There Goes the Atheist Vote?

Comments

Why would I care? I'm an agnostic.
Either way the comments going to hurt him. His political inexperience shows more and more as the race goes on.
Would love to see what this was about but the link retrieves an error page.
CNN shifted the story on their site. The link works now.
Here's the article
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.
I disagree, the statement he made was inexperienced. No experienced politician would say what he said, they know better, the political back lash is already happening. Just look around on the net at comments in forums and blogs about his statement. Atheists and Religious alike are throwing a fit over it. Id rather see Obama in office then Hillary, but sheesh, the guy made a stupid comment and denying it is just pointless.

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.
Some of the more hardcore atheists are boiling him in oil. Also quite a few dems are having at him over at the DU.
Personal attacks will never prove your point. I have never been a Democrat. I live in a haven of Democrats as you call it. Religion for the most of people here is an irrelevance in politics; elsewhere in the States I agree that religion plays a bigger role. The point is that it is not an issue that unites the Democratic party. As compared to Republicans over the past 15 years, the Democratic base has been splintered on various issues. How can anyone be "in touch" with how Democrats think? There is no group think, and that is the problem that the party has had in National elections since the early 90's.

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.
If you read a personal attack into my remarks then you were mistaken. My personal attacks are direct and only happen if im attacked first.

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.
I am basing my assessment of Obama's approach to politics on his past statements and upon his two books - which I have not read cover to cover but skimmed after hearing my wife talk about them, and from his speeches. I have seen him speak in both interviews and before crowds. He has stated openly that he strives to make clear and direct stands on issues he cares about - regardless of what anyone else may think. That is a paraphrase of his 60 minutes interview.

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.
Ive watched Obama since 2004 when he made a very inspiring speech at the DNC . Ive also read his books and suggested them for reading in my blog back in Nov. 2006. Im not someone who is unfamiliar with Obama, i know every vote he has cast and ive read nearly every speech he has made if i havent seen it first along with several interviews he has participated in. Once again, Obama could of been great, he had the right ideal, but once again he hasnt been able to translate that view to the public, which i believe is due to inexperience.

Regardless, this conversation for me has ran its length.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

dox^2

About Me

dox^2
United States
"There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction." John F. Kennedy

My Groups

Neighborhood

Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.

Archives