for the millions of us who don't want her as nominee, this is more evidence why not--sincere or not it counts against her.

By: oncogenesis

oncogenesis — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:03:15 -0800

Hey, American voter! Would you like Coke or Pepsi? Separation of soft drink and state is a vicious lie propagated heathen water worshippers. The founders were all colaists. This is a colaist nation!

By: stirfry

stirfry — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:08:28 -0800

But most or all of these things are demonstrated in the both the history and present activities of many Christians. Still, I suspect anyone who needs supernatural reasons to support their agenda. Looking at the history of how the "supernatural" has changed its mind isn't a pretty sight. Apart from that, this sort of thing seems to me to be the worst sort of politics in that it uses the force of irrational fears to achieve power.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:10:36 -0800

"Complain all you want, but if you want to live in a true democracy, religious neutrality is a necessary condition." I guess that depends upon what "religious neutrality" means. At any rate, the assertion simply isn't true, either theoretically or historically. It's really quite silly in that respect. If the author wants to argue that the modern, progressive idea of democracy requires secularism, that's another thing entirely. And maybe it's true. But it's not true that a conventional liberal democracy need be secular and it's certainly not true that the leaders of a conventional liberal democracy not be informed by their religious belief. It baffles me that so many people can be so ignorant of history to not be aware that a very large portion, perhaps the majority, perhaps only a large minority, of liberal activism in the West has been performed by Christians whose faith—indeed, whose revelations from God—has told them that, for example, slavery was evil and must be abolished. A huge amount of social liberalism arose from religious belief. Religious faith can be just as social radical as it can be socially conservative. It is only the western, rational, empiricist, and materialist worldview that is hostile to religious belief and political activism arising from religious belief. And, even though that worldview is the one I hold to, I sadly must report to the rest of you who are unaware of these things that large parts of the rest of the world either believe that this worldview is neutral with regard to leftism, or, worse, antagonistic to it. It is simply ignorant to believe that leftism is incompatible with strong religious belief and activism.

By: TheOnlyCoolTim

TheOnlyCoolTim — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:13:38 -0800

It still amazes me that some people don't already know this and think their favorite candidate is "one of the good guys." Sheesh. THEY ARE ALL EVIL. And naturally, they get anyone who's not evil written off as a crackpot fringe candidate. Actually, my theory on a weird way the Republicans could go for a Republican victory in 2008 is to throw all their support behind Ron Paul. Get all the Republicans to vote for him because he has the party support, add all the potheads, everyone on digg (is there any difference?), a bunch of anti-war people, the libertarians, divers nutjobs, people who are sick of the political status quo, survivalists, and people who usually vote Democrat but will just plain vote for a white guy over a woman/black man, and he'd probably win. Of course, they don't just want a Republican/conservative president, they want a corporate-cocksucking warmongering neoconservative Republican president, so they'd never do it. Anyway, serious prediction: A Clinton or Obama presidency will see the US military and mercenaries still killing Iraqis, albeit in reduced numbers, for at least several more years, including a few years past whatever theoretical "pullout date" is set and officially declared achieved. This is not some crackpottery of mine: Obama's sponsored bill, for example, was to remove "all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008," so that just leaves all the "non-combat brigades", the "advisors", the mercenaries, the "counter-terrorism" units, the trainers, etc.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:14:48 -0800

Maybe they believe that the Will of God is social justice, which includes expansive human rights, respect for the weak and the poor, limits on corporations which act outside of the moral context, peace and not war, equal rights for women and minorities and gays. These things are not cultural conservative in the present US context. But most or all of these things are demonstrated in the both the history and present activities of many Christians. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:44 PM on September 9 Yeah, but it sure as fuck isn't demonstrated in the both the history and present activities of the U.S. Congress, so it holds that calling their creepy and weird religious activities creepy and weird is pretty justified. Why is it that our politicians can never just half-heartedly go to church every other month like 95% of American Christians? They always have to be these obsessively over-involved super-Christians who get together with other powerful people, like-minded or not, and justify their personal power and fortune by saying, in essence, "God wants us to rule over all these pathetic assholes." Anyone but Hilary '08.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:21:09 -0800

Why is it that our politicians can never just half-heartedly go to church every other month like 95% of American Christians? They always have to be these obsessively over-involved super-Christians who get together with other powerful people, like-minded or not, and justify their personal power and fortune by saying, in essence, "God wants us to rule over all these pathetic assholes." Because they're being watched by people who think that going to church makes you a good person.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:24:18 -0800

"Please vote for almost anybody but her in the primary." Please just don't vote. Stop perpetuating this illusion of democracy. It's embarrassing.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:26:45 -0800

"Yeah, but it sure as fuck isn't demonstrated in the both the history and present activities of the U.S. Congress, so it holds that calling their creepy and weird religious activities creepy and weird is pretty justified." That's a weird accusation, I think. Sure, it's true that the outspoken conservative Christians engaged in their culture war are not, um, liberal evangelicals. But why do you think that liberal evangelicals don't exist among the Democrats? I'm certain they do, it's just that they are a small minority. Sadly, liberal evangelicals and liberal Christians in general are, right now, a minority in American culture. If there's some of them in Congress, it's still only a few. You're not going to hear much about them. And the press simply doesn't report on liberal Christians, from both the point of view of the press and conservative Christians, liberal Christians don't exist. Certainly liberal evangelicals don't exist. My sister, (a relatively moderate conservative evangelical, very slightly to the left of say, konolia) has no real sense of the existence of liberal/leftist evangelicals or other leftist activist Christians. It's really sort of weird. On the other hand, like I said, the press doesn't report on them and only presents Christians as the Bible-thumping right-wing people, and the only reason I know of the leftist Christian evangelical movement is because I'm known some of them personally.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:30:52 -0800

This is really fucking creepy.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:39:38 -0800

EB, one of my former bosses was a very nice if ethically shaky liberal Democrat evangelical. I know they exist, and I admire the hell out of (some) of them. It just turns out that there aren't any liberal evangelicals of merit in the Congress. They're all a) beholden to fucking Bechtel or KBR or Amalgamated Mercury & Babyfood or whatthefuckever and b) supporters of the Iraq War (or were when it was a popular position to hold) and all of this pointless "Global War on Terror" nonsense. I mean, name one currently serving liberal evangelical congressperson who isn't, like HC, also a self-serving weirdo asshole happily in bed with the Republican war machine. This isn't a challenge, by the way; I'm begging you.

By: L.P. Hatecraft

L.P. Hatecraft — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:50:45 -0800

Hillary Clinton wants to bomb Iran so fuck her and whoever votes for her.

By: Poolio

Poolio — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:55:21 -0800

This makes baby Jesus president.

By: athenian

athenian — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:24:21 -0800

I think religion's a private matter, and a person's being religious or otherwise doesn't mean that their good policy positions suddenly become bad. Tony Blair, for instance, had very strong Christian beliefs (it's one of the reasons he bonded with Bush) - this being Europe he didn't talk about them - but I neither know nor care whether the minimum wage (good) or the Iraq War (bad) was a consequence.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:29:08 -0800

To elaborate on my earlier comment, in my opinion any prayer of a politician about leadership and policy that isn't in line with the Prayer of St. Francis is pretty much hubris, vanity, and secret wish for a sort of kingly or divine rule.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:29:52 -0800

That would be Prayer of St. Francis.

By: the_bone

the_bone — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:35:00 -0800

More than you ever wanted to know about the Fellowship. These are not benign people.

By: honest knave

honest knave — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:37:27 -0800

Meh. It's creepy because the style of the article is designed to creep you out. How does it do so? The author hangs arguments on tenuous social networks and recontextualises words such as "power" and "submit" without explaining the range of possible meaning, or includes shrill quotations such as those from the Cato Institute. I'm not particularly a Clinton fan, but if "Clinton speaks instead the language of nondenominationalism—a sober, eloquent appreciation of 'values,' the importance of prayer, and 'heart' convictions" why do we have to assume a conspiracy? I realize that many people are very distrustful of the Christian Right and therefore distrustful of Christians. But has no one read Hofstadter?

By: jayder

jayder — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:39:13 -0800

I have been a lukewarm Hillary supporter for some time now; I've always thought she was a manipulative liar whose main guiding principle was her own advancement, but I still planned to vote for her, and I damned sure preferred her to Obama. But that article leaves me pretty much speechless. What bothers me about finding out about Hillary's "prayer cell," or Obama's newfound faith (nowhere evident in his pre-political life), or any politician's inevitable genuflection to mainstream religion, is the dishonesty of it. High-level politicians aren't stupid. Yet the faith they embrace and talk about is fundamentally stupid --- infantile is perhaps a better word --- and is clearly motivated by nothing more than P.R. calculations. And the unwillingness of any mainstream politician to own up to their atheism (or agnosticism ... or lukewarm feelings about religion) is, I believe, a reflection of the stranglehold that people who never read books and who never think deeply have over our politics. That anti-intellectual's deathgrip on American politics is what accounts for the vast influence of reactionary fools like James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Bill O'Reilly, etc.

By: honest knave

honest knave — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:41:08 -0800

the_bone: Hmm. Thanks.

By: jayder

jayder — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:41:52 -0800

Yet the faith they embrace and talk about is fundamentally stupid Oh, and by the way, I am not calling Christianity stupid. It's the loud proclamations of being guided by faith, the staged and regular appearances at church clutching a Bible, the prayer groups, the relentless injection of religion into the public sphere by politicians who should know better, that I am calling stupid.

By: Grangousier

Grangousier — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:43:26 -0800

It's a lovely set of thoughts, but Margaret Thatcher quoted it the night she got into office, and it didn't help. I think if politicians listened to and believed the things that came out of their mouths their brains would explode. But if anyone, anywhere wanted to put those thoughts into practise, I suspect the world would be improved that little bit.

By: Grangousier

Grangousier — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:44:04 -0800

(That being a reference to St Francis, of course.)

By: the_bone

the_bone — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:44:29 -0800

The author hangs arguments on tenuous social networks and recontextualises words such as "power" and "submit" without explaining the range of possible meaning, or includes shrill quotations such as those from the Cato Institute. See American Facists for evidence on how the Christian Right itself has already recontextualized and redefined these words (and many others).

By: JParker

JParker — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:52:06 -0800

This editorial is mostly inflammatory anti-religious rhetoric. 1. Using language like "a network... of cells" to suggest that it's, you know, like a terrorist organization. Christian denominations adopted the "cell group" approach long before the terminology became associated with terrorist groups in the public mind. The idea was - and is - simply that a church group is too large to form intimate personal relationships, and too large to share everyone's personal concerns. So many churches actively foster the development of small groups - cells - where people can connect on a more personal level, share each others' lives and concerns, and hold each other personally accountable. These days they are more often referred to as "small groups" than cells. 2. The groups, if they are like most Christian prayer groups, are sex-segregated mainly so that women can openly share female concerns without undue embarassment, and guys can burp or fart in between prayers without getting kicked under the table. Prayer groups exist for couples and families, too. Hillary happens to belong to a womens group. 3. Hillary meets with "political, business and military leaders"? Of course she does. Those are the people she knows; those are her friends. 4. They are dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ. Just like every other Christian. It's biblical instruction - take a look at Ephesians 6:10-18. Christians are encouraged to take a stand against evil and defend the values of truth and peace. 5. They believe that "the elite win power by the will of God". Another way of saying this - the way Christians look at it - is that she acknowledges that everything she has in terms of power, influence, health, money and so on comes from God. It isn't hers. Her responsibility as a Christian is to be a good steward of the gifts entrusted to her. It's a viewpoint designed to take "self" out of the equation as much as possible and focus on others. 6. "Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan." They are "the powerful" because that's her circle of friends. Understanding your role in God's plan is every Christian's objective. 7. The groups are "secretive" - a big focus of the article - because they do learn to trust each other and things get shared that no one has the right to disseminate. That's the purpose of forming such a group. I'm no fan of Hillary's and I wouldn't vote for her to head the local PTA chapter, but this article is not the reason.

By: trondant

trondant — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:14:52 -0800

I can't get behind Hillary for lots of reasons, my opposition to dynastic politics chiefly among them. It's completely insane that the Presidency has shuttled back and forth and back between two families since 1989, and may do so again until 2013.

By: Phire

Phire — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:14:55 -0800

I would argue, jayder that in order to succeed as a politician, you're required to be dishonest. Think of it in terms of utilitarianism - The ends justify the means. What does it matter that you have this ultimate plan to save the US from certain disaster if you do not wield the power to carry out this plan? As it stands, a large portion of voters do care about religion, and view religion as a foundation upon which morals can be grounded. When it comes to deciding on who will have a heavy hand in the fates of some 300 million people, I imagine morals will play a huge part in how each candidate is perceived. Despite all the wars and extremism that is attributed to religion, in a society where diversity and case-by-case judgments dominate, religion is simply a security blanket of "Oh, they can't be totally evil" that voters hold onto. So if adopting this security blanket is what it takes to get you into a position to do good, why not? The nation has a large portion of Christian voters. What's wrong with appealing to them? I see it as no different from kissing babies in front of a camera. After all, honesty isn't the best policy. Even if the honest, pure politician 'owns up' to being atheist at the risk of losing voters, you can bet that the sleazy asshole politician will do everything in their power to secure the Oval Office, honesty be damned. If you can't beat them, join them, right? Would you prefer that an actually competent candidate preserve his virtue through honesty while someone else lied his way to the top? /atheist

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:24:32 -0800

Pseudonumb writes "No wonder Bubba contracted out." Yeah, it musta been a relief to see a woman on her knees doing something other than praying.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:39:45 -0800

trondant, people love kings and queens and the concept of royalty, noble birth and all that. From the days of John Quincy Adams we have had political dynasties. People just eat it up. It doesn't hurt that you come with a built-in brand and a lot of ready favors to be called in.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:03:21 -0800

But it's not true that a conventional liberal democracy need be secular and it's certainly not true that the leaders of a conventional liberal democracy not be informed by their religious belief. Any liberal democracy that is diverse and contains millions of all different faiths means that it must be religiously neutral--if it's not the majority religion imposes their faith to the detriment of all. Any leader of a liberal democracy who uses their own particular faith (and their own particular interpretation of that faith) instead of the laws and constitution and the wants and needs of the people who elected them is not doing their job, plain and simple--they actualy swear oaths about that stuff, you know--on bibles even, sometimes.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:25:40 -0800

Hillary and how everything is her "highest priority", depending on the day and crowd and question asked.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:32:45 -0800

very related: Prisons Purging Books on Faith From Libraries --... The bureau, an agency of the Justice Department, defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project ... "Since when does the government, even with the assistance of chaplains, decide which are the most basic books in terms of religious study and practice?" ... The lists "show a bias toward evangelical popularism and Calvinism," he said, and lacked materials from early church fathers, liberal theologians and major Protestant denominations. ...

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:42:00 -0800

Oh WTF ever. Hillary is just one of the many spineless Democrats who have been disappointing us for the last 6 years. Not evil, just useless. We'll vote for Obama in the primaries because he's the one who really should be president. But we'll vote for Hillary in the general election because we have friends who voted for Nader, and we still make fun of them for it.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:08:16 -0800

"Any liberal democracy that is diverse and contains millions of all different faiths means that it must be religiously neutral--if it's not the majority religion imposes their faith to the detriment of all." amberglow, many or most of the healthy European democracies have state churches for crying out loud. Various democracies are differently tolerant of different religious beliefs and there's nothing in the history of liberal democracy that requires religious tolerance. I totally agree with you that it's better for the state to be secular and to be completely neutral with regard to religious faith. But that isn't really either the norm, nor it is historically the norm, nor is it required by the basic tenets of liberal democracy.

By: ciderwoman

ciderwoman — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:21:08 -0800

So long as she takes the ring to Mordor I'm not bothered.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:52:15 -0800

Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest. -Emile Zola (apocryphal)

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:01:07 -0800

HOLY RIN DIK, MORTAR FORKERMAN!

By: matteo

matteo — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:02:44 -0800

the really funny part is that, if only Nader chose to run, we'll have plenty of people here arguing that voting for Hillary is the same as voting for the Republican nominee, and a thrid party's the solution, etc. and we know how well that went down in 2000.

By: matteo

matteo — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:04:30 -0800

(unless of course Kucinich gets nominated, a fact that strikes me as being slightly more improbable than Dick Cheney giving all his money to Greenpeace, joining PETA, and converting to Islam)

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:09:45 -0800

how everything is her "highest priority", depending on the day and crowd and question asked. ... just like every other member of the Church of "Vote for me for president."

By: EarBucket

EarBucket — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:50:46 -0800

Please just don't vote. Stop perpetuating this illusion of democracy. It's embarrassing. Seriously? I don't like Hillary, but if you really can't see any difference between a Republican administration and a Democratic one--say, between the eight years Bill Clinton was in office and the seven years George Bush has been, well. I'm not saying they're perfect by a long shot, but they are significantly less bad than they could be. Anyone who thinks all candidates are equally terrible is too invested in their own dim view of politics to have any interest in reality.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:51:47 -0800

Never trusted her. Now I really don't. What the fuck is wrong with these morons? I suppose they'll pray until the oceans rise to swallow us all up. Fuckheads.

By: beelzbubba

beelzbubba — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:27:53 -0800

This didn't change my mind about the 27 or so other reasons I won't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. But face it, America, if it comes down to Rudy or Fred Dalton Thompson (or any other Republican mook) against HC, I'm voting for her, even if she & Doug Coe end up on the cover of the Enquirer in a toe-sucking love tryst.

By: verb

verb — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:54:27 -0800

4. They are dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ. Just like every other Christian. It's biblical instruction - take a look at Ephesians 6:10-18. Christians are encouraged to take a stand against evil and defend the values of truth and peace.

On the flip side, though, the same individuals refuse to acknowledge the same nuance in the use of the word 'jihad' in Islam. It is also important to know that the fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic christians most active in the religious right do not view 'Spiritual warfare" as a metaphorical stand against evil to defend 'truth' and 'peace.' They believe that it is a mystical, invisible battle against Satan and demons, and that humans who don't share their beliefs are unwilling dupes of those demons (at best) or actively serving them (at worst).

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:03:43 -0800

even if she & Doug Coe end up on the cover of the Enquirer in a toe-sucking love tryst And other images I didn't need in my head on a Monday morning.

By: notreally

notreally — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:18:30 -0800

This is really fucking creepy. posted by homunculus at 1:30 AM on September 10 [+] [!] Hell. If it creeps out homunculus it's gonna damn well terrify me.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:29:33 -0800

So, her religious practices are weird... She's a pretty weird lady. I was under the impression that getting the nom was all about who can raise the most cash. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:02:25 -0800

Are people falling for this? This is not a religious group. This is a club for people with power. It's the 21st century equivalent of the 19th century Masons. When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat...The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; She came to DC and just happened to join the Bible study with James Bakers' wife? Here's a little insight for you. If James Bakers' wife and other these other internationally powerful people were in the National Satanist Belching Society, she would have joined that. She wants to be where the power is. Like a lot of people are saying here, Hillary is an insider. She is not different than Bush, that's why they get along so well, and why she isn't calling for impeachment. And Bush is happy to work with her - one established American dynasty helping out an coming one. They want the same three things, power, money, and influence. What do they wnat to do with those things? Use them to protect what power money and influence they have and to acquire more. Hillary has dedicated her life to collecting social and professional contacts and learning how to deploy them to her advantage, and there are not greater teachers of this skill than the Bushes. Ever since Reagan, a successful president must outwardly appear to be Christian. It's part of the uniform. This is how Hillary is getting her Christian bona fides, and also networking with the powerful elite at the same time. She's going through the rituals and the hazing in order to learn the secret handshakes and code words in order to become a member of the club. Her involvement in this group has nothing to do with religion except that she and others use the language of religion to cover for their actual purpose - to consolidate power in the hands of an elite loyal only to each other.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:21:19 -0800

pastabagel has it - she's a member of the club - and for those who say that the 8 years of the clinton administration wasn't as bad as the 7 years of bush, you're forgetting that mr clinton isn't running this time she is one of the most powerhungry people who've ever run for president - much more than bush - and she is also much more competent she is dangerous

By: bastionofsanity

bastionofsanity — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:34:18 -0800

the_bone: Thanks for the link to what may have been the scariest story I will ever read. Divine-Will-To-Power-Freaks like those described in the article I thought were people relegated to street corners and the Inquisition.
After typing that out, I realize, of course, this must be their plan, because no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

By: MattD

MattD — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:54:48 -0800

80% or more of the African Americans in Congress would fit both the common definition of liberal and Evangelical Christian, except to the extent that one circularly defines "Evangelical" to exclude anyone with liberal beliefs on economics or foreign policy.

By: konolia

konolia — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:58:16 -0800

I don't know whether to be relieved or terrified.

By: oncogenesis

oncogenesis — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:20:48 -0800

[expletive deleted], try this one on for size: "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" -- Denis Diderot

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:22:13 -0800

I got a letter from Mr. Clinton this weekend. It read like a numbered list of points addressing the more common criticisms against Hillary. Whoever was supposed to edit the points into a persuasive narrative didn't do a great job-- I could write better. (Maybe it was Bill. He's a good speaker but probably writes his own stuff less.) Reading the letters from candidates that I get in the mail is actually eroding my opinion of the various Democratic candidates. Obama's was all right. Not inspiring, but a bit more solid. Not that it matters anyway. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has ordered me to vote for whoever is most piratical, and I await the foretold signs to direct me.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:31:39 -0800

I don't know of anyone who seriously believed or argued that there was "no difference" in 2000. Instead, the argument was that Mr. Clinton's New Democrat future had both taken an unacceptable turn towards the right, and was involved in using federal law enforcement to silence dissent on the left. (Anyone else remember the way that paint thinner became a terrorist device?) To be blunt, Mr. Clinton was more responsible for driving a wedge in the left as Nader. Had the New Democrats not treated former allies like dirt, Nader would have been a trivial footnote in the election. This history, and the fact that Ms. Clinton has gay-baiting bigots like Harold Ford Jr. trying to get on her coattails, makes me cringe away from her. But 2000 is not 2008 and with an open primary, and a 50-state initiative, it feels like a big tent again.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:52:43 -0800

amberglow, many or most of the healthy European democracies have state churches for crying out loud. Various democracies are differently tolerant of different religious beliefs and there's nothing in the history of liberal democracy that requires religious tolerance. I totally agree with you that it's better for the state to be secular and to be completely neutral with regard to religious faith. But that isn't really either the norm, nor it is historically the norm, nor is it required by the basic tenets of liberal democracy. Many or most healthy European countries also still have monarchs as figureheads. That's how their state churches are treated--no political power. That's not what religious Christians in America want (nor what religious Christians in Europe want, if their treatment of others is any indication)--they state it every single day in every single way. They want something more like the Taliban rule of Afghanistan--not like the Anglicans in England. And i'll remind you that most European countries have terrible records on the whole democracy thing--let alone liberal democracies--until post WW2. And many if not most European countries also had homogeneous populations who imposed their will on all others and still are--it's only now that they're diversifying more and have visible and growing Muslim pops (who are rampantly discriminated against and shut out of political life) that you see their entrenched bigotry and xenophobia and religious-based hatred and rampant religious-based political attacks on their Muslims. If they can't live and let live with those who are citizens of different religions, then they're not healthy. Many millions of us here need the same thing here, had it, and are losing it fast--for crying out loud. It's not any kind of liberal democracy if it's not religiously neutral. Not.at.all. Nor is it healthy. Canada might be the only healthy or liberal democracy without active discrimination based on religion in the world. We haven't gotten there, and never will, at this rate. Look at how the very first Muslim Congressperson has been treated--for crying out loud. Look at how you must be a Christian--of an approved creed--to get elected to the Presidency (or pretend loudly to be one and act like one).

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:54:08 -0800

liberal democracy is not just democracy--it means something.

By: verb

verb — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:11:36 -0800

Many or most healthy European countries also still have monarchs as figureheads. That's how their state churches are treated--no political power. That's not what religious Christians in America want (nor what religious Christians in Europe want, if their treatment of others is any indication)--they state it every single day in every single way.

amberglow is correct here. It's worth noting that many of these politically active Christians point to the religious climate of Europe, and the state of the European church's involvement in politics, as a sign that Europe has descended into "darkness" and that it's a "dead" continent. Secularists look to those churches as examples of a well-adjusted culture, but fundamentalists look to them as examples of capitulation.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:12:51 -0800

yup--they think the state religions should act like them and insert themselves into every aspect of politics and society and education and private bedrooms and ...

By: verb

verb — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:16:56 -0800

She's going through the rituals and the hazing in order to learn the secret handshakes and code words in order to become a member of the club. Her involvement in this group has nothing to do with religion except that she and others use the language of religion to cover for their actual purpose - to consolidate power in the hands of an elite loyal only to each other.

True, that. Ironically, this is what the conservative candidates have done for quite some time and the slow-coming realization that everyone on the right isn't a "True Believer" is causing a bit of confused thrashing among evangelicals. (shameless self-link, just wrote a bit about this yesterday.)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:22:05 -0800

Fundagelical Christians--love that! : > It's a good piece--there just was a survey that the majority of White Evangelicals still decide their votes based on abortion and equal rights (i.e., hating gays) more than on any other issues.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:32:07 -0800

this post of yours about the asinine and gigantic uproar and rage about a Hindu prayer in Congress is very relevant to this thread too-- Jesus never achieved Nirvana, either

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:32:14 -0800

Are you aware, amberglow, that Canada, for example, supports a parallel Catholic school system (but not other faiths) alongside the secular system with tax dollars? Just as an example characteristic of your perfect secular democracy. Only France is institutionally more secular than the US, everyone else is much, much less institutionally secular. So, structurally, you're wrong. You can argue that in practice the European nations are more secular, and you'd be right in many or most ways of looking at the matter. But when you are making claims about the nature of liberal democracy, then I think you have to not disinclude the actual structure and laws of countries that you include in the list of liberal democracies. Furthermore, the present doesn't own either the term nor the working definition of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy was built out of theism and theist ideas and has far more often than not included explicit theist foundational values. If you want to come up with your own private term that equates to "modern, good, progressive democracies that amberglow thinks are the Best Thing Ever" that requires secularism, be my guest. But don't spout off about things you know little about, drenched with your typical know-nothing ignorant hatefulness of all things Christian, filled with stereotypes, and coopt perfectly well and widely understood terms like "liberal democracy" in the process. Fuck, this gets old. What you actually know about these topics wouldn't fill a Jack Chick tract.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:38:53 -0800

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where elected representatives that hold the decision power are moderated by a constitution that emphasizes protecting individual liberties and the rights of minorities in society, such as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy, as well as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law, and many more. Such constitutional rights (also named liberal rights) are guaranteed through various controlled institutions and various statutory laws. Additionally the constitution of most of the contemporary liberal democracies protects the rights of individuals and minorities, and prohibits the will of majority (majoritarianism), by almost eliminating that rule in practice.--a standard definition. If most if not all countries fall short of actually being a liberal democracy (which is what we find when we look), that in no way means that the definition or stated and enshrined and overt goals of liberal democracies are untrue, or the same as all democracies. It's not just all countries that are called democracies or that are thought of as democracies. (and take your insults elsewhere--they're what's getting old.)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:45:35 -0800

And Canada has been working on funding all religious schools--if they meet all standard educational and other requirements like public schools--for a long time--and their publicly-funded Catholic schools are forced to meet them already: ... He went on to explain, "The ideal here is equity with the Catholic system. Let's understand what that means. First of all, it means you shall admit any child of any faith. Number two, it means you must hire Ontario-certified teachers. Number three, you must participate in all standardized testing. Number four, you must be subject to all the usual inspections, qualifications and regulations to which all publicly funded schools are subject at the present time. That's what equity means." ...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:48:21 -0800

(read both sides there--both well-reasoned and smart arguments and both compatible with the goals of a liberal democracy if the equity is met, altho since it's enshrined in their Constitution it's hard to kill)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:53:11 -0800

Canada, by forcing their Catholic schools to act like public schools and most importantly ensuring they do, has done well in ameliorating what would otherwise have been. Contrast that with our own "Faith-based funding" of everything, and the overt priviledging of rightwing Christianity in our military, prisons, and entire government, and the insertion of that same thing into our own public schools under the false guise of "bible studies as history" and "bible studies as literature".

By: athenian

athenian — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:07:47 -0800

amberglow: [European countries have lots of Muslims] "who are rampantly discriminated against and shut out of political life". Well, not really. Five of the fifteen black and asian MPs in the British House of Commons are Muslim. Given that about 3% of the population overall is black or asian, 0.8% is not great, and we could argue about discrimination, but it's not total exclusion. The first Muslim MP was elected in 1997 for the constituency of Glasgow (Govan), though the first South Asian MP was the Parsi Dadabhai Naoroji, who sat for Finsbury from 1892-1895. In the House of Lords, the first Muslim member was Lord Stanley of Adderley, in 1884, and he was followed by Lord Headley, who converted to Islam in 1913. There are currently 6 Muslim peers, a bit under 1% of the membership. And as for percentages elsewhere, there's a similar picture: less than the prevailing rate in the population, but mostly not zero. Whereas in the US...

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:18:54 -0800

First of all, everybody chill. Secondly, there is something to be said for not throwing out 1000 years of European and American history that intertwined politics and religion. If you want an atheist state, you'd better be prepared for all the unintended consequences that have heretofore been hidden or suppressed. Secondly, religion and Christianity are a huge part of European politics, os much so that they don't bother to enshrine it in law because everyone knows and accepts that it's there. What makes Europe a horrible analogue to the US is that European countries are almost religiously homogenous. Everyone is by and large one religion or one of two that are historically linked (Catholics and Lutherans, in Germany? Who'da thunk it?!"). In the U.S. it's a mix of everything and we have dozens of our own home grown varieties. Also, in Europe they tend to kill each other in wars every few years that invariably have a religious component. In the U.S. despite everything we tend not to fight religious wars within our own borders. Finally, the "secularists" whatever that means have to accept that the vast majority of Americans are Christian and that a major percentage of those Christians tend to be very devoted to their faith. When it comes time to elect politicians to represent them on legal issues that have a moral dimension, these very numerous devoted Christians are going to elect representatives who share their moral view. The easiest way to determine what someone claims to be their moral code is to look at their religion. So electing religious people is a completely foreseeable outcome. If a religious person according to his religious faith, that isn't a violation of separation of Church and state unless what the politician is doing is endorsing or establishing one particular church.

By: athenian

athenian — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:19:18 -0800

I should have said: 3% of the population overall is Muslim. 6% of the population are black or asian, and if you want to do the sums there are 651 MPs.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:35:11 -0800

So electing religious people is a completely foreseeable outcome. If a religious person according to his religious faith, that isn't a violation of separation of Church and state unless what the politician is doing is endorsing or establishing one particular church. And it's those pervasive attempts and successes at endorsement, establishment, and injection that we see here today--from just one religion. It's not the faith, but the practical and political and electoral uses and goals that are anathema to a liberal democracy whose Constitution explicitly forbids the establishment of just one religion. Things like this, for instance: Profile of Sekulow Confirms He Picked Chief Justice Roberts

By: verb

verb — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:44:21 -0800

Things like this, for instance: Profile of Sekulow Confirms He Picked Chief Justice Roberts

I'm just turning this into a shameless whore-fest of self-linking in this thread, but Sekulow is in interesting character indeed. About 5 years ago, I interviewed him for a zine I was publishing, as well as interesting folks like pro-life congressional lobbyists and Henry Hyde... It's an interesting peek into the internal language of the subculture. [pdf]

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:46:20 -0800

Canada, for example, supports a parallel Catholic school system s/Canada/Ontario. Other provinces deal differently. It is also false to say that Canada, or even Ontario, "forces their Catholic schools to act like public schools." In Ontario, these things are tied to state funding. There exist other Catholic schools that are not funded by the state, and which seem to be subject to only the same fairly mild regulation as other private schools.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:51:30 -0800

I should have said: 3% of the population overall is Muslim. 6% of the population are black or asian, and if you want to do the sums there are 651 MPs. Big, interesting Guardian roundup special report on it all: Islam, race, and British Identity (I think Britain has done better than France or Germany, but all countries with homogeneous pops have trouble accepting "others" as equals fully, and we have big troubles here anyway with a heterogeneous pop, and it's rising as we become truly majority minority, but it's not really reflected in our govt or at most levels of power.) That whole thing about Mohammed becoming the #1 baby name soon there was interesting, too--the reactions.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:53:52 -0800

Like there's no other way. God forbid anyone ever vote third party and look to change the voting system. We gotta beat those damn (republican/democrats*), no matter how many puppies they kill or souls they damn and consume, the other guys are evil. The problem isn't voting for Nader or spoilers, the problem is so many people suffer from the kind of myopic thinking that only the big offices matter. Keep plugging for 3rd (or 4th) party candidates for county dogcatcher, state senate, and maybe eventually you get a governor or at least a party base large enough to challenge...y'know, something, anything. *replutocrats

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:08:40 -0800

can we all agree - hillary is more of the same... edwards/obama 2008 - baby steps in the right direction.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:06:26 -0800

"can we all agree - hillary is more of the same... edwards/obama 2008 - baby steps in the right direction." She's farther to the right on a few issues that I am comfortable with. And the general complaint expressed in this thread (not about her supposed religious belief, but her establishmentism) is one I partly agree with and am uncomfortable with her as a result. However, I mostly don't have the objections to Clinton that others do here, I don't expect a nominatable candidate to be as far left as me and those candidates who are, are not nominatable and in every case have some positions with which I strongly disagree, or think are nuts, or both. Regardless of the rhetoric, I think there's a long distance between Clinton and the GOP candidates. The sense that there is little distance is, partly, a youthful experience that I don't fully understand but shared in my own youth. (I recall a pretty intense argument with a highly respected liberal PoliSci prof where I, and a slight majority of the class, asserted the "little difference" between Dukakis and Bush and the prof thought we were nuts.) People of all ages experience this, but I think with older people it's because their own politics are so outside of the mainstream that it appears thus. Even then, there's the component which I think is the main force at work in how young people (mis)perceive this, and that's a relative ignorance of the actual details of policy coupled with unrealistic expectations on a few pet issues which both party nominees fail to fulfill. Yes, Clinton is either centrist-right or rightist-center, but until I witnessed this Bush administration, I wouldn't have believed how far right a contemporary GOP Presidential administration could go. Reagan had a lot of rightist rhetoric, and some egregiously rightist policy, but Bush makes him look like a slacker. And, of course, Nixon looks like a leftist in today's terms. Which is deeply disturbing. But, finally, while Bush has demonstrated just how much badness a bad President can inflict, I don't think that any of the front-runners of the Democratic Party nomination are so bad that we ought to worry about them much. Because of this, I take a longer view and look to the importance of electing either a black person or a woman as President. And, as appalling and annoying as this is to many people, I think that this is a very important consideration and all other things being roughly equal, a deciding one. I'll vote for either Clinton or Obama because of their "minority" status over any of the other candidates, regardless of policy. With the possible exception of Richardson, who has similar advantages of his own, but better policy than even Edwards. Edwards, for all his policy correctness, is to my mind just more of the same of Southern White Guys and, with apologies to him for having the right policies, I'm not voting for anymore White Guys, especially Southern, when I have other alternatives.

By: batmonkey

batmonkey — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:24:46 -0800

Yet another reason for me to not vote for Mrs. Clinton.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:34:37 -0800

can we all agree - hillary is more of the same... edwards/obama 2008 - baby steps in the right direction. Well, someone brighter than me proposed the metaphor of the ratchet mechanism for what has been happening to American politics since the 60s. People like Reagan and Bush pull hard to the right, then the New Demcrats slide the wheel back a few degrees at which point the rachet clicks into place, and then the Democrats are suddenly all status quo. Abortion is still legal, but good luck finding a doctor who will perform one. Environmental and Labor law has been trumpted by free trade agreements negotiated in democratic black boxes. Our print and broadcast media is consolidated under a corporate oligarchy. My dear uncle, born in the twilight of WWII expressed shock and alarm that almost the entire political spectum is now to the right of Richard Nixon. Especially in regards to environmental issues he considers the Republicans dangerous, and the Democrats spineless compared to Nixon and Ford. But all in all, this has left me with a profound bad taste in my mouth for federal politics, and I suspect that the future of the left isn't going to be at the ballot box, but in the courts and community centers. I'll give just about any of the Democratic candidates my vote, it only takes about an hour of my time. I'm not willing to invest much more than that.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:51:44 -0800

"It's called a covenant. Two, or three, agree? They can do anything. A covenant is . . . powerful. Can you think of anyone who made a covenant with his friends?" We all knew the answer to this, having heard his name invoked numerous times in this context. Andrew from Australia, sitting beside Doug, cleared his throat: "Hitler."

By: Orb2069

Orb2069 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:11:11 -0800

To be honest, I don't know what to think about Hillary - So much crap has appeared, from just about every direction possible. Which is probably a checked box on some GOP to-do list. Hell, they're probably overjoyed that she's made it this far, seeing as how they've invested so much effort in vilifying her. Reminds me of... Well, just about every democratic candidate above county dog catcher since '96 or so. But if she thinks this is going to make the fundies love her, either she or her advisors need to cash their reality cheque.

By: verb

verb — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:31:43 -0800

But if she thinks this is going to make the fundies love her, either she or her advisors need to cash their reality cheque.

Apparently she's been associated with The Family for 15 years, eh? That sounds like a long-term investment in networking rather than a sudden grasp at a voting bloc that's already thrashing. Or -- and this is what's really chilling, for both liberals and conservatives -- maybe she's just like all the other conservatives. Maybe they're just like her. I'm not sure if I'm kidding.

By: OverlappingElvis

OverlappingElvis — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:14:50 -0800

You know who else made a covenant? That's right.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:33:36 -0800

Abraham? No, wait. That's too easy. This is a trick question, right? Hmm, is Covenant the name of a chocolate bar? A douche? Probably not. I know! It's Renny Harlin, director of last year's poorly reviewed The Covenant. What do I win? I hope not another macramé ankle warmer. It itched.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:38:07 -0800

it was amc - the amc covenant - very popular among former chevy owners as they'd already become accustomed to praying

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:01:56 -0800

no, it was Huckabee (also running for Pres)

By: Orb2069

Orb2069 — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:23:09 -0800

Apparently she's been associated with The Family for 15 years, eh?

Has this been public knowledge for the last fifteen years, and I missed it? If not, why is it coming out now?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:48:46 -0800

it hasn't been, but now Hillary's running, so it's seen as relevant. (it's more relevant than her cleavage, and the color of her blazer and the quality of her voice, and so so many other things they report on)

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:48:28 -0800

EarBucket, you are still blinded by the illusion the parties have built into all your minds that VOTING FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS is a good idea. It's not. It hasn't been for a long time, and the people really running the show get who they want in there anyway. You honestly think things would be better if Gore had challenged the supreme court's ruling? Would Gore have actually left Saddam Hussein in Iraq untouched after Nine Eleven? You really believe that? Would that have been BETTER, had he done so? You can wouldacouldashoulda till the cows come home. President's a figurehead anyway. I don't personally think Gore would have had a choice to do anything different, but we'll never know that will we? The beauty of the system. You question my perspective of reality? If you honestly think voting for the democrats is different from voting for the republicans, you're the one who needs to take the planks out of your eyes. Please. For the love of God. Or... whatever you'd personally replace God with if you were in an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Please for the love of whatever you care about, STOP EFFIN' VOTING! Stop perpetuating their lies! Stop letting the wolves escort you one by one into the 'shearing' room before it's too late. Or. Y'know. Let yourselves be slaughtered. Whatever. Don't dare question my perspective of reality without challenging your own. Cuz yours? AIN'T WORKING!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:52:59 -0800

Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq...there's absolutely nothing that would indicate that he would have at all. He wouldn't have had oil men as VP and advising him on everything, nor would he have had a father who was seen as a failure for many reasons, including not getting Saddam when he had the chance, nor would he have been all about God telling him to do stuff that kills so many people. The system is broken and Bush has made that clear. What will be coming with the next GOP president will make Bush look like a lightweight, just as Bush has made Nixon's and Reagan's crimes look petty.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:00:48 -0800

Pyramid Termite: "They want the same three things, power, money, and influence. What do they wnat to do with those things? Use them to protect what power money and influence they have and to acquire more." Thank you PT. These people are playing a game to which you and me have no invite. It's not that one of them is playing on our behalf. They are not playing on our behalf, but part of their game is to try and convince us they are. The more of us they can convince, the more percieved 'influence' they have for other factors, but we're not the end all be all of what decides their fate. We're just one small variable in a charade that Power Brokers have been playing for centuries. This is not about you. When you vote, you are telling them you still believe their lies. You're perpetuating their illusion that they are concerned for your well-being. They are not. No one is concerned for your well-being. Not even Ghandi, Mother Teresa, or Princess Diana. No one represents you among the other Power Brokers of Humanity. Quit pretending to be concerned for theirs. And Britney Spears is never going to date you. So forget about that one too. yes I'm still holding out for Janeane Garofalo. I'm a hopeless romantic.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:41:32 -0800

uh, that was pastabagel that said that, you know When you vote, you are telling them you still believe their lies when you vote for THEM, you are - there are 3rd parties one can vote for not that doing so seems very useful these days

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:57:36 -0800

"Would Gore have actually left Saddam Hussein in Iraq untouched after Nine Eleven? You really believe that? Would that have been BETTER, had he done so?" Yes, yes, and yes. There's something wrong with you if you think Gore would have invaded Iraq. It's like you know nothing about anything involved in what went into making that war happen. Iraq happened because of the neocons. The end. Bush himself isn't even really a neocon (I don't think he, alone, is really anything at all, actually) and if he had been surrounded by different people, the Iraq War wouldn't have happened under him, either, notwithstanding the reasons amberglow gave, which are real, but not sufficient, I think. The invasion of Afghanistan would have happened under Gore, though. Probably. As it should have. The difference, though, is that without Iraq as a distraction, maybe we would have done right by the Afghanis afterwards. Not to mention actually getting OBL.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:59:14 -0800

Bush is one of the biggest narcissists around, EB--everything is about him, and the whole world exists for his benefit--it's no secret at all. From complaining that Iraqis and the Iraqi Govt. aren't sufficiently grateful to him for his invasion and occupation of their country, to how he is more affected by Iraq than soldiers and their families, to his utter and criminal disregard for anyone else except him and his cronies, etc--it's sufficient in itself, and when mixed with Cheney and all the others who wanted to do it anyway, made a poisonous cocktail. It was Bush personally, and not the others, who first immediately ordered his staff to connect Iraq to 9/11, wasn't it? It was Bush himself who is on record on multiple occasions pre 9/11 expressing his utter hatred for Saddam and how if he ever got the chance, he'd get him. And then there's the whole "trifecta" thing--a Bush statement again.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:17:23 -0800

... In Against All Enemies, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke describes wandering, on the day after the 9/11 attacks, into the Situation Room, where Bush told him to find out whether Saddam Hussein was involved. When Clarke answered that he'd never found any meaningful link between Iraq and al-Qaida, Bush got testy: "Look into Iraq, Saddam." In Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says the fix was in for an Iraq invasion from day one of the Bush presidency. (One week after the inauguration, a National Security Council agenda made reference to a paper titled, "Political-Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.") One week before Bush's inauguration, in The New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann raised the likelihood that Bush would go to war. In Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann suggests that overthrowing Saddam flowed so seamlessly from the post-Cold War conceptual framework built by Paul Wolfowitz, Lou Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, et al., that Bush made his decision simply by hiring this crew of brainy hawks. Everything else was just details. ...

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:23:23 -0800

That's all true, amberglow, but Bush had neocons with him from the beginning and they've been planning an Iraq invasion since 1997 or whatever.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:01:05 -0800