Back on topic: http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2006/7/11/213428/301 Interview With Barack Obama by pastordan Tue Jul 11th, 2006 at 19:47:53 PDT Over the past couple of months, I've been in touch with Barack Obama's shop off and on. Two or three weeks ago, they asked if I would be interested in interviewing the Senator as he rolled out some new initiatives on faith and politics. I knew our interview would be timed to coincide with his speech at the Call To Renewal convention (video coverage here), but I didn't know the content of that speech until I received the text via a Network of Spiritual Progressives e-mail. Unfortunately, we weren't able to connect the day after his speech, but last Friday, I spent about half an hour talking to the Senator. :: Q: What were you trying to accomplish with your speech? A: I have gotten frustrated at times in observing the public debate, seeing the degree to which the conservative right has been able to dominate the conversation about religion and politics, and to determine what it means to be a good Christian. Part of the reason they've been able to do that because progressives have not engaged the faith community as effectively as we could. Q: What would you like to see come out of the speech? A: To some degree the speech has already accomplished what I intended, which is a conversation, *a robust and fruitful one, hopefully. One of the points I was trying to make in the speech is it's not enough for progressives simply to say "leave your religion at the door" or "keep it private" - because that's not what conservatives do. I was hoping to start a conversation about how could we go deeper into a discussion about what religious values might mean in our public policy, and how can we do that in a way that respected diversity and tolerance. Q: One of the charges that people have laid against your speech is that it was unnecessarily critical of the Democratic party. A: Which I found misplaced - some of it that response had to do with people reading the AP story that came over the wire instead of reading the speech. If you look at the speech, I was far more critical of the religious right, and give a vigorous defense of the separation of church and state. What I simply say in the speech - I think it's hard to deny, and as the reaction to my speech confirmed- is that there are a lot of folks in the progressive community, there are a lot of folks on the left, who are very sensitive to the topic of religion and feel that to acknowledge the other side's point of view is to give aid to the theocrats and religious bullies that are out there. It would be hard to read through that speech and see a harsh condemnation of the Democrats. Actually, what I said was, we've abandoned the field. I think there was one line in which I said there are some in the secular camp who dismiss religion. I don't think that's undeniable. [sic] I did not charge that to the entire Democratic party. So I think in some ways those characterizations of my speech were inaccurate. Now, I understand people's sensitivities, because I have a number of friends who feel that they have been beaten down by the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons of the world, that they feel that they're always on the defensive if they don't proclaim allegiance to evangelical Christianity. Non-believers feel that they're the ones who are outnumbered, you know, intimidated. They feel frustrated if there's some suggestion that Christians are somehow oppressed, which was not my intention in the speech. If I had more time in the speech, conceivably I could have fleshed out the degree to which people - I could have said very explicitly that this notion that's peddled by the religious right - that they are oppressed is not true. Sometimes it's a cynical ploy to move their agenda ahead. The classic example being that somehow secularists are trying to eliminate Christmas, which strikes me as some kind of manufactured controversy. Q: I've heard that same kind of critique from people who are secular. What I found a little more compelling was the notion that portraying progressives or the Democratic as being unfriendly to people of faith buys into Republican frames. A: Again, if you read the speech, what I said was not that Democrats or progressives are unfriendly to religion. What I said - there were two sentences in particular - *primarily our problem is that we feel uncomfortable engaging in a discussion of religious values in the public square, which is very different than the "hostile" quote. I think it's true. We're much more sensitive, in many ways, in a good way. As a consequence of our belief in tolerance and respect for religious diversity, we are much less willing to express religious motivations in our public conversations. I don't think that's a controversial statement. I think it's something that's patently true. What I did say is that some secularists who believe religion does not have a legitimate place in our civic discourse. You know, I didn't say the majority of Democrats believe that, I didn't say that a sizeable minority say. I said some. And again, I don't think that's a controversial statement. This idea that somehow - that any time that Democrats or progressives engage in self-reflection we are adopting a Republican frame - the popularity of this George Lakoff critique of everything we do, I think hampers us from being able to improve our game. You know, I love Lakoff. I think he's an insightful guy. But the fact is that I am not a propagandist. That's not my job. My job and my intent in delivering a speech like this is I'm trying to speak truthfully as I can about what I see out there. If I'm restricted or prescribed in my statements because the media or Republicans - or Democrats - are going to interpret what I say through the Republican frame, I'm not going to spend a lot of time saying very much. Q: So you weren't thinking of the speech as a necessarily partisan opportunity? A: I don't know how you guys could read it as that. This has been an ongoing conversation I've had with the blogosphere. At some point, this may just be a fundamental disagreement that resolves itself in time. But I think the notion that the best way for us to win is to mimic Republican approaches to our public debate, and simplify and frame everything in terms that gives us strategic advantage, or perceived strategic advantage, is just not something that will work for us over time. I think the advantage that progressives and Democrats have is that we have the facts on our side, and if we just speak as truthfully and as factually as we can, and if we are willing to tolerate ambiguity and dissent in our own camp, and if we're willing to look critically at our ourselves, and reflect and remain open-minded to other points of view, over time, that's where the American people are. I recognize that there are folks who think that view is naive, but that's something I feel fairly strongly about. Q: You probably saw what Atrios said: let's not talk about process, let's actually exercise some leadership. How would you - A: I, I, I, I don't think I understand the criticism. I mean, I didn't read the article. [I briefly describe Atrios' first post on the speech.] Part of the purpose of the speech was to dissolve this sharp line between quote-unquote evangelicals and other Americans. The country is much more complex than that. The lines between people who are - let me describe it this way: there is a group that is of fundamentalist Christians who are not going to vote for Democrats or progressives, no matter what, and we can guess whatever that number is. Then there's an enormous group of people who probably consider themselves swing voters who agree with Democrats and progressives on some issues, on opposition to the war, or what have you, who are also very committed to their church and their faith. From my perspective, the issue is not how do I persuade James Dobson to embrace the Democratic platform - that's not going to happen - the question is, for those people who are committed Christians or Orthodox Jews or Muslims, who could potentially be open to a Democratic agenda, but also consider faith very important and central to their lives, and evaluate what happens in politics based on those commitments, is there a way to talk to them? *I'm certain that of the 70% of the people [in Illinois] who approve of my performance in the Senate, that decent percentages of that 70% fall in that category. ============================================ We had to break off at this point so the Senator could attend a police function in Chicago. Obama's press secretary Tommy Vietor and I later chatted about some of the questions I hadn't been able to ask. What I was most curious about was whether or not Obama had a plan to follow up on the speech. Vietor replied that his boss intended to lead by example, and considered the speech to be itself the start of the process. "If we're not talking to these people, Focus on the Family will," he said. They have been reaching out: so far, Obama's spoken with the United Church of Christ (his home denomination), and made his Call to Renewal speech available through the National Council of Churches and Faithful America. He's also been involved in working for a solution in Darfur through Clergy Strategic Alliances, and Vietor tells me they're working on making some materials available through church bulletins. I think I'll let the interview speak for itself, other than to make the observation that Obama's position stands or falls on how divided Americans are these days. He believes in a broad middle ground, an assumption that I'm sure will be dissected by many in blogtopia*. This article, I think, provides an excellent opposing perspective. There are profound differences in our society, and it's not at all clear that we'll be able to overcome them in the near future. Be that as it may, Obama and his people swear that his intention was really just to start a conversation on these topics. Boy howdy, did they ever. Will this lead to a new Religious Left to rival the Religious Right's political machine? I'm doubtful. But - even assuming that progressives want that kind of equivalence, which I'm not sure we do - where else to start? *Minor edits made to interview for clarity. Never forget that Skippy coined the term "blogtopia."
one the remarkable things about this interview, and about democrats attempts to invoke faith when discussing politics, si the extent to which they view the entire republican party, and certainly the religious part of it, as mere accolytesof the demons falwell and robertson. those two weild far less influence than they did, 10 years ago, and are much less prominent in the party itself, than they are in the popular kosian imagination. it's amuch, much, bigger tent than the left believes, and i say that as an avowed agnostic. that said, he's onto something, and hillary's attempted to tap into it as well, although they both leave one crucial element out. an inability to speak seriously about faith, and security, are the greatest obstacles to democrats regaining control. as to the gay/black debate- why not have both; Condi for president! would i vote for a black man? absolutely. is obama that man? too early to tell.
Democrats are speaking plenty about security, basso. One example is that many of them believe we should follow all of the 9/11 commission's recommendations NOW and Bush should stop blocking that. Another is that they believe we should refocus our efforts in order to withdraw from Iraq over time in a safe, smart manner (a la Murtha's redeployment plan) and get serious about North Korea, Iran and (duh) Bin Laden. Another is that they think it's sillier than hell to cut homeland security money to New York and Washington by 40% while identifying Indiana, of all places, as the state with the most vulnerable targets. (Even Indiana residents think this is stupid.) There is more, much more, to national security than talking tough while staying a clearly failing course in Iraq. And Bush should get serious about our security immediately.
Sorry for the bump, but now that search is back on I just had a hilarious ride down memory lane just by searching on "snopes" and reading old threads started by giddyup. Good times, folks. Good times.
Boy you must have been disappointed... I did the search and looked at the first 100 threads in which Snopes was even mentioned-- in many of them there was no pertinent mention at all, it was just thrown in. Dating back to June of 2003, I have started thirteen threads in which Snopes got so much as a mention. By review, I found that only four of those threads had significant contributions from Snopes seemingly overturning the thread topic: 1. A Father's Letter to His Sons (June 2006) 2. How Do You Want Your Rexburger (September 2005) 3. Separation of Church and State (March 2004) 4. Bush Covered It (February 2004) In nine of the threads, the mention was negligible. If that is your vanquishing, you can have it.
It doesn't have anything to do with vanquishing. You acted like you'd never mocked snopes or questioned its credibility. You have, several times. Then you acted like I'd implied you'd talked about it in this thread when I never did. And then you bizarrely acted like you'd busted me on it somehow. You're weird. And you were wrong on all count. I wouldn't have posted for those reasons alone but those old threads were freaking hilarious.
I'm not sure that I ever mocked Snopes; I did question its authority. Is that wrong? You make a living questioning authority. Can't others do it as well? Oh, I see, we just can't question your authorities.... I have no complaint about Snopes. I've even started using it. In the last case of "A Father's Letter to His Sons," the title and author had been changed so it didn't show up in the Snopes search I did before posting it. If you really want to lambaste me over that go ahead and get your feverish pleasure. It's kind of mean-spirited and shallow. Am I wrong to expect more of you?
giddyup, I don't really care what you say about snopes. It was you that made it into a big deal by freaking out when I mentioned it the first time and acting like you'd busted me doing something I hadn't done. You're not very much fun sometimes. And I "question authority for a living?" Whaaa?? I write and direct plays and not even political ones. Anyway, enough of all that. See you in the next fake email thread.
1. I didn't "freak out" about Snopes; I objected to the way you raised it-- merging your impressions and recollections of a four year-old post with a current one. You haven't even substantiated your four year-old recollectons and impressions yet. You've just capitalized on them for your own satisfaction. 2. If I have to just let you tromp on me in order for you to have fun, then don't look forward to having fun, okay. You're a fringe minority view who supports a law on the books that allows people to kill babies in the womb but you would rather prevent people from killing little lambies. How lofty.... 3. Right, you never question authority. 4. You are mean spirited and nasty. I don't remember your always being that way. I guess success went to your head.
Not at all. It has nothing to do with what Batman does for a living. It's his personality. Remember, in his formative years, he worked for the Governor Moonbeam campaign.
Okay. Now you're fun again. The snopes thing was one small part of me having a go at you over the fake emails you love to post here. It turned into a big thing because you started accusing me of suggesting you'd posted about snopes in this thread, which was insane because I never did that. Then you kept coming back with weird martyr stuff about how you weren't going to let me get away with it this time or whatever, even while I hadn't done anything remotely similar to what you were crying about. The whole thing has been as funny as it has been sad. Just like great art. Kudos! I'll ignore the poor giddy stuff. And anyway, I am having fun. But do you really want to have this abortion argument again? I seem to recall you really losing your mind the last time we talked about it. Okay. You asked for it. I am against abortion and I am against slaughtering animals even while I do not favor jail time for people who indulge in either. In fact, that does not put me in a fringe minority wrt abortion but in the majority. With regard to animals and my veganism, you're right. I am in the minority due to my extreme pro-life beliefs. I am also against elective wars. I am also against the death penalty. You're for all those things. You favor elective death in each case but that of abortion. I am more pro-life than you - WAY more. I know that really gets your goat, but it is what it is. I do it all the time, but you said I did it for a living. I've never done that. And I wasn't paid to work for Jerry Brown. You seem to think I've been more successful than I've actually been. I put on plays for a living and struggle to make ends meet always. And I really don't agree that I've been mean or nasty. I'm only on here to have fun. You provide an outsized amount with your general weirdness, so I spend some of my fun time with you. So, um, thanks for that. And, um, I'm sorry if it makes your p***y hurt.
Always striving to please. When I post them I don't know they are fake. They are just something interesting that comes across my desk that merits discussion. Anything can merit discussion even if it is to overturn something. I was introduced to Snopes here and I now use it to vet stuff because I know the hailstorm that is coming if I don't but I'm just being practical. I might get daring and post something without checking Snopes or even with checking Snopes and be defiant. Snopes does not rule the world. I never lose my mind. But you are FOR the laws which perpetrate abortion upon innocent lives. Big hero. I can hardly think of anything more dishonest to say than that one is pro-Choice but against abortion. It seems like you are pro-Life except when it comes to the most innocent. Big hero. It's an expression, c'mon. It means something akin to "habitual" in case you aren't familiar with it. CASE CLOSED
This was my whole point in bringing up snopes. You have the most hilarious double standard I've ever encountered. You will give the benefit of the doubt to fake emails from wingnut propagandists, to Coulter (even going so far as to suggest "enjoy" might not mean, well, enjoy), to racists like Nugent (even going so far as to suggest "wetback" might be a friendly nickname), etc. but you will cast a skeptical eye towards a website whose very purpose is to out the truth. It is totally freaking amazing. You have no skepticism whatsoever for the very, very looniest rightie cranks imaginable but you're not sure if you should really trust snopes. You "never lose [your] mind?" Really? Wow. giddyup, I have explained my personal difficulty with the abortion issue ad nauseum here. Unlike you, I do not believe there is a simple solution. Unlike you, I understand that abortions will happen regardless of the laws, that they will happen in worse, bloodier and, in the case of the mother, deadlier ways and that the only women that will be afforded safe abortions will be rich ones. You are a simple guy. This is not a simple issue. Also, I don't believe that you are serious about reducing abortions in this country. If you were, you would talk a hell of a lot more about reducing unwanted pregnancies. Where is your outrage at the Bush admin for blocking condom distribution and sex ed in favor of abstinence-only programs that have been proven failures resulting in more unwanted pregancies and more abortions? Abortions were down under Clinton and they are up under Bush. If you really cared about this issue, you would be strongly in favor of every proven method of reducing unwanted pregnancies. Animals are innocent. Civilians that die in elective wars are innocent. Executed people that have been later proven through DNA to have been innocent are innocent. You don't care about any of them. And, in the case of animals, it is a matter of only selfishness, greed and glutony that you choose death over life. You are a hypocrite of the highest order. I'm aware of that. I was making fun of your weird and habitual semantic crusades. What else you got, weirdie?
How can I give the benefit of the doubt to a source unknown to me? LIke I said, they are just interesting to me and discussion-worthy. Maybe you have been trolling the depths of the internet for many, many years. I didn't even get on the Net til probably 1998 and other than an occasional visit to AnnCoulter.com where my friend is a mod, I spend most of my Net time right here. There are two definitions of enjoy; you picked one, I picked the other. Why is that so odd? I cast a skeptical eye towards Snopes when I was introduced to it. Never heard of it. Never been there. It's okay to question, right? I don't have it in for Snopes, but I'm not going to be ruled by it either. Who says that I have no skepticism? I've passed things along because they are interesting and will be launching points for discussion. I do have more skepticism than when I started but it was all new to me. To live or die is a simple choice for the one in the cross-hairs. Never forget that. I know there are other ramifications; those folks will just have to work something else out. It is possible. Millions do it. Animals are animals. Not all civilians that die in wars, elective (?) or not, are innocent. Who do you know who I care about? In the case of animals, actually my motivation is flavor and protein. Then why bemoan that you weren't paid? I'm going swiiming with my girls...
