Maybe it's just me. But I clearly separate my church from my politics. I wouldn't ask my priest, minister or pastor how to vote--any more than I'd ask my plumber or electrician or my stockbroker for that matter.
I go to church for spiritual matters; how can I become a better person, how can I improve my behaviour to become closer to the person I want to be.
I remember back in the '60s, I was stationed in San Diego and began to attend a church, whose priests regularly called for the end of the Viet Nam war. I left and joined another church, not because I didn't feel their opinions were right, but because that's not why I was there. I wanted spiritual uplifting, not someone else's views on politics, whether I agreed with them or not.
On a personal level, I might ask about a clergyman's views, but I don't want it from the pulpit. In the same way, I might value my plumber's or electrician's opinion, and I might ask them, but I don't expect it to be part of their repair regimen.
After all, we have Internet sites and blogs and thousands of other ways to gain information before forming our views. Why should we--like Senator Obama--give our priest or minister a special influence in an area, politics, in which they're not trained.
Perhaps political rhetoric is common in African-American churches today; I've been to a few, but not recently.
All I know is that's not what I go to church to hear and learn.

About Olbermann and Todd, they are guilty of a Drudge like distortion of a Washington Post story from 10-11-07. They read a part of a story in which Hillary says that the Democrats must not offend the voters of Michigan because that state will be crucial for ANY Democrat who wins the nomination (she says that) in the fall if the Dems are to beat the Republicans. She says "I did not believe it was fair to just say, 'Goodbye Michigan' and not take into account the fact we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January 2009" And by "we" she has made it clear earlier that she means the Democratic Party. Dodd, who also stayed on the ballot gave similar reasons.

Here is another interesting fact. On Oct 9, 2007 Todd was interviewed by David Schuster and he said Obama and the others dropped from the Michigan ballot, because Iowa and New Hampshire were angry at Michigan's early primary and this would improve their chances in these early states (where the votes counted). This move would also take away Hillary's beauty contest win advantage in Michigan. At the time, Michigan Democrats were upset, some were threatening to switch parties. This means that Obama (and Edwards and Richardson) were willing to risk a fall handicap in order to make a short term gain in the Iowa and New Hampshire that might help them unseat Hillary.

KO's recent switch from sound journalism to partisan shilling for one Democratic candidate has clouded his judgment. I never thought I would see the day when he would stoop to the the tactics of Matt Drudge, taking snippets from a source to make a point or inviting guests on his show to say one thing when they are on record as having said another. His hypocrisy is demanding that Hillary reject Ferraro the human being but asking only that Obama reject Rev. Wright's words reveals that Olbermann has crossed a line. It is never appropriate to reject a human being--only their actions.

Good suggestion, Chris. As long as it helps Democrats, I'm all for it!
-Trevor Wynne
www.atimelikethis.us

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Vote Weekly!
New Weekly YouTube video!

Here's a perfect example of how desperate Obama camp is getting; while we're still trying to let people vote and count the votes, Obama supporters want to end the race now. Talk about disenfranchising millions of people.

"D.C. activist Lawrence Guyot, an Obama supporter, recalls when he was a member of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and how its actions changed Democratic National Convention rules in 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson settled the dispute over recgonizing the Mississippi delegation before the convention to avoid a floor fight that the president assumed would divide the party permanently.

This year, Mr. Guyot is concerned about a repeat performance in August at national convention in Denver. He sees the unfortunate race-baiting in the campaign as costing Democrats the general election and says it "has the potential of retreating to the racial dialogue of 1958."

So he sent out a three-page letter this weekend to hundreds of party leaders, the press and activists across the country at his own expense to offer a cautionary history lesson.

Mr. Guyot is calling on local and national Democratic Party leaders to stop the primary process immediately and declare the presidential nominee as the one who has won the most primaries and delegates at this point, i.e. Mr. Obama.

Such a move, he says, would prevent a destructive floor fight at the Democrats' nominating convention, a fight that could discourage the party's most loyal voting bloc -- blacks -- from participating in November's general election.

"Blacks and whites of good will want to send the message to Hillary to get out, that it's over. Mathematically, the nomination can't be won by either camp; therefore, the only purpose of continuing this [primary process] is the destruction and disqualification of Barack Obama," Mr. Guyot said.

"The destruction of [Mr. Obama] to maintain a dynasty will have black people going fishing in November," he added.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/METRO/969361178/1001&template=nextpage

Barack Obama gave what could be deemed as an eloquent and courageous speech the other day on race and racial politics in reaction to the controversy over the comments by his spiritual advisor and pastor of twenty years Reverend Jerimah Wright. When you get beyond the words and method of the speech, however, questions still remain.

In his speech Obama stated that he could not denounce or disavow his pastor anymore than he could distance himself from his white grandmother who he says made comments that he found to be divisive or derogatory.

While I will admit to not knowing Barack Obama's grandmother I would suspect that she has never stated words that rise to the level of blaming America for 9/11, that this is the US of KKK-America, that we should not say God Bless America but God Damn America, and that the US helped South Africa put Nelson Mandela in jail which are all things that Barack Obama's pastor, who he has called his spiritual advisor and baptized his children, has all said.

I would also remind Barack Obama that you cannot choose your family (which his grandmother is) but you can choose which church you go to and what language you expose your children to. Barack Obama chose the church in Chicago where a pastor has blamed white people for all that is wrong with this country, who traveled to Libya to meet with the leaders of that country, and who honored Reverend Farrakhan.

Moreover, Barack Obama throughout his denials of the last week has stated repeatedly that he had never heard any of the controversial statements of this pastor and that when the campaign had started he only heard about a couple of the statements and then only heard about the rest in the past few days. In his speech he stated that he WAS there for some of these remarks, without stating specifically which ones, and claimed that he was bothered by some of these statements although he also stated he never talked to Pastor Wright about these. So was Barack Obama lying earlier when he stated he did not hear about these statements or is he lying now when he said he did? Also, if Barack Obama could not stand up to his Pastor when he spoke the way he did about this country, its government, and the majority of the people in it how can we expect Barack Obama to stand up to the people who are blocking ending the Iraq war, who are not for universal health care, and to those who wish to do harm to this country and their allies.

Regardless of a speech by Barack Obama that most say was done well this is not about speeches and words but about integrity and judgment and on both of these tests Barack Obama has failed.

Rescue?
LOL.
Rules are rules.
No matter how desperate Hillary is.
or you for that matter.

I guess you came to WPosts rescue!

The Governor of the state and millions of voters in Michigan don't agree with you.
Obama has turned his back on MI voters like he turned his back on FL voters.

Bottom line: Obama does not want the votes counted, because he knows he will lose. And if he continues to ride out that out, it will only prove that he too is not above the fray, what he has criticized everyone else for.

The August, 2007 Clinton press release announcing her support for the pledge to not campaign in any state that violates the primary calendar.

The pledge reads, in part, "I shall not campaign or participate (emphasis added) in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina..."

And now she demands that the votes be counted. I cannot tolerate another Clinton who wants to parse the meaning of "it".

Vanmap,

Senator Clinton should stop with her lies. She knows the law and is aware that we are not being disenfranchised in Michigan. Political parties are private entities. Otherwise, we could switch back and forth between Republican and Democratic primary candidates for various races.

I went to the polls that day and voted on a road millage and 911 renewal. It counted. I already knew that my choice in a PRIVATE PARTY election was not going to count, so I let my 5 year old choose.

Many of my family and friends in Michigan crossed over and voted on the Republican ballot. What about those voters? Don't they count too?

Imagine that.

Imagine, another coward blogger who can't admit that he's wrong.

To all fellow Fixters, a "holy week" meditation:

http://www.sonnyradio.com/dogcatrat.html

Ob-Ob spin, you mean. Here's a factual source, NBC's Mark Murray.

False Excuse #1: Barack Obama Wasn't on the Ballot. The Obama campaign argues that their candidate wasn't on the January ballot because the Michigan primary wasn't sanctioned by the DNC and they were trying to comply with the early state pledge. Let's remember that the point of the early state pledge was to protect the role of the four states that held early nominating contests. Well the contests in those states were protected and the people in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada got a chance to vote. Keep in mind that nearly twice as many people voted in Michigan and Florida than voted in the four early states combined.

Senator Clinton signed the pledge and kept it. Senator Obama signed the pledge and kept it in Michigan. But in so doing, Senator Obama decided to go further and made a voluntary decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. That was his right but it was also his decision. As a result, he denied Michigan the opportunity to vote for a slate of candidates. There aren't many second chances in life but Senator Obama has one now and should ask the people of Michigan for their vote. Why is he refusing to do so?

First, the Obama campaign has repeatedly said that it would comply with DNC rules and DNC Rule 2.E prohibits cross-over voting. The draft legislation does not permit anyone who voted in Michigan's Republican primary in January to now vote in the Democratic primary. Senator Obama has said that this is a key reason why he cannot support the legislation but that provision must be in the bill in order to comply with the DNC rules. So while Senator Obama's campaign says he will follow the rules, he wants one of them to be ignored.

Second, the Obama campaign's allies in Michigan organized an effort to get people in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary, helping to bring the uncommitted share of vote to 40 percent. So the Obama camp can't reasonably argue supporters participated in the GOP primary and didn't vote in the Democratic contest.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/19/783259.aspx

Actually Keith Oberman and Chuck Todd just discussed an interview with Hillary in New Hampshire where she revealed less than honorable reasons for leaving her name on the ballot in MI.
Looks like BamBam was right.
Imagine!

Obama can't seem to tell the truth!

Here's an Obama quote today at Boston.com. It's blatantly, factually untrue. Hillary always showed great interest in having the votes count in both MI/FL. As a matter of fact, Obama camp and the media chided her for being there with the voters and giving a victory speech.

"Obama accused Clinton of being "completely disingenuous" on Florida and Michigan, telling CNN that she didn't show concern for the voters in the two states until "it looked like she would have no prospects of winning the nomination without having them count."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/

Obama can't seem to tell the truth!

Here's an Obama quote today at Boston.com. It's blatantly, factually untrue. Hillary always showed great interest in having the votes count in both MI/FL. As a matter of fact, Obama camp and the media chided her for being there with the voters and giving a victory speech.

"Obama accused Clinton of being "completely disingenuous" on Florida and Michigan, telling CNN that she didn't show concern for the voters in the two states until "it looked like she would have no prospects of winning the nomination without having them count."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/

Speaking of race, I see Scalia is back to his Inquisitional ways.

We see what we want to see.

I disagree. They've been pumping up his volume from day one; today they're administering life support, while he licks his self-inflicted wounds.

I reckon CC has wireless internet access from his toilet.

He runs in there to take a dump, whips out the MacBook, and blogs.

Mrs Fix has no idea, and that's the way we need to keep it!

CNN as pro-Obama? Spare me. It's all Hillary.
MSNBC I'd buy..except for Tucker but he's gone.
Fox remains faux.

There simply are no objective news sources...got to pick and choose carefully and do the research.

Talking about observing the political scene. Has anyone noticed the pro-Obama spin on CNN? Right now there is a caption that that says the Pastor flack has really affected him. Too bad it took 20 years for the effect.

Fox is doing a better job of covering all the stories, including the Hell's Angel endorsement of Obama that was just taken off Obama's web site.

Maybe Obama has gone a little overboard with the coalition building!

CC. What? You broke vacation for this?
Hope the wife really whacks you upside the head.

Hey Chris,
Hillary gave a NAFTA briefing as shown in her just released schedule. BUT... she says she was against NAFTA, what gives?

king for once you have gotten it absolutely right. The hyperbole is getting really stale.

Stay the course, Mr. McCain? If you say so, old man.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/bush.poll/index.html

test as the coward cc banned my ip and several post names.

zouk clearly hangs on my every word.

Oh, the maturity.

Milbank got the hat trick here:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007347.html

By "hat trick", I mean it in Washington Post terms: he lied, he misled, and he smeared. But, at least he in effect supported illegal activity, so in WaPo terms that's a win.

Chris... See it's hard for you to go without your "Fix" fix. Same here!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.

Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent, narrower than his 50 to 38 percent advantage over her in February.

Landslide alert.

Chris Matthews: Obama Speech 'Worthy of Abraham Lincoln' On Tuesday night's "Hardball", Chris Matthews praised Obama's speech on race as "Worthy of Abraham Lincoln," and also claimed it bypassed Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream"

chris wets himself...again

McCain Leads As Dems Feud
Barack Obama's big national lead over Hillary has all but evaporated in the U.S. presidential race, and both Democrats trail Republican John McCain, according a Reuters/Zogby poll

Hardy har har

so I won't read him.

Posted by: drindl | March 19, 2008 03:17 PM

No one reads hate-monger drindl.

she retaliates the only way she knows how.

Too bad about Milbank. He used to be okay, but now he's an obvious toady and *ss-kisser for McCain, like the rest of the press and so I won't read him.

Chris,
Aren't you supposed to be on "break"? What does Mrs. Fix think about all these posts? Or are you hiding in the broom closet?

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.