OurChart's Bloggers
Our Favorite Sites
Tips?
thehookup@ourchart.com
Presidents, Popes and Passover
April 23, 2008 - 11:00am — Grace Moon
So Hillary beat Barack, and the duel continues. Frankly I’m happy about
that despite what pundits say — that this battle will damage the
democratic party’s chance of winning in November. Do you think the
Republicans are going to play nice when the democratic candidate
finally emerges? Clinton or Obama had better come out of their grueling
bout ready for some real nastiness. It was quoted that Karl Rove took
copious notes on Obama’s Reverend Wright speech
saying that it was “The most unpatriotic presidential speech ever
given.” You can be sure GOP strategists are figuring out a bevy of
‘swift boat’ attacks on the future nominee.
Let’s move on from politics to religion shall we?
The Pope was traveling through the U.S. last week. Pope Benedict XVI
met with sexual abuse victims in Boston, gave mass at Ground Zero and
visited a synagogue in New York, spoke at Catholic University and met
with the President in Washington D.C., Critics of the Pope lauded him
more for what he didn’t say than what he did.
The L.A. Times reported that when asked about homosexuality during his meeting with victims, Benedict said, "I would not speak in this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, [which] is another thing." Conservatives were hoping he’d take the gays and the liberals to task at Catholic University, which has had pro-choice politicians and performances of The Vagina Monologues (yes, talking about your vagina is anti-Christian). Instead, Benedict addressed the University by saying, "God's desire to make himself known, and the innate desire of all human beings to know the truth, provide the context for human inquiry into the meaning of life."
Sounds like a good plan, it’s just that how do you find truth and meaning when there are so many details and rules that get thrown into God and his apparent message — not to mention the insistence of his male gender? It’s the literalness of the details that gets us into all kinds of trouble.
I went to a Catholic high school and sat through my fair share of masses. The center piece of the Christian ritual is taking communion. Communion is based on Jesus Christ’s last supper which is historically based on a Passover Seder. Never once during my teens did it occur to me that I was participating in a human sacrifice and cannibalism. To eat the bread and drink the wine as God’s body and blood? It is this murder and flesh-eating of God that liberates Christians. Does that not seem absurd to us in 2008?
Passover celebrates the idea that God spared the Israelites' first born from the 10th Egyptian plague if they left the blood of a sacrificial of lamb on their doorstep. In this way, they were able to escape slavery in Egypt. Maybe the ritualizing of sacrifice practiced thousands of years ago in agrarian societies made sense. But the idea that through the deliberate death of a living creature that our lives go on — what do these rituals mean to people today? I do not presume to discount anyone’s belief system, but the language we are given by our traditional religions seems to require a whole lot of leaping in the name of faith.
Religious scholar Karen Armstrong has written that we’ve lost our sense
that spirituality is actually hard work. Armstrong believes that people
today treat God as a commodity to make us feel better, we sit at a
mass, recite some words out of a text, eat flat bread, watch the Pope
wave from a mobile and we then want absolution. Meanwhile, we are
destroying the Earth and each other. She says
that “Religion is highly pragmatic, despite its other-worldliness. It
should not only transform us, but it should also transform the world.
Religion should make a difference... each generation has to create the
image of God that works for them. Had the notion of God not had this
flexibility, it would not have survived.”
Let’s move on from politics to religion shall we?
The L.A. Times reported that when asked about homosexuality during his meeting with victims, Benedict said, "I would not speak in this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, [which] is another thing." Conservatives were hoping he’d take the gays and the liberals to task at Catholic University, which has had pro-choice politicians and performances of The Vagina Monologues (yes, talking about your vagina is anti-Christian). Instead, Benedict addressed the University by saying, "God's desire to make himself known, and the innate desire of all human beings to know the truth, provide the context for human inquiry into the meaning of life."
Sounds like a good plan, it’s just that how do you find truth and meaning when there are so many details and rules that get thrown into God and his apparent message — not to mention the insistence of his male gender? It’s the literalness of the details that gets us into all kinds of trouble.
I went to a Catholic high school and sat through my fair share of masses. The center piece of the Christian ritual is taking communion. Communion is based on Jesus Christ’s last supper which is historically based on a Passover Seder. Never once during my teens did it occur to me that I was participating in a human sacrifice and cannibalism. To eat the bread and drink the wine as God’s body and blood? It is this murder and flesh-eating of God that liberates Christians. Does that not seem absurd to us in 2008?
Passover celebrates the idea that God spared the Israelites' first born from the 10th Egyptian plague if they left the blood of a sacrificial of lamb on their doorstep. In this way, they were able to escape slavery in Egypt. Maybe the ritualizing of sacrifice practiced thousands of years ago in agrarian societies made sense. But the idea that through the deliberate death of a living creature that our lives go on — what do these rituals mean to people today? I do not presume to discount anyone’s belief system, but the language we are given by our traditional religions seems to require a whole lot of leaping in the name of faith.
- Grace Moon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Share
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
68 Comments
I never forget the biblical
I never forget the biblical message is clearly anti feminist (and so this pope really reactionary!): humanity would have been thrown away from paradise because of a women's fault and what was this fault???: the aknowledge and especially the aknowledge of her body power ! As long as this story will continue to spread her poison into catholicism i would fight it !
Pussy Power Team's member
You write well, and you make
You write well, and you make a point. But I'm getting the feeling that you're not taking care to back your arguments up with facts.
Passover celebrates the idea that God spared the Israelites' first born from the 10th Egyptian plague if they left the blood of a sacrificial of lamb on their doorstep. In this way, they were able to escape slavery in Egypt.
Okay, no. The deal with Passover is a little more complicated than that. The story goes that the Israelites were slaves in Ancient Egypt. Moses took it upon himself (for various reasons which we shan't go into) to free the Israelites, so he went to the Pharaoh and said to him, "Let my people go," right? And then he said no, so God sent upon him the first plague, and then he still said no and God sent the second and so on until after the tenth plague, death of the firstborn. The way the Israelites could ensure that God would pass over their houses was to mark their doors with lamb's blood. And so this time when his eldest son died, Pharaoh decided to let Moses' people go. And then he regretted it but it was too late, they went.
My point here is this: We celebrate Passover to mark the occasion on which God helped Moses and brought plagues on the Egyptians, thus freeing our people. We don't celebrate the fact that he didn't kill our eldest sons because we sacrificed lambs.
This may seem like I'm nitpicking, but there's a reason I'm pointing this out: Part of the story is sacrificing lambs, yes, but that is not the reason we celebrate this holiest of holidays each year.
And my second and related point is that you can't compare rituals that took place over 2000 years ago to modern life. A few hundred years ago, women were chattel and marriage was a ceremony to transfer ownership, but that doesn't mean that anyone who gets married nowadays is supporting that archaic ritual.
My final point, Grace (and I'm sorry for ranting) is something I touched on in the beginning - the best argument is a well-researched one. People will take you more seriously if you bring up relevant and accurate facts.
You do write well, though, and your blog is an interesting read :)
...exactly my point
the literalness of the details is what gets us into trouble. if we believe what moses and the big Boy did based on a far removed set of translations of text which are being published in the 21st C, based on an oral tradition that was interpreted into text 1000's of years ago... we're all walking on a pretty thin set of facts.
Seems like a similar archetype...
Re. God freeing an enslaved people via the blood of a lamb/the Lamb--with the people being enslaved by Egyptians or by sin.
Or perhaps the more recent tale was influenced by the older one.
Grace, you are my favorite.
Grace, you are my favorite. I never figured you for a Catholic school girl. Me too, whaddya know! I know you never read my posts, bc I post in the evening, when all are sound asleep but the werewolves among us...moon-oriented, I am
... then you know
that catholic school girls were the worst.
more about PB (Pope Benedict)
Grace. That was one awesome speech! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXwqQFS8t6o)It is also related to my personal study of the Pope's encyclicals.
"God's desire to make himself known, and the innate desire of all human beings to know the truth, provide the context for human inquiry into the meaning of life." That does sound like a great statement but sadly the Catholic Church does not seem to be changing its position concerning homosexuality in the near future. PB did not mention anything concerning this issue during his visit to the States, yet the message is negatively clear in both his and John Paul's encyclicals.
For instance, in his message on the World Peace Day, 2008, he refers to a family being a primary agent of peace. He exclusively narrows down his definition of marriage to the union between male and female which is understandable in the light of the Catholic stance on this issue. But by doing so he automatically excludes a huge percentage of the world community called LGBT. I am not Catholic but I believe there are many devote, gay Catholics who strongly desire to make vows to each other in front of God and within the Catholic tradition. However, they will not be granted that right. So for Benedict, the issue of gay marriage is an obstacle because it presents a factor threatening the traditional union—a union between a male and female.
Benedict points out the definition of the objective obstacle to the road to peace. In his opinion, that obstacle consists of the factors that threaten the traditional union, stand on the way of its openness to the acceptance of new life, etc.
Therefore, I make my personal conclusion out of Benedict’s statement: a gay marriage is an obstacle to the road of peace which I find irrevocably lame.
Peace
Gay Catholic - Not An Oxymoron
Okay, I'll make this quick, but I want to weigh in as one of those devout gay Catholics you guessed exist. There are lots of us. Some give up, but others continue to celebrate in their parishes and hopefully find an accepting community there. I'm one of the more fiesty ones who celebrates openly and in defiance of "PB" and JP2, and all of the preceding men who led the church using their claim to infallibility to perpetuate mysogyny and the silencing of our community. It's called Dignity USA, and it's "parishes" are currently limited to the larger US cities. By living the principles of love, acceptance and openness to all, I would argue that Dignity stays much closer to the teachings of Christ. And Dignity tirelessly works to bring the larger Church back to a more Christ-like love, with full inclusion of its LGBT community worldwide. Last night, I sang at the funeral of one of our chapter's long-time members. It was a full mass, just as we celebrate every Sunday, and his family came from out of state to celebrate with us (rather than bringing him home and excluding the huge community here who loved him). We have several priests who minister to us, and many of our members have been married by them in our church. I would recommend any gay Catholic who does not want to give up her roots in the church to find her local dignity chapter. It will be the most rewarding faith experience of your Catholic life. You can be as active as you want from there.
very well
very well put.
----------
http://www.epiphanots.com
karmen.
Good day Grace, nice blog
Good day Grace, nice blog you’ve written, I’m skipping the ‘presidents’ part. On a second thought I’m skipping the ‘Popes’ as well.
I went to a Catholic high school and sat through my fair share of masses. The center piece of the Christian ritual is taking communion. Communion is based on Jesus Christ’s last supper which is historically based on a Passover Seder. Never once during my teens did it occur to me that I was participating in a human sacrifice and cannibalism. To eat the bread and drink the wine as God’s body and blood? It is this murder and flesh-eating of God that liberates Christians. Does that not seem absurd to us in 2008?
I went to a Catholic school and high school myself and got kicked out of a fair share of masses; I never imagined that someone could actually get kicked out from a mass. I always wondered ‘so what if I was laughing all through it mocking the priest and every prayer that sounded funny, where’s the freedom of choice?’ and during that phase I understood that to eat the bread and drink the wine is God’s body and blood but just practiced it as a routine, because I had to.
Yet why are you surprised and wowed by that sacrifice? And why is it absurd to us in 2008? What other explanation could you give to the fact that if I take communion and you take communion, together we become God and as the image of the holy trinity, it is the mutual Love that make us each become the void to allow the complete existence of one another and be able to survive as One through Love? What other simple and meaningful and powerful explanation could you give that our God sacrificed himself for us and allowed us to have secrets to heaven? (or I don’t mind what you call it): then we say it’s his flesh and blood, we need to know and have God in our body because we always need to materialize things to understand them and actually have them, faith alone isn’t enough for us, it's all physical.
Speaking of faith,
But the idea that through the deliberate death of a living creature that our lives go on — what do these rituals means to people today? I do not presume to discount anyone’s belief system, but the language we are given by our traditional religions seems to require a whole lot of leaping in the name of faith.
Don’t you think it would be awkward if religions mentioned sacrifices that apply to our present time describing history and people's experience back then? nowadays we sacrifice a part of our time to go praying for example, or help someone on the road with a flat tire or try to be nice to the tech man on the phone who happens to be in India, these are our daily sacrifices but they don’t apply on people back then, so us, in our growing awareness (intelligence) should be able to digest the fact that these are the sacrifices that mattered to people back then and take them as a symbol. It’s not faith it’s intelligence, because really if you want to dissect everything religions talk about, then Adam and Eve would be so perverted to let their children sleep with each other in order to save human race from early extinction, or worse maybe they even weren't aware of that and did it for pleasure… (?)
--------------------------------
Reciprocity in love, until unity is built. Chiara Lubich R.I.P.
General Michel Aoun for president.
Yvonne,
i like that you perk up on discussions of religion.
will try to write more with you in mind. :)
cool
really glad you're reading :)
--------------------------------
Reciprocity in love, until unity is built. Chiara Lubich R.I.P.
First of All It's Patently Absurd...
... to say that Hillary's web site only has a few bullet points to illuminate her platform. If you'd spent more that a cursory moment on her site, you'd have seen that under 'Issues' you can then pull down extensive lists of bullet points for each issue and each bullet point is actually a link to a very specific and rather long and comprehensive explanation. So if you are basing your support of Obama on the notion that Hillary's platform is somehow thinner that his 68-page PDF file, kindly look again. Let's stick to the facts, please.
Secondly, I have had more than a bellyful thank you, of the media bias towards Obama. We should have NEVER gotten to a place where one of our Democratic presidential candidates is being vetted at the final stages of the primaries--it's an embarrassment at the very least and political suicide for the Democrats' chance at the White House at the very worst. That is, however how the media conglomerates wanted it to be--and so be it. They want Obama to be the Democratic candidate because relative to Hillary, he is an innocuous threat to their practices of 'business as usual'.
And I'm also deeply weary of Obama supporters crying foul whenever Hillary points out some serious flaws in Obama's history and background. My God, don't you realize that if she doesn't do it, the Republicans will? And they would/will have a feeding frenzy with everything that has been revealed about Obama in the last weeks if he is our nominee. Karl Rove may have resigned from the odious Bush Administration, but it was only, to sharpen his 'swiftboat' game for 2008. Make no mistake, that snake is still in the grass... waiting to strike.
So, I personally put my faith in a candidate who has already done the dance of death with the GOP. How much did we pay for the Whitewater investigation? Five million bucks and what was found against Hillary was a big, fat zero. This woman has been through the Republican filth-dredging machine and survived intact. That, btw, is one of the reasons they hate her so much, because they hate to lose.
And speaking of losing, isn't this election--arguably one of the most important of our lifetimes'--about winning back the White House? You cannot discount or dismiss the voters of PA and other states of like demographics simply because you don't like who voted for Hillary on Tuesday. The Democratic party MUST have these voters in our corner if we are to have a prayer of winning in November. And the same demographic breakdown that someone quoted earlier of who did and did not vote for Hillary, is the same breakdown that showed that if Hillary is the nominee, we will carry these crucial states. If Barack Obama is the nominee, those votes will go to McCain and his hundred-year plan for our presence in Iraq. We must absolutely look to the prize. Our country, our economy, our environment and the world cannot withstand George W. Bush's third term, which is what a McCain presidency would be.
As for us, LGBT voters, a study of Hillary's record on gay rights puts Obama's record to shame. And the fact that there is actually more of a track record to examine keeps us from nasty surprises later on.
Many thanks to Grace Moon for initiating this blog about faith and the modern world. Inevitably tho', it seems like all conversations turn to politics these days and on whom we are pinning our political faith...
Got my vote!
Very well said. It's so nice to have you join the discussion!
Thanks!
Thank you for the warm welcome. It's more than fantastic to be here!----TW
I have only 2 things in response
1. I think we can pretty much throw out the demographic predictions in this election. That's one of the things that makes it so historical (not "history" as I originally typed). People are actually voting outside the box.
2. Clinton's site has changed. Believe me when I tell you that a month ago all that information was not there. However, I stand corrected on the updated site.
There's a thin line...
Believe Me...
... the historical significance of this election is not lost on me one iota.
In truth, it takes my breath away and makes my liberal heart beat faster when I really think of the fact that we have both serious female and African-American candidates running for President. And I'm pretty sure the rest of the world is astonished considering who stole our last two elections.
Let me clarify what I meant about demographics. If the Democrats are to win in November, there is no way that demographics can be "thrown out". The art and science of demographics had better be applied with brilliance and finesse or we will LOSE!
Luckily, Hillary has the savvy and experience to do so. The much-maligned (by the Right) ability of the Clintons to win (and yes, I'm purposely including both of them because that is how the Right characterizes them) is exactly what the Dems need. We cannot have a candidate like Obama who knuckles under the pressure of the campaign and offends a large portion of a state's electorate in one fell swoop as he did in PA. As Hillary stated in her victory speech there, "he outspent me 3 to 1 and still couldn't close the deal."
Well, I want a candidate who can and will "close the deal"!
As to your point #2, I'm sorry, but no amount of convincing will have me believe that an old pro like Hillary - who is a known policy wonk and is even respected by some members of the GOP for her encyclopedic command of facts and figures - would ever have as her platform one page of bullet points. I have visited her site more than once and it has been recently redesigned I believe, but it has always consisted of a enormous amount of information. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
Right on!
Right on Traveledwoman, I'm with you all the way on this. Thanks, ATK
Thanks So Much...
... AllTheKittens for your support! I thought you made some excellent points here as well!
Being so new to OC, I'm truly impressed with this experience so far. God! I had no idea I was so STARVED for intelligent, incisive and (this is very important) respectful discussions with all kinds of wonderful women. It is, as my first 'friend' here said, an intoxicating mixture!
And thanks not only to ATK (LOVE that name!), but to Humblepie, Juniper40 and Drunrchick for making me feel so welcome.
:) -----TW
welcome...
:)
Thank You, Ma'am...
... for the nice welcome.
And bless the editor gods who look over this forum for deleting my technical difficulties - one does not want to look like a total dork for one's first OC post! :)
Oh don't worry about looking
Oh don't worry about looking like a dork on OC. Nobody minds. :)
the trouble with labels
Love the Karen Armstrong quotes.
I totally agree.
I understand where you are coming from. A lot about Christianity and Judaism doesn't make sense. But a lot about tribal cultures make little sense. Therein lies the beauty and tragedy of living as human beings. What is silly to one is sacred to another. I wouldn't want to live in a world without contradictions. Not only would it be boring, it would be dishonest.
And yes - faith is a hard difficult journey. Not sure which Christians Karen Armstrong was talking to when she figured that people these days take faith to be so easy. I don't think it's easy for anyone who honestly has an interest in what is said from the pulpit.
Just one note - "yes, talking about your vagina is anti-Christian"
I disagree. In fact, in my church, sex and the vagina (not overtly), are mentioned in the context of the covenant of marriage and how the spilling the blood seals that. We talk about sex during pre-marriage seminars.
I talk about sex and the vagina with my mum and sister. We joke about sex, as well - just like everyone else.
It just saddens me sometimes that all us Christians are lumped into one group and our various viewpoints are put together as one.
Yes, there are many who share that viewpoint - but there are also a silent, now more vocal group who have to deal with misunderstanding on either side of the fence.
Another theologian - Elaine Pagels, author of 'The Gospel of Thomas' - still considers herself a Christian despite her non-traditional views.
We're not all HarryPotterbook-burning, bigoted, non-thinking people. :D
Give us a chance to learn. :D
I got NEWS for Obama
You ant seen nothing yet until you see what the republicans will throw at you if you get the nom ,so you better lean how to take it .
Politics, Popes and Pennsylvania
Okay, jumping on Grace's alliterative roll ...
Here's another question for any and all Clinton supporters on OurChart ...
Yesterday Clinton won a big victory in Pennsylvania. The people who brought it home for her were the social conservatives. Obama made some inroads into the older vote compared to his Ohio showing and into the working class vote compared to his Ohio showing, but the Catholic vote held steady for Clinton at about 70 percent and the Catholic vote made up a bigger percentage of the PA vote than it did in the Ohio vote.
So it is a generalization, but not a gross generalization to say that Clinton's victory was made possible by the socially conservative Pennsylvanians who don't believe in choice and who don't support LGBT rights. And, of the remaining states and territories to vote, Clinton will do best in the very socially conservative West Virginia and Kentucky primaries and in the very Catholic Puerto Rico primary.
Why is that cause for celebration?
Love and Light,
Melanie
the reason
is that these folks are crucial to a demo victory and will help us beat mccain
Beat McCain!
Hi Deb --
I so loved the last two words of your post that I borrowed them for the Subject Title of my post. Beat McCain indeed! And that we will.
I certainly am not disparaging the less-well educated, older, social conservatives in our Democratic Party -- I know we need them to win the General Election, and, more importantly, we won't forget them when we do win and we will deliver for them on the all-important bread and butter issues.
But as a "B" person in the LGBT community, it doesn't make me happy when Clinton wins a state over Obama, because the way the Democratic Electorate has broken so incredibly starkly in this primary since Super Tuesday, her wins have come, and will come in the states with a Democratic Party that is less progressive than the states Obama has and will win. This is verifiably true.
But, yeah, the all important words of my post are: Beat McCain!
Love and Light,
Melanie
bringing people together?
Melanie, What ever happened to the concept of bringing people together??? ATK
Good point
Hi AllTheKittens,
Yes, the great irony (and politics is always fraught with ironies) of running a campaign on the premise of "bringing people together" is that a campaign by its very nature necessitates doing battle.
I think it's pretty clear now what has happened in this primary.
Stage one was right up to just before Iowa when no one (myself included) thought anyone other than Hillary would be the nominee. She lead in every conceivable way -- national polls, superdelegates, fundraising, political machinery, name recognition, a beloved former president as a spouse who was also the recognized head of the party, etc.
But a funny thing happened in Iowa -- the peacenik lefty activists (who, btw, support LGBT rights absolutely and unconditionally) handed Clinton's ass to her on a plate. And it was because of her war votes and her failure to acknowledge they were a mistake or to apologize for them.
And just before Iowa, so sure was Clinton of her coronation, she was already pivoting to the General Election and she even went beyond her Iraq votes and voted "yes" on the Lieberman Iran resolution. She totally misread the mood of the electorate even with all the glaring evidence of the anti-war sentiment provided by the 2006 midterm Democratic rout.
This is all verifiably true, and even corroborated by Clinton herself in that newly released audio tape of her at a post-Super Tuesday fundraiser where she was decrying the "activist base" of the Dem party and admitting that we so dislike her because of her (hawklike) foreign policy stance.
Phase Two of the primary was New Hampshire through Super Tuesday where the field was whittled down to Obama and Clinton. Edwards dropped out just before Super Tuesday, but there were enough states with early voting on Super Tuesday, that he was still a factor.
But since Super Tuesday, the Democratic electorate has broken really starkly and predictably first and foremost along lines of age, education and liberalism, then along lines of race, gender, ethnicity, religion. And nearly the entire left of the party, with the exception of older feminists and some in the LGBT community, are behind Obama, and nearly all the social conservatives, with the exception of Black Baptists, are behind Clinton.
It will take another month or so for all the primaries to unfold, but the splits among the Democrats are totally entrenched at this point and are really predictable and verifiable. For instance, of the 7 remaining states, there's only one that's really in play - Indiana. We already know who will win the other states because we know what the Democratic electorates look like in those states. Obama will win North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Clinton will win West Virginia and Kentucky. It's not a coincidence that the Dem electorates in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota are progressive and that the Dem electorates in West Virginia and Kentucky are socially conservative.
But the Dem Party will come together in the General Election, because -- unlike the primary -- the General Election will be much more about policy than personality. There's very little light between the policies of Obama and Clinton, but there is a world of policy differences between either of them and McCain.
So we will all come together as Democrats -- probably on or before June 4.
Love and Light,
Melanie
Agree
Melanie, I agree with you on these facts, I just hope that where we are all standing on June 4th, is behind Hillary!
Regards, ATK
the reason for the high
the reason for the high percentage of catholic votes was because of obama's "bitter" and "cling to religion speech." previously, i believe they were pretty even with catholics and church-goers. i do know that there's a highly conservative democrat from va. - i forget his name - pro-life and anti-gay who some think may be a potential v.p. for obama. god i hope not.
and from what i've read and seen so far, hillary seems much more liberal in that sense; she has done a lot to fight for the rights of women and i have seen interviews with obama, particularly from his state senate days, when he said that god says that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's what he believes. obama also seems more religious to me than hillary. i thought it was lame how everyone jumped on reverend wright for some comments, some of which i thought were true, meanwhile hatred against gays is regularly spoken about and encouraged at churches all across the country but no one seems to care about that.
i think it's obama's "spiritual advisor" and his followers that are the bitter ones, not the small-town "folk" out in pa or anywhere else. while i did agree with some of the stuff that obama said, esp. with regard to trade and immigration, his comments were very condsending and they were such broad statements; of course not all people in small towns are backward, ignorant hicks like obama was making them out to be. and the fact that he was at a fundraiser in san fransisco trying to raise money from wealthy democrats when he said it i'm sure made it sting for those people even more. if he had said that about me or people in my state, i'd be offended, especially since it isn't true.
or it could just be that those catholics are "racist" just like everyone else who doesn't vote for obama.
personally, i don't care who votes for hillary; this doesn't change her stance on the issues or her beliefs about women and gays. 90% of blacks voted for obama, so would obama supporters say that his wins in these states weren't victories because he got votes based on being black?
A few quick things
Hi Chube,
Thanks for chatting. Here are a few quick thoughts:
The Catholic vote for Clinton was exactly the same between Ohio and Pennsylvania -- 70 percent. What the "bitter" remark seems to have done is reverse the gains Obama appeared to be making among social conservatives. We will never know for sure, but the polling seems to suggest he was surging just before those (admittedly incredibly poorly expressed) thoughts about working class voters. I think it's safe to say that Obama didn't lose ground because of the "bitter" remarks, but he did fail to gain ground because of them.
I do NOT think the vast majority of those who don't vote for Obama are racist. Nor do I think that the vast majority of those who don't vote for Clinton are sexist. But it is verifiably true that the bulk of the socially conservative Democratic voters are voting for Clinton. Socially conservative Dems are NOT necessarily racist, and I would never say that. But they are the portion of the Dem party that don't support LGBT rights and who, to a lesser extent, don't support choice. So when Clinton wins a state now, she's winning on the homophobic vote.
Neither Obama nor Clinton supports gay marriage - they both define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Last point -- watch what Clinton is now doing in terms of foreign policy -- she's pivoting to the right of Bush and McCain. She's gone from Republican-lite to Rabid Republican war mongering.
Again, thanks for chatting.
Love and Light,
Melanie
different religion
I didn't hear that the Pope had visited the Polygamy sect in Texas, was this bypassed.. Oh thats right they aren't Catholic!!!
"Body of Obama broken for you, Karl" ...
... That's what Hillary now says as she cannibalizes Obama in her new political communion with Karl Rove.
Because here's the thing: Yes, Obama is going to face all sorts of swift-boating attacks from the Republicans in the general election. But when Hillary runs the negative Republicanesque scare-tactic ads and suggests that she and McCain, but not Obama have Commander and Chief cred, she is giving the Clinton stamp of approval to the Republican swiftboating that's coming. The Republicans will absolutely now use Hillary's words against Obama. What she's doing now is unheard of in Democratic primaries -- destroying the front runner with Republican scare tactics. It's beyond gross, but very Clintonesque.
Even more terrifying is Clinton's transformation in the last couple of days into, as Rachel Maddow called her yesterday, "A full-throated hawk." With the very conservative Kentucky, West Virginia and North Carolina primaries looming and with no chance in the very progressive Oregon primary, Clinton is now running to the right of Bush and McCain on foreign policy.
So here's an open question for Grace and all Hillary supporters: How do you make peace in your own heart and soul with your candidate's war-mongering?
Love and Light,
Melanie
I often ask myself the ultra
I often ask myself the ultra liberals and the main stream media are so protective of Obama? Doesn't this really paint him as a weak candidate who cannot defend or assert himself. Can you really call what Hillary has done cannabilism? I don't think such a characterization helps him. I don't know about you, but I want my future president to be able to fight off any kind of attack. I also want a fighter who knows the system and can get things done. I don't want the future president to give me his professorial analysis of the white working class and why they won't vote for him. On your second point, do you really think Hillary is going to attack Iran? Let's be real. The fact is that we could obliterate Iran. She was just stating a fact in response to a question about what COULD happen if a rogue nation decided to start a NUCLEAR war. After all, the main reason we have nukes is to deter others from using them. She is smart to remind Iran of this deterant especially because our withdrawal of troops after the election could be viewed by Iran as a weakness.
ATK
If the US has Nukes, why shouldn't other countries?!
here are my comments:
1. "The fact is that we could obliterate Iran"
of course, the US can nuke Iran or that part of the world away (like what they did to Japan). the US has more than 10,000 nuclear arms. just one or two would do the job.
2. "the main reason we have nukes is to deter others from using them."
i don't understand, what/who has given the right to the US to possess nuclear arms and the right to refuse other countries the same right? historically speaking, the US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on innocent human beings.
i also dont' understand why the US has to defend Israel. Israel has more than 400 nuclear weapons. They can defend themselves.
based on historical evidences, in the last 200 years, Iran has not attacked any other country and they will not attack Israel either. the main reason that Iranian government is interested in nuke is to stay in power. the world has sent a wrong message to the (oppressive) Iranian government. Compare North Korea and Iraq. Sadam would have been in power if he had access to nuclear weapons. Having nuclear weapons is a mean of securing the power, as the Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il has done. aside from that, everyone knows that Iran is 10-15 years away from making nuclear weapons.
3. "our withdrawal of troops after the election could be viewed by Iran as a weakness"
of course, not only by iran but by the whole world, the worst by Al Qaeda. i just don't want to imagine what is going to happen to that region. None of the middle east counties will be secure anymore, including Iran and Israel. the US should have not attacked Iraq (and didn't have the right) based on their wrong assumptions and assessments.
4. "She is smart to remind Iran of this deterant"
That wasn't why she made that comment. Hillary is desperate and will do/say anything to have more votes!
Grace - very interesting blog, by the way.
In response
CROSSING, my comments weren't made to defend American nuclear supremacy. or to ignor the fact that we are the only ones who have used them thus far. Hopefully what we have learned from Japan is how horrible the aftermath of such a decision can be. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is a good idea to have no more new nukes created, at the same time, talk about reducing the ones that already exist. I don't agree with you that Hillary made that statement because she is desperate and is doing anyghing to get votes. Hillary believes in showing strength, everything about her says that; everything she has done says that. She believes we must show strength on this issue and she did so. She also sometimes overdoes it because she thinks she must as a woman portraying strength. I have no problem with her answer to the question posed. I can't argue your points regarding Iran's motives because, frankly, I don't have that much information about them. I just don't think additional neclear weapons in that area, with all the problems, including the ones we've created, is helpful. ATK
ATK
Hillary is Not Hannibal Lector
Hi again, AllTheKittens,
No, I don't think Hillary is actually eating Obama alive. I was picking up on the cannibalism metaphor Grace introduced in her excellent originating blog above -- that communion is actually cannibalism: "Body of Christ broken for you" and then you eat the wafer. And I was using the other definition of communion by suggesting satirically that Hillary is now Karl Rove's soulmate.
Here's why I was doing that: Hillary is now totally violating the unwritten laws of engagement within the Democratic Party -- and that's why the terrible lefties like me are jumping on her.
It's one thing to do battle like this: "I Hillary Clinton am more qualified than Barack Obama to be Commander in Chief." That's groovy, acceptable Democratic primary engagement. Go for it, Hillary: Make that case as well as you can that you're the one best qualified to answer the red phone at 3 AM. Fine.
But here's what she said (that's decidedly not okay): "I Hillary Clinton meet the Commander in Chief threshold. John McCain meets the Commander in Chief threshold. Barack Obama does NOT meet the Commander in Chief threshold."
In keeping with Grace's religious imagery in her originating blog, what Hillary is doing there is giving her imprimatur to the Republicans to use against Obama in the fall -- that he is NOT qualified for the most important job of the president. It's unheard of in Democratic primaries for a candidate to say any other candidate, let alone the front runner, is unqualified to be president, but that the Republican candidate is. Yikes.
But it doesn't stop there. You also have Hillary's ass clown husband implying (because he never actually "says" anything straight out anymore), "Hillary is patriotic. John McCain is patriotic. Barack Obama is NOT patriotic."
So, yeah, Hillary and Bill are not cannibals, but neither are they good Democrats working for the betterment of the party or the nation.
And, clearly, neither are they good fighters who understand the system and can get things done -- because they squandered the biggest shoo-in nomination in Democratic Party history by underestimating their opponent, by mismanaging their budget, by understanding too late how to raise money in the 21st century, by going for a shock and awe campaign of big states and underestimating the cumulative effect of losing so many little states, by constantly changing their candidate's image, etc.
The bollixed Clinton campaign certainly belies the idea that she would be ready to lead on "day one."
But here's my big question for you, ATK -- It seems like you hold the "ultra liberals" of the Democratic Party in some disdain. How do you square that disdain with the fact that it is we ultra liberals who fight every day for LGBT rights and marriage equality?
Love and Light,
Melanie
Thanks
Melanie, thanks for the response. I'm glad that you fight the good fight on LGBT issues. I do not have disdain for ultra liberals, I have disdain for how they have reacted to Hillary in this race. I am a moderate dem who has been pushed more left than ever by the Bush Admin and its associates, but does that mean I must agree with everything the far left is doing? I can't even listen to Randi Rhodes or Keith Olberman anymore because their absolute bias and hate speil towards Hillary turns my stomach. They, and the MSM have been overly protective of Obama. Obama needs to stand up and fight for himself and for this movement he is supposedly leading.
I don't want to defend everything Hillary does, she can speak for herself. There is no excuse for the Bosnia thing, and I have no idea why she did that. But I do view the so called indiscretions towards the democratic credo a bit differently. Hillary views herself as having a strength on the Commander-in-Chief issue. I think that she was saying that she will better match up against McCain on this issue. It is not a secret that if Obama is the nominee that he will face strong attacks by McCain about his readiness to lead on this issue. She is stating the obvious. Obama needs to stand up to this issue, and prove that he can have this fight without the party going crazy because its been said out loud. I don't think that anywone who would vote for Obama will not do so because Hillary implied her was less ready than her to be Commander-in-Chief.
I think that Bill Clinton has been alitte crazy himself in this election, but it isn't because Obama hasn't been slinging barbs hisway. The Reagan comment, while partially an intellectual arguement was also meant as a swipe at the Clinton Admin as was the comments relating to the economic problems of the blue collar workers as having fallen through the cracks of the Clinton Admin. I think that in this unsual election, you find one dem, going against the party line in attacking a former dem president and one dem canidate going against the party line in attacking the readiness of her opponent.
I don't think that it is such a failing to have not anticipated Obama's popularity, do you think he actually planned for it to turn out this way? I think he HOPED it would, but I don't think anyone could have predicted this phenomenon. What I think is eqaully remarkable, is that she fights on, with passion and guts in the face of what could have been another public humiliation, and she may still do it!
I do appreciate the discussion, actually, I'm getting tired of being angry over it all. ATK
obama's the one who's been
obama's the one who's been talking all along about going into Iran and Pakistan; have you watched the debates? no one wants to go to war, but sometimes we have to. we never know what people will do until they get into office; they'll say anything we like to hear to get elected and this includes obama. ideally, no one wants to go to war, but realistically, we might have to. i'd rather someone tell me the truth than tell me lies that i like to hear.we all want out of iraq, but is it feasible?
why is it that when hillary criticizes barack, she's "going negative" and "attacking" him or "siezing" on obama's comments, but when he attacks her personally and makes fun of her, it's simply "obama said" "obama called." there is clear media bias in what they report and how they report in this election. did anyone else hear obama's annie oakley comments? everyone laughed but to me that was disrepectful and a lame personal attack. neither barack or hillary are saints and i wish that people and the media would stop portraying them as such, especially obama supporters.
polls show that people think hillary is dishonest; am i the only one who remembers barack's talks with canada, the bbc, his "never having heard" reverend wright say anything anti-american, his "thinking" that he gave back all of the money that tony rezko gave to him? and this is all given that he's only really been around for about a year now and traditionally hasn't been as vetted as hillary. that only changed somewhat recently and it took an SNL skit.
all i'm saying is that we can't have meaningul debate and discussion when we aren't given the unbiased truth by many of our media and when people make their candidates into saints and all others sinners.
Two more quick things
Hi again, Chube,
Yep, I do watch the debates, do you? In the last one in North Carolina, what did you think about Hillary's off-the-cuff suggestion that we create a nuclear umbrella NATO-like arrangement in the Middle East apparently by presidential fiat and without the consent of Congress? I found it rather jaw-dropping.
About Hillary's dishonesty and her high negatives:
I would never suggest that any candidate always tells the truth. I'm reminded of JB's commentary on The L Word pilot about how requiring someone to be always truthful wouldn't even be human. And that goes double for politicians.
But something else JB said in the pilot was regarding Tina's sort of aura of dishonesty which JB called "the Clintonian lie." Remember? The Clintons take dishonesty in politics to a whole different level. And that Clintonian ease of lying came to the forefront in Pennsylvania with the Bosnia "fairytale." She didn't just "misspeak" she stood there (3 times as it turns out) and totally spun a huge lie in vivid detail. It was really unsettling. And, yes, her national polling took a huge hit from that -- which goes to her electability arguments. People will not vote for someone as president in the general election who they simply don't believe.
So, no I don't think Obama is a Saint. But I do think Hillary and Bill have unfortunately perfected the "Clintonian lie."
Love and Light,
Melanie
I have no
good political answer for you.
I don't think our politicians are bearers of the moral high ground.
nor I don't think what the candidate says campaigning is what they will do once the get in... in fact its the opposite.
remember Bush was for protecting the environment and staying out of foregin affairs?
Obama's choice of campaign songs and references to Hip Hop that degrades women doesn't exactly give me the impression he is such a warm and fuzzy humanitarian.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/soundcheck/episodes/2008/04/22
I don't trust the luster of the privileged, untested junior senator... if he comes out of the Clinton attack ahead--I'm behind him, until then alls fair in love and war.
You don't go into politics if you want to alleviate human suffering, politicians are vain and ambitious. They are fighting a popularity contest and they've chosen their personas.
I had a hard time trusting
I had a hard time trusting Obama. I can't put my finger on it, but he came across as too cocky and self-assured for me. It's always best to put principles before personalities though. I like his platform just a little bit better, plus Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich support him so you know he can't be bad.