Uh-oh…this is going to backfire

Whenever I read DailyKos I imagine that Kos is a strutting self-important teenage boy with a huge penis. A call to boycott Scienceblogs is stupid. Do Kos and his ilk think that Democratic candidates should be immune to criticism? Why the hell is Kos taking a page out of the Republican "Thou shalt not criticize Dear Leader" book? What a dumbass.

Who cares what some diary at DKos calls for? I think they're in love with their own activism.

Btw, the most recent issue of nature has an article about those old Chinese embryos... not being embryos.

OK, Dr.Charles opened the comments and the DK diary is down. I was the first to attack Dr.Charles on this but I felt I had to go to DKos and defend him. I still disagree vehemently with that one post, but do not think that Dr.Charles is now suddenly a horrible person because of one bad post.

speaking of dkos. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/11/12584/5704

Screw the KosKidz. Dkos is a fun site, but Im a Scienceblog fan for life!

Anyone who wants to boycott scienceblogs instead gets boycotted by me! I wont click on any Dkos sites or links again until I hear that they have rescinded their call and apologized for getting all pitchforky over one sciencebloggers opinion of some random crimeboss, er, I mean, politician (is there a difference?).

Aaron - you need to remember that dKos doesn't want to boycott Sb - one individual member of the vast community does. When you leave a site open so that literally anyone can post, you're bound to get some opinions that you disagree with.

Well its not a *bad* post, and I dont think it has anything to do with liberalism or humanism, or any political ideologies-- it has to do with a certain *age category* of physicians and their desire to adhere to the AMAs ancient, self depreciating position rather than change the health care system in the US.

Yes, a Daily Kos diary espousing something doesn't mean it's the entire community pushing for something (or that the community itself doesn't criticize it's own -- it does that regularly). I'm a member of Daily Kos, and just hearing about the overall point of that diary is enough to know that the diarist has no basis in which to say such things. They're either just really pent up, in the moment, and not thinking clearly or just wanting to make a fool of themself.

And banning Science Blogs forever? Yeah, right. These are too great to just disolve.

Tanya, et al:

The diary post in question was NOT writing by Kos. DailyKos allows anyone who signs up for a free account to post a dairy section.

I'm curious why PZ dislikes Obama as a candidate. My own view tends to be something like, "Either one of them would be so staggeringly better than what we have now, so it's hard to have a strong opinion one way or the other."

The link to the diary is dead ... I ran a search on dKos & didn't find this entry, or any other diary entries by that user more recent than six days ago. Ominous?

PZ, can you articulate what it is you have against Obama? I'll confess I'm not terribly excited by any of the candidates that have announced at this point, from either party. The only Republican who doesn't seem a wingnut is Giuliani. McCain has spent the last six years kissing up to the religious right, and I think he will find that leaves him not in the middle, but detested by everyone. On the Democratic side, the best-known names are also the ones I like the least: Clinton and Edwards. And, alas, there's not one candidate who can be considered strong on civil liberties.

"If we were a country of Rockefeller Republicans and Shirley MacLaine Democrats, we'd have more blogs railing at the Democratic party"

Back in the innocent 1990's, science-types were just as busy slapping around trendy pomo lefties - I'm thinkg "Higher Superstition" by Levitt and Gross, and "Intellectual Impostures" by Sokal. We're in a new century, and it's the right wing that has surrendered reason and evidence.

I think PZ's problem is the same one that I have... Obama likes to talk alot about faith and also is one of those democratic navel gazers who's quick to criticize the liberal base.

He's a strong speaker but never seems to say much of importance.

Huh. Medical courts sound like a wonderful idea! I hadn't heard of that being proposed before now. As for Edwards...he's always reminded me a bit too much of The Smiler from Transmetropolitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmetropolitan). I agree with you 100% on Obama. I want separation of church and state no matter what political stripe the candidate is...and I don't see Obama respecting that any more than Bush does.

I would vote for Obama against Giuliani or McCain without a moment's hesitation.

I oppose him because his only qualifications seem to be that he's articulate and religious. He is not experienced, he hasn't done much of anything, and I'm tired of seeing people pick politicians to run the country because they find them likeable...how about electing them because of their demonstrated competency, instead?

McCain has been kissing up the religious right, but Obama would just be the mirror image, kissing up the religious left. Bugger 'em both. I'm also tired of electing candidates on the basis of their superstitions and delusions.

So far, Edwards is the only one among the contenders who at least gives convincing lip service to the need for rectifying the screwing over by plutocrats of the rest of us that's been going on for far too long. Obama is solid on the war but apart from that just seems to
repeat the usual meaningless babble about the need for "bipartisanship" and the supposed need for "not being divisive". (And Clinton IS the candidate of the corpocracy.) Screw that- some good old-fashioned class warfare is exactly what this country needs right now.

The diary on DKos stated that it will pulled down as soon as Dr.Charles opens comments - that is why you cannot find it any more as Dr.Charles has opened his comments.

I have also updated my morning ost about this.

If my purpose was to have the comments opened, then it didn't fail.

Wow -- close to twenty comments, and I am the first to lament the lack of popularity of the sipunculids! Tragic, that. They're so cute....

PZ writes:

McCain has been kissing up the religious right, but Obama would just be the mirror image, kissing up the religious left.

That paints a false symmetry. We're not going to get a non-religious president any time soon. The choice is between one who is with or sympathetic to the religious right, i.e., they respect the literalistic, anti-science, and anti-liberty nonsense that comes from that quarter, or one who is a religious liberal, meaning their religious views are not so literalistic and not necessarily opposed to science or secular society.

I agree with your comments about experience. But as to articulate -- damn, that would be a refreshing quality in a president. No, not something on which to pin your vote. Refreshing, still.

Fair enough about the faith issue. I'll admit that Edwards is who I would lean toward (in a primary) at this point, but I imagine any presidential candidate from either party will be pandering to the religious.

Obama *was* the president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional law at Chicago for 10 years, though. Surely that counts for something.

I also applaud his willingness to admit using illegal drugs in the past.

And the man is undeniably charismatic.

I would think it would be a good idea to write to the Seed managers to ask them to make an explicit statement of policy ... to be added to their fine print or their "about" or wherever ... that they choose their bloggers for specific reasons and are not subject to political pressures arising from individual bloggers positions on science, politics, or whatever.

There probably already is some policy along these lines, or likely could be with only minor adjustments.

"If we were a country of Rockefeller Republicans and Shirley MacLaine Democrats, we'd have more blogs railing at the Democratic party (and if in continued political evolution, the two parties transformed themselves in that direction, I'd be among those railers.)"

While the GOP is currently the political home of head-in-the-sand about anthropogenic climate change, advocacy of Intelligent Design, opposition to embryonic stem cell research, and most shamefully, has a small clique of scientific racists (which I believe is worse than ID), there are parallel developments within the Democratic Party and some circles of the left of center:

1) Democratic Party political strategy of wooing evangelicals
2) Anti-biomedicine: anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation, anti-chimera research, anti-animal research, anti-irradiation, anti-GMO (Singer, Rifkin...)
3) Pseudoscience: New Age, alternative medicine, HIV denialism, fad diets (raw foodist etc.)
4) Conspiracy theories involving HAARP and other technologies

It should be noted that 2), 3), and 4) are not necessarily of the left; some of these ideas are popular in the militia/survivalist right. However, a number of these positions, especially opposition to animal research and the vaccine-autism theory, have developed an association with progressive politics.

One person's call for a boycott from among the thousands of comments at dKos? I agree; ignore it.

Dr. C's post, however, is worth some discussion. As noted, it is now open for comments. My own observation is that no reference whatever is given to anything John Edwards may have said on the subject of health-care courts, which makes the whole rant about his candidacy into a weird non-sequitur.
Of course, Edwards may be on record somewhere with a position on the subject, in which case we would have something to talk about.

Oops my bad. But the original entry did show the kind of silly strutting that DKos is famous for. And no matter who wrote the entry, it was still wrong to call for a boycott of the entire Scienceblogs community over one disagreeable post. That boycott didn't last long though.

"Phlyctenula" would be a terrible blog name. Ick.
I'm not sure I can join in on the Obama-hating, though, because it's just an unfortunate fact that anyone we elect is going to pander to the religious folks, right or left, and honestly I'd rather have liberal ones than conservative ones taking any control. Superstition or no, at least the liberal Christians (and that's what "religious" seems to mean here) pick and choose the good bits of the Bible to follow.

Colugo writes:

While the GOP is currently the political home of head-in-the-sand about [many scientific issues], there are parallel developments within the Democratic Party and some circles of the left of center..

The difference, and it is a very important difference, is that animosity to science is not central to the Democratic Party's political base. There's simply nothing analagous in the Democratic Party to the religious right's war on reason. Yes, there are wackos. All political parties will attract some. But the wackos aren't a core force in the party, the way people like Dobson and Falwell and Pence and Brownback are a core force in the GOP.

That said, if I were to add one item to your list, it would be economic ignorance. When I hear someone who claims that capitalism is the cause of poverty, or who wants both to lower the price of gasoline and lower the demand for oil, I can predict with near certainty that they are Democratic. But that seems more a problem on the fringes than among the center of the party. And to repeat myself, political parties by their nature have to attract some fringes.

I don't understand the whole "trial lawyers are evil" line of reasoning. They sure aren't evil when they are working for you! It is even odder that the Right Wing tries to pull this "trial lawyers are evil" thing since Big Business is the main benefactors of litigation. The bigger the business the more teams of lawyer they have.

I'd also argue that the job of the President, in my opinion, is to be super-duper smart, articulate and inspiring. He/She need not be a micro-manager. He/She does need to be a leader. Thus, I think Obama is perfectly qualified.

I wrote, hastily:

..who wants both to lower the price of gasoline and lower the demand for oil..

Obviously, if one can lower the demand for oil, that also will lower the price for gasoline. I was referring to people who want to lower the price by lowering the road fee or even by some subsidy, and who at the same time who want to decrease aggregate demand. Better not trip myself on my own petard, so to speak. ;-)

I know he's not a declared candidate yet, but give some thought to Bill Richardson as the Democratic candidate. Among other things, he has a proven record for effectively using *diplomacy* in foreign relations. I'm sure he could also bring those diplomatic skills into actually convincing the Congress to bring about meaningful changes on domestic issues as well. He's also a Hispanic from New Mexico, which could help draw votes from Latinos and the mountain west, where Democrats are slowly gaining ground.

Russell and Steve LaBonne -

You both overlook the first declared Democratic candidate.

Kucinich in 2008.

I'd also argue that the job of the President, in my opinion, is to be super-duper smart, articulate and inspiring. He/She need not be a micro-manager. He/She does need to be a leader. Thus, I think Obama is perfectly qualified.

Yes and no.

The President must have at least some core competency in certain areas in order to be able to judge who's bullshitting him and who isn't. Because we are now at war, I cannot imagine voting for a President who has not had a fair amount of experience in foreign affairs and military matters, be it on Senate committees dealing with these things, in the State Department or the military, or whatever. Obama has none to speak of.

Although PZ and I disagree on almost everything political, I'm with him on this: Barack Obama is an empty suit with a glib tongue, a first term Senator who's never done much of anything other than managing to get elected Senator. Now, that alone is an impressive enough accomplishment, but it's not enough to deserve to be elected President in my book. He may someday mature to the point where he's Presidential material, but that time is not 2008. (I wouldn't even support him for VP in 2008.) It may not even be 2012. Maybe by 2016.

Maybe.

Look at it this way: What happened the last time we elected a President with almost no national experience (our current President) who promised to "surround himself with the best people"?

Kucinich in 2008.

[Shudder]

I lived in Cleveland for eight years and observed Kucinich during that time. The dude is seriously flaky. Even the people of Ohio aren't that fond of him.

You see, JC, I live in the Cleveland area so I'm just a little too familiar with Dennis. ;) I agree with him on a lot of issues but I wouldn't hire him to run a hot dog stand, let alone a country. But I'm glad he's in the race raising issues the Clintonites will find awkward. You're right that in that respect I should have mentioned him alongside Edwards.

I'm glad that some people recognize that conservatism is a valid intellectual position with respect to government power and civil liberties.

And, unbenknownst to many, atheism runs high among conservative intellectuals. Of course, many of them are not socially conservative [and thus issues relating to the censorship and impediment of science don't apply].

I see that PZ was careful to make the distinction between "kos" and "some guy posting on kos's public site", but it's pretty depressing to see some of the commenters here making the same mistake they make at Little Green Footballs on a near-weekly basis.

As for Obama, I'd be interested in knowing what PZ's issue with him is. (I think he's a particularly good speaker, but he hasn't done anything yet; I'll wait to be impressed with him until I can judge him by his actions.)

Daniel Morgan writes:

I'm glad that some people recognize that conservatism is a valid intellectual position with respect to government power and civil liberties. And, unbenknownst to many, atheism runs high among conservative intellectuals.

Alas, that kind of conservatism no longer has much intersection with the conservatives that are powerful today. In fact, that kind of conservative today gets called a liberal. Someone should write a book on how the GOP morphed into the party of big government and the religious right. Oh, wait. I see that's been done:

http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Soul-How-Lost-Back/dp/0060188774/

Octopod is right.

I would like Obama to make clear his position on the separation of church and state. His 'Call To Renewal' speech from last year does not inspire confidence that he really believes in the principle, at least as I understand it.

Colugo remarked about the follies of the left: "Anti-biomedicine: anti-vaccination, anti-fluoridation, anti-chimera research, anti-animal research, anti-irradiation, anti-GMO (Singer, Rifkin...)"

You had me until "anti-GMO". I was supportive of GMO food when I thought it meant, say, increasing the vitamin content of crops, or altering allergy-producing molecules so that more people could eat them.

Then I learned that one of the major uses of GM in food crops right now is by the makers of Roundup... so that farmers can spray their entire fields with the stuff and the food plants are resistant. And that soy allergies are up since GM soy was introduced. The lack of human consumption testing and the possibility of jumping genes are a little worrisome.

The unfortunate thing is that regardless of what actual issues there might be with genetically modified foods, Jeremy Rifkin leading the charge guarantees that that criticism will be, um, scientifically challenged.

Obama is just too willing to throw the internet left under the bus, to decry them as 'shrill' or 'traitors', for my taste. He's too much in-line with the DLC (compulsive centrists, pro-big business, anti-populist consultants - think Hillary or Short-Ride Lieberman) for me to like him. Sure, he's an African-American, but for me he's the wrong candidate regardless of skin color or gender, much like Hillary is wrong for President regardless of her gender. I hear the Kansas governor Sebelius may be more to my taste. We probably still need her in Kansas for now, though.

As for DailyKos, it's a Democratic community, not necessarily a liberal one. The diarist is an idiot, but he's one among 100k members.

Kucinich has been re-elected by his constituents for many years. Who cares what the people of Ohio like - they elected Bush, if you recall. Dennis represents his constituency, and apparently does it well. That's good enough for me.

Look, as long as charisma is more valuable to a candidate than intellect, you're going to end up with Clinton and Bush (and Obama and Edwards). Good luck with that. I'd prefer another direction, myself.

What reasons do you have for not hiring Dennis to run your hot dog stand, Steve?

Great blog, Dr.M. Sorry to go all political on you.

Let's not forget that what to me is Obama's one unforgivable sin, he appeared at a Lieberclown campaign rally to support him before the election. I think he's articulate fersure, but an empty suit and yet another scheming, pandering machine politician--he says what people want to hear and is waaaay too careful with his parsing and phrasing for my comfort. The religious stuff is troublesome too. I think his main attraction is that he's fresh, young and appears to be an alternative to all the old white men. But I don't trust him.

"Articulate" is not a word to use in polite or, worse, mixed company when referring to well-spoken black people. I can tell you from considerable personal experience that it sets their teeth on edge.

Hey, octopod, I think Phlyctenula would be the perfect name for the creationist counterblog to Pharyngula.

CJColucci: "Articulate" is not a word to use in polite or, worse, mixed company when referring to well-spoken black people. I can tell you from considerable personal experience that it sets their teeth on edge.

Forgive an ignorant European, but why?

CJColucci--Forgive an ignorant American as well...a bit of elaboration please? I hope nobody is reading more into my comments than I intended...my frame of reference for 'articulate' was the smirking monkey-in-chief, who can't get out two words in a row without stum-um-um-umbling and mumbling over one of them. The man is an embarrassment. Sorry for the thread drift.

What's wrong with the word "articulate"? I'd be very pleased to have it applied to me.

Does it have some racist connotation like "articulate for a black person" over there in the US? If so, I'll try not to use the word next time I visit your shores, but it really does seem a shame to lose a perfectly good and useful English word.

I'm tired of seeing people pick politicians to run the country because they find them likable...how about electing them because of their demonstrated competency, instead?

I'd love to see that... we could all breathe a sigh of relief. Of course, the 2008 DNC is going to be in Denver. Colorado just set a precedent with our gubernatorial race. We elected a stuttering hard worker over a more articulate boob.

I can't comment on how an African-American would react to the term "articulate," but I can say that quite a few Asian-Americans whose primary language is English are very, very tired of all the "complements" they get for "speaking English so well."

It looks like it may have been removed. I clicked the link and DKos says it can't find it. The comments don't appear either.

"Articulate" when referring to a black person in America is condescending because of the fact that, especially during the 60's and the 70's there was a tendency among racists to point out that only certain blacks were well-spoken. They were rare exceptions to the rule. Even liberals, struggling to push away the guilt thing about being white would make the mistake.

It's still a perfectly acceptable verb, just be careful how you pronounce it. All is not lost.

My antipathy towards Barak Obama stems towards the fact that I am tired of the DNC picking someone based on whether or not they are "electable." For governor this year, the Democratic Party all gathered behind a guy named Mike Hatch to run, and chose early because one poll taken a year before the election indicated that he would defeat the current governor. Progressive liberals who knew better spurned two other announced candidates, and some delegates to the satprivately told me that they thought either of them was a better candidate than Hatch. Hatch lost the election, and I didn't help the campaign much because I am not all that fond of him.

So, if the DNC would get its head on straight it could pick a candidate based on who the best candidate is, not based on who might beat whatever Republican is in the running. Clinton and Obama, while it would be exciting to finally have a woman or a leading a major party ticket are not my first or second choice. Either of them.

Right now I am planning to back Edwards.

As for calling for boycotss because of the opinion of one person; well that's just silly.

Does it have some racist connotation like "articulate for a black person" over there in the US?

Kind of.

More specifically, the phrase "he's so articulate!" in a tone of shock is what it brings to mind.

Daily Kos? Oh yeah! Daily Kos.

Haven't been there in quite a while. ;-)

Chi:

... the most recent issue of nature has an article about those old Chinese embryos... not being embryos.

these?

I try to avoid referring to either the reactionary Christians or the Bush gang as 'conservatives' because I do not believe they have much in common with traditional conservatism. Wild spending, radical restructuring of federal institutions (e.g. creating the dept of 'Homeland Security' and placing it over FEMA), etc, seem to have nothing to do with traditional conservative values of minimizing change, minimizing spending, and preserving traditional institutions. Ashcroft & co's tortured re-interpretations of the constitution do not strike me as conservative either.

'True Scotsman' conservatism is just as noxious and unworkable, in my opinion.

re:'articulate'....wow, yesterday I couldn't even spell politically incorrect, and today I are one? Hahahaha! Thanx all for the explanations--who gnu?

Hey, what can you say about a site where 9/11 conspiracy nonsense runs rampant?

A few examples among many:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/9/162136/7528
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/9/10126/02160
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/11/201919/954

If they aren't going to police this sort of stuff, which is posted in violation of their own policy on the matter, what makes you think they are going to care about one lone guy's call for a boycott of ScienceBlogs?

Well, emkay, as I said I'll be careful what I say when I'm in the states. I have no desire whatsoever to cause unnecessary offence.

That said, "articulate" is not at all the same as "well-spoken". The latter is a kind of old-fashioned expression, with connotations of having a posh accent. "Articulate" means something like having the ability to take complex ideas and present them clearly and cogently, and to do so with a certain ease and confidence. It's a significant compliment where I come from to be told that you are articulate. To be told you are "well-spoken" would sound kind of odd and patronising. It is usually used of younger people by older people. I guess this is just one of those differences between American and Aussie word usage.

I'm deeply unimpressed with the current Presidential field, especially as it ticks me off that it got started, for all intents and purposes, the day after the midterm elections. Hm, let's see: Giuliani -- I'd want him for my cabinet no matter what party, but I don't want him to be the boss; McCain -- squandered his centrist bona fides, no use for him anymore; Clinton -- she could do the job, but could never be elected in the first place; Obama -- unproven quantity; Edwards -- all style, no clear substance; Romney -- total hack, plus I'm a MA resident and most of us were very happy to get rid of him; Brownback -- the Canadian government's best possible citizenship recruiting tool; Dodd -- who knows? I want Howard Dean to run again. He's actually inspiring, at least if you don't let the media predigest your opinions for you.

As for the Daily Kos, as liberal as I am, I'm not much into liberal blogging apart from Pharyngula and other left-wing sites here on ScienceBlogs. One of the downsides of being a Lefty is that you pretty much have to accept other Lefties who are total fluffbunnies (the less dedicated neopagans, for example, or a sizeable fraction of Hollywood liberals) or raving anti-rationalists (Deepak Chopra, identity politics pushers like radical feminists and Afrocentrists, and practically every postmodernist "professor" ever). I think people of that ilk are the worst possible advertisement for liberalism out there, but we need them for the warm bodies. (I mean, honestly, I know gracious and generous people who are very conservative and who are much more palatable than some people who closely identify themselves with the left. But I couldn't vote for them if they were running for office. It's quite sad.)

As an Englishman, I can see why whoever Barack Obama is would be a bad idea if he's got religion - we have this problem with Tony B. Liar & his cronies.

What's wrong with Hilary Clinton?

Who cares what the people of Ohio like - they elected Bush, if you recall.

You think so? The USA not having First-World elections, I have yet to see any evidence that they actually did.

Whenever I read DailyKos I imagine that Kos is a strutting self-important teenage boy with a huge penis. A call to boycott Scienceblogs is stupid. Do Kos and his ilk think that Democratic candidates should be immune to criticism? Why the hell is Kos taking a page out of the Republican "Thou shalt not criticize Dear Leader" book? What a dumbass.

Geez, where do I start?

First of all, as PZ noted, this wasn't Kos himself. It wasn't even one of the folks that normally do front-paged diaries. It was some guy/gal calling him/herself "Chuckles1".

Second off, the people who post diaries at DailyKos have lots of disagreements over pretty much everything. Markos himself is a very strong anti-impeachment advocate, but his most frequent front-pager of late, Kagro X, is a full-bore proponent of impeachment as the only way to rein in Bush.

If you actually visited DailyKos more than, say, once a blue moon, you'd know all this.

So please, could you turn off the strutting self-important teenage-like ignorance? Thanks.

Barack Obama on Intelligent design:

"Intelligent design is not science. We should teach our children theology to get them to think about the meaning of life. But that's separate from how atoms or photons work."

Isn't that an encouraging answer? No, it's not what Richard Dawkins would say -- and I'd vote for Dawkins over Obama if given the choice. But can you imagine John Edwards or Hillary Clinton giving an answer as direct as, "Intelligent design is not science"? I think it's commendable.

What's wrong with Hilary Clinton?

Not a thing- if you happen to like moderate Republicans. But I'd kind of like the Democratic presidential candidate to be, you know, a Democrat.

Steve said what I was going to. Pooh.

But I'd kind of like the Democratic presidential candidate to be, you know, a Democrat.

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy again.

On the contraary, I'm aware of the existence of any number of true Democrats. It's just that Hillary and her cronies aren't among them.

I have a hard time accepting any argument about who should be president or what sort of Democrat should be president that does not directly and seriously address this question:

Which candidate will get 52% of the vote or more. 51% is not enough because the Republicans appear able to win even when behind by a percent or two.

So which democratic candidate will beat the other guy. I'd like to have more than that, but I can't have more than that, can I? (except maybe a good feeling about voting for Ralph Nader and thus putting the next Republican in office!?!?)

Steve LaBonne,

You're claiming Hillary isn't a "true Democrat" because you don't like some of her positions, not because there is some authoritative definition of "true Democrat" that she doesn't satisfy. That's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Where do I sign up to dislike both Edwards and Obama? My dislike of Edwards is more subjective than substantive... He just seems really phoney to me. Obama on the other hand. While he yammers on endlessly about faith and its virtues, he's actually an agnostic. How can you square the most famous line from his 2004 keynote speech:

"The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states."

With the fact he's not at all sure that God exists (but is certain we should continue to propagate the delusion). Obama is a total phoney.

Give me Wes Clark, or any other Democrat who refuses to fall into the "must act like I personally know Jesus" trap, and I'll be a happy man.

As others have noted, this is just a diary-- imagine if Scienceblogs allowed any average commenter who wanted to post blog posts, but they all went in a little tiny segregated section apart from the "real" blogs like Pharyngula and such, and you'd have an idea what "diary" means in the kind of software DailyKos is running-- but it still strikes me as kind of bizarre.

I don't know what's going on at DailyKos, but I can say I tried reading MyDD, which is kind of like a sister site to DailyKos but with a lesser range of opinion, for a short while recently just to figure out what it was about; that entire clique seems to have this enormous push for Edwards going on, and I cannot figure out why. Like seriously the MyDD site is basically the Edwards for President 2008 campaign site at this point. There appear to be a couple other little blog groups doing the same thing and apparently Edwards is literally trying to position himself as "the Youtube candidate". Meanwhile outside that little corner of the blogosphere nobody I know seems to have even noticed Edwards is running.

I think Edwards is a pretty good candidate, though his poor performance in communicating any kind of message in the 2004 election concerns me. But I am somewhat unable to understand the level of enthusiasm and militancy he seems to be inspiring among bloggers, given he's not particularly distinguishable from a couple of the other candidates and his message as far as I can tell is exactly the same as Obama's. I'm also finding it kind of funny to see some of the same blogs that a year or three ago were so gung-ho about breaking the DLC's stranglehold on the Democratic party are now breaking for a former(?) DLCer.

Obama on the other hand. While he yammers on endlessly about faith and its virtues, he's actually an agnostic.

Uh, what? He's a Christian. He's never claimed to be anything other than a Christian. If you do not like the fact he's a Christian that's one thing, but what are you even talking about?

Pete Buchholz: I don't understand the problem with the line you've bolded from Obama's keynote address. He's saying that there are sincere Christians in Democratic strongholds. That's true. So what?

In his Call to Renewal keynote address (click on my name for link), in front of a Christian audience, he said the following:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice."

Again, isn't this (a) true and (b) courageous? Could you imagine Clinton or Edwards saying such a thing??

Two more little bits:

1. Obama's father is an atheist; and
2. I've never heard Obama conclude any speech -- including the DNC Keynote Address you quote with such disdain -- with "God bless America" or the like.

WRT Obama being an agnostic, Coin wrote:
Uh, what? He's a Christian. He's never claimed to be anything other than a Christian. If you do not like the fact he's a Christian that's one thing, but what are you even talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that he has stated he's an agnostic. Granted, he hasn't said, "I'm an agnostic," but as is clear in this interview in The New Yorker he doesn't seem to have much faith in his own faith, and I would describe his religious outlook as a Christian strong agnostic (pertinent parts appear 2/3 of the way down the page). Couple this with his conversion to Christianity at almost the exact moment he first came into politics, and I see nothing in Obama but phoneyness.

Disagree if you'd like, but that's what I see in Obama.

Sorry about the double post, but Pete Buchholz's ridiculous comment continues to bother me. Click on my name and you'll go to the first speech that comes up when you google Wesley Clark. And what does Gen. Clark say?

"America, hear this soldier.

Choose a leader whose physical courage, moral values and sound judgment, with the grace of God and our determined commitment, will strengthen our country, protect our liberty, renew our spirit and secure a future for our children that is worthy of our heritage.

Make John Kerry the next president of the United States.

Thank you. God bless America."

Now, how exactly is Wes Clark less religious than Barack Obama??

Pete Buchholz, are you illiterate or something? There's *nothing* in that interview you quoted that says anything remotely like what you're claiming Obama said. The closest I can find is this section:

"No, no, no, I understand. You know, I felt it was necessary in part because of--again, I think this is the historical moment we're in--we have come to define religion in absolutist, fundamentalist terms. So to be a believer is to be a fundamentalist in some fashion. And I guess what I was trying to describe is a faith that admits doubt, and uncertainty, and mystery. Because, ultimately, I think that's how most people understand their faith. In fact, it's not faith if you're absolutely certain. There's a leap that we all take, and, when you admit that doubt publicly, it's a form of testimony. Then what I think it does is it allows both the secular and the religious to find some sort of common space where we say to each other, Well, I may not believe exactly what you do, what you believe, but I share an experience in wondering what does my life mean, or I understand the desire for a connection to something larger than myself. And that, I think, is in the best of the United States religious tradition."

Now, I'm an atheist, so I disagree with Obama. But if you've read that answer as suggesting that Obama is an agnostic, then you've missed the point just as badly as the fundamentalist nutjobs.

I think we are proving a proverb here.

The Democrats WILL cut their own throats several times between now and the next election. That's not necessarily a bad thing. And it is good to take all these possible candidates out for a good and careful examination.

But which one is going to beat Giuliani or the Rockefeller Republican?

The candidate will need:

1) Lots of fund raising power
2) Nothing too bad in the history
3) Probably shouldn't be a senator. The rules of the senate require most senators to vote both for and against bills they would otherwise support or not support as the case may be.
4) Not too female, not to dark, not too intellectual, etc. etc. etc.
5) taller than Giuliani or the Rockefeller Republican

Andrew, I didn't quote Obama's 2004 convention speech with "disdain," I quoted it to point out the disdain Obama has for the #2 "religious group" in the United States (the uh, non-religious), even though if he were to be honest with himself, he'd be counted among them.

As for his "Call to Renewal" speech you quoted, I can't find anything particularly courageous or out of the ordinary in that quote (although, yes it's "true"). In fact, it's essentially the same thing John Kerry said in 2004 with respect to his religious views and abortion, and I could esily see Clinton and/or Edwards saying it too. The only high profile Democrat I couldn't see saying it is Joe Lieberman, but that's another discussion for another day....

Obama is United Church of Christ- on the liberal edge of Xtianity. As churches go, it's about as good as they get on things like tolerance, social activism and respect for science; these days I probably have more use for them than for the UUs who have gone off into la-la land with bogus "paganism" and other bizarre and lame crap.

I have no particular beef with him myself, apart from lack of experience and minimal evidence, thus far, of real substance. I'd like to see him compile a solid track record in the Senate before seeking to move up.

Andrew: If you cannot see how Obama's 2004 speech (a major point in his speech devoted to blue-staters without question or dissent worshiping the "same awesome God" as red-staters) is substantively different from Clark's (an afterthought at the end of the speech stating that he personally hoped God can give John Kerry a hand if he's elected), I am not sure I'd be so quick to accuse others of being illiterate or ridiculous.

Perhaps you're right though, and I am falling into the same trap that the fundies fall into, and totally misinterpretting Obama's words and intentions. If so, I am sorry, but I can't help but wonder why he's so unclear.

I'm talking about the fact that he has stated he's an agnostic. Granted, he hasn't said, "I'm an agnostic,"

Soo... he's not stated he's an agnostic.

The way he seems to be describing his religious position in that interview is "faith that admits doubt". This is something that I do not think most agnostics would consider to be an accurate representation of their religious position, and trying to lump this position in as equal to agnosticism probably does a greater disservice to agnosticism than it does to Obama.

In the meanwhile, if someone for some reason feels they must have faith in their lives, I think "a faith that admits doubt, and uncertainty, and mystery" is definitely far superior to the alternatives. Someone does not become a "total phoney" just because they are willing to admit they could be wrong. If anything, it indicates honesty.

Andrew, I didn't quote Obama's 2004 convention speech with "disdain," I quoted it to point out the disdain Obama has for the #2 "religious group" in the United States (the uh, non-religious), even though if he were to be honest with himself, he'd be counted among them.

I do not think anyone could reasonably say that that quote is intended to belittle or deny the existence of people who do not believe in God. He is simply challenging stereotypes, in this specific case "red staters are religious, blue staters aren't". He is observing religious people exist in blue states as well.

Coin, you are correct in stating that a faith that admits doubt is better than a faith that does not. The way I read what Obama is saying however indicates that his degree of doubt is rather extreme and could be considered agnostic. But of course, I could be 100% wrong.

What makes me think of Obama as phoney however is his 2004 convention speech. He didn't say, "religious people exist in blue states as well," he said, "We worship an awesome God in the blue states." We implying all 141,218,933 people living in the "blue states." Not, "most of us," not "nearly all of us" not "a great deal of us."

If his faith admits doubt, why can he not admit that there are those that do not share his faith or have no faith at all?

Octopod is right.

Who cares what the people of Ohio like - they elected Bush, if you recall.

You think so? The USA not having First-World elections, I have yet to see any evidence that they actually did.