I dunno, but every post you make comes off as insulting and denigrating both to my beliefs and the beliefs of the majority of our party.
You consistently use right wing talking points about "northeastern liberals" and "values that arent shared the the majority of the country". What got Democrats elected in 2006 then? Was it conservatism? NOT AT ALL. In fact, it was "northeastern liberal values" and god had nothing to do with it. It is beliefs in health care for all, helping the poor and downtrodden, avoiding unnecessary war and destruction, and protect the rights of all people. These are MAJORITY values, despite your religion. If you want to couch them in Religious language, fine, but don't tell me that MY BELIEFS and those of most liberals/progressives are "out of the mainstream" or "not in tune with religious values". Its offensive and it accomplishes nothing.
You say Obama is trying to :
"recast Progressive values as universal American values that people of all creeds can rally around."
Yet in the sentence just above it, you say that progressive values are "not even remotely held by most of America."
Who do we alienate who wouldn't otherwise vote Republican? Who is this "who" and what specific actions or words alienate these "religious people"?
Whatever, Obama and the other candidates can keep talking about their faith, but it doesn't move me one bit. Mixtures of faith and politics have brought us some of the worst legislation ever created. Draconian drug laws, discriminatory marriage laws, etc.
This is a never ending argument. I support the inclusion of faith in politics as long as it is expressed through secular policy. At that point, faith can be unspoken.
So what if there is truth to it? I suppose those who think that NO RELIGION has the answers are "lesser" than those who think ONE RELIGION has the answers. Certainly we have NO RIGHT to insert those views into policy, whereas the religious have to "find a way to reconcile their faith with politics." Obama makes me angry just for pushing that meme.
Agreed. While on the surface this doesn't look like a big deal, but it really is. Obama's words aren't an issue yet, but if this continues to be pushed, he should be more roundly criticized.
The feminizing of Edwards has been going on for a while, and goes on with lots of progressive candidates. The goal is to make a candidate who could use economic populism to pick up more more rugged, western voters, seem feminine and nip that possibility in the bud.
With someone like Jon Tester and his crewcut, this doesn't work to well. With someone like John Edwards, who is a rather attractive man, this strategy does work, and most likely already has to a point.
Really, I just wonder why Barack sees the need to hit a man while he is down.
Gordon was trying to take the NAACP into the 21st century. I think he saw that returning the organization to a grassroots level was important, and that is why he stressed service, business development, etc. The NAACP has to be willing to change with the times to address the needs of a changing population.
As many other Black organizations move toward service based, reality-based organizations, the NAACP continues to have a 65 member national board that operates in a very top-down manner.
The general opinion I have gotten from blogs in what some would call the "blackosphere" is that Gordon's departure is another bad moment for an increasingly out of touch organization.