There Goes the Atheist Vote?
I wonder if liberal atheists will let this slide or if they will voice their disappointment. My guess: the former.
UPDATE: Nick Gillespie's take.
UPDATE 2: Friendly Atheist doesn't mind:
Barack Obama still has my vote. The following isn’t him being overly religious. It’s just him pandering. I can live with that. He’s just acquiring future votes. He still supports church-state separation...
I still don't get why he gets a pass. His rhetoric was pretty intense -- it wasn't your run of the mill I am just trying to get votes IMHO.
Comments
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/index.html
And to Robin, I hardly believe this is political inexperience. Obama has done the best job of any in the current field of candidates (Demo or Rep) to appeal to populist sentiment. Either he is honest, or he is an extremely shrewd politician. I seriously doubt that this will hurt him.
Democrats are not united by religion or the lack thereof. It just doesn't matter.
As for your statement about Democrats, im not sure where your getting that view at but its a view that isnt based on reality and has nothing to back it up but your own opinion.
You seem to think Democrats are some kind of anomaly that religion doesnt effect them, it may not you but there are strong democrat havens in this country where religion plays a big part in how they will vote and they do for the most part vote united based on their beliefs. A few of those places have helped decide more then one election. Its no wonder some democrats are not took seriously anymore, they are completely out of touch with other democrats.
I think that Obama's apparent inexperience is actually a lack of political cynicism (which runs deep in both parties).(And being called inexperienced actually gains him points as well because it is the same thing as calling him an outsider which is all the rage these days.) The reason Obama has gotten this far is that he appears honest, and he says what he thinks whether or not the public agrees with it. His statements make him look like a politician that actually believes what he is saying, and gives him the semblance of integrity. Is it the truth? I have no way of knowing.
Look at it this way, it was fairly obvious by the time he made this statement that he would lose the primaries to Hillary. Politicians that lose elections however can still influence politics, and that is what Obama is doing. Stirring up an outcry like this is not necessarily a bad thing because what he said is true. The public on the net or where ever can rant and rave about how ridiculous this statement was, but the mob is fickle. The more the talk the more influence Obama will have. I believe Obama is saying something he actually believes. He has done this throughout his campaign, said things that go against the grain of what is acceptable in the context of politicking. Why change that just to gain some points in a poll? He doesn't have a strong enough base to win anyway. His integrity however is holding. I still wouldn't vote for him but I respect him.
I'd actually much rather see Kucinich in Obama's place, but Obama is doing just fine. In fact I would be happy to see a face off between Barack Obama and Ron Paul. And since I'm fantasizing I'd throw in Matt Gonzalez from San Francisco.
Once again you are make huge assumptions based on your own opinion with nothing but your personal beliefs backing it up. You believe Republicans are united based on religion because thats what you want to believe. Republicans are as splintered as Democrats which is why this country is in such a mess. Both parties have to much conflict within them and to many assumptions about the other side. We will never have a good president until the people (all of them can compromise enough to put one in office.
As for Obama, Obama is one of those could of been, should of been, would of been, unfortunately because of his inexperience in dealing with the nitpicking of todays voters he never will be. If you want to believe he made that statement as political rhetoric thats your choice, but i dont believe he did but i also dont believe he meant for that statement to be took literally.
One thing is certain from comments, he didnt inspire loyalty from those who claimed to support him or they wouldnt already be throwing the towel in before the race is even finished, if he couldnt inspire even that much loyalty, then he didnt need to be leading a nation in the first place.
If you call this kind of approach inexperience, then I can't argue with you. You are entitled to your opinion, but as I have said I think there is more to politics than winning an election, much more. Politicians react to one another. I have seen this time and time again.
And he can always run again. I think you give the mob way too much credit.
I agree with what Obama said. If what he said was off base or irrelevant or merely a gaff when he meant to say something else, you wouldn't have to argue with anyone that there are democrats of faith, it would go without saying.
I can't believe I got dragged into defending this. I wouldn't even vote for Obama. I just happen to like his approach to politicking and support that.
Regardless, this conversation for me has ran its length.