Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Hillary's Ties to Religious Fundamentalists

By Barbara Ehrenreich, Barbaraehrenreich.com. Posted March 20, 2008.


When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, Hillary Clinton is a lot more vulnerable than Barack Obama.
Advertisement

There's a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the "Fellowship," aka the Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells" -- their term -- and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family's home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners -- alone.

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes -- knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, the Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:

During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration, the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, the fellowship, the family, religious fundamentalism, religion, hillary clinton, hillary

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of 13 books, including the New York Times bestseller Nickel and Dimed. A frequent contributor to the New York Times, Harper's, and the Progressive, she is a contributing writer to Time magazine. She lives in Florida.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Unelectable
Posted by: Tom Degan on Mar 20, 2008 3:25 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama's campaign has been destroyed by Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton's campaign has been destroyed by Hillary Clinton. Neither one of them is electable. The best the Dems can hope for is a "compromise candidate". When you've finsihed reading all of the excellent artciles and responses on AlterNet, click here for more details.

Cheers!
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unelectable Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Unelectable Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Unelectable Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Thank you, Horatio Alger Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Thank you, Horatio Alger Posted by: carbon-based
» Disagree Posted by: brunowe
If you're correct, Barbara,
Posted by: Urstrly on Mar 20, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that this "family" is a right-wing cabal, my guess is that the people who are so outraged over Obama will not care a whit about Clinton's affiliation, because (I infer) the people involve are white.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please, just stop
Posted by: fratricide08 on Mar 20, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's getting ridiculous. I have never been more embarrassed to be a part of the American left. Every time something happens to poor Barack someone tries to make it about Hillary no matter how tortured the logic or how far the leap. It makes me question how much utter crap I've bought in the past from writers I used to admire when the subject was Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: bc430
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: fratricide08
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: Joe
» Irony defined Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: EvilPoet
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: fratricide08
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: EvilPoet
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: NWCrow
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: GRIT
» FRANKGRITS? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: tennstar
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: jareilly
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: tennstar
» Diminuition Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Please, just stop Posted by: johngary66
Anything to do with the Unification Church?
Posted by: K_for_Kansas on Mar 20, 2008 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They call themselves the Family, too, and they're deeply involved in Washington politics. They also have apparently bottomless pockets, which insures enthusiastic participation from politicians and pundits. I just wondered if there were any ties with Sun Myung Moon's "family."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't this kind of like, well, McCarthyism?
Posted by: Nitewriter on Mar 20, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've watched the issue of candidate's religious associations with a growing sense of unease. I don't think it's necessarily the case that a person is responsible for the values, attitudes and beliefs of everyone they associate with - even when that association lasts for a long time.

Most people are ambivalent about many issues, they may simply be curious and want to experience an attachment to a particular view before commiting to it, or they may have reasons for an association that have nothing to do with it's ideological content.

In the cases of both Obama and Clinton a case could be made for alliances all along the religious and political spectrum -- it simply depends on who wants to tar them with what.

The candidates - including John McCain - should be criticized on substantial policy issues and not through a process of ad hominem or guilt by association. These propaganda techniques reveal more about the parties that use them than about the target of their smears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares?
Posted by: ukeman on Mar 20, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they arent talking about these well known things now, and thereʻs plenty.
It is Mcarthy all over again... blatant.
Itʻs not what you do or say, itʻs WHO you do it to... and why does the media follow right along?
the only "innocent" reason is; for the money... or could it be racism?
If the supers swing to Hillary which is her only hope, what other reason would it be for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is not news
Posted by: kamcguffin on Mar 20, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every single candidate has ties and gets funded by "Fundamentalist" Christian sects. Every Single Candidate. All of these sects believe they are being persecuted for their beliefs just as blacks and all the other ethnicities in this country have always been. It's a great divider. It keeps people from issues like homelessness, hunger, health care and job loss. All of these sects and ultimately US Christian believe not only in "End Of Times" but that they must bring about the end. They also believe that by this they will get a better place in their heaven. I grew up hearing this crap from Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists. and not just the followers/parishioners/members. It came from the priests/pastors. I was dumped on by all of these sects with hatred for being given up for adoption at birth. That the US assembled, trained and funded Al Qaeda in the 1970's is for another comment. If being 60 years old is the new 40. Size 2 is the new 8. And the Republicans are the new Klan, the Democrats are the new Republicans. Only a few on the internet are discussing the issues and nothing is changing in the Government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOT the Green Party!! Posted by: Andie927
Fear and Smear worked for McCarthy
Posted by: bc430 on Mar 20, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to the end of destroying the careers of many. Rove and Mr.and Mrs Clinton are the assigned point persons to fear and smear President Obama to the end of deatroying his presidency and America's hopeful future.

Since Mr. Rove's and the Reagan (Philadelphia Missisippi campaign launch)Revolutionaries' ingenius move to politicize the Religious Right has been so successful through the misuse of the Bible and it's words, I'm sure they won't mind me showing off my knowledge of the Gospel according to John. In chapter 10, verse 10 you will find an explanation of the source of fear and smear's intent. "The theif comes to steal, kill and destroy, but I have come that you might have abundant life." signed: Jesus. Sounds a lot like the tale of two Dem political campaigns for POTUS.

We should have stopped saying 'we have two wonderful candidates' a long time ago in refrence to Obama and Clinton. We always really had only one wonderful candidate, and now we are certain we have our nominee. The only unanswered question is are We The People going to stand up with him, fight for him, protect him and work with him to support, defend and activate the powers of the Constitution of the United States of America and it's Declaration of Independence?

Lastly, here is why NOW!!! the 5 year old 15 seconds of Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr's words are carefully disected from more than 40 years of preaching, teaching, lecturing, writing and 67 years of living and blasted into America's feeble minds. These feeble American minds weakened by spurious theology, public shool miseducation, and socio/economic and political manipulation, all fashioned in and executed from the matrix of the doctrine of White Supremacy, are minds that have forgotten their proper function through encouraged inactivity. "Vote for me I'LL set you free" has created lazy right wing minds rife for Fascist Dictatotship.

Here is the WHY of all the UTUBE Jeremiah Wrighting. Read carefully.
Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposé, "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power", will be published in May-May-May-May-May-May-May-May..........2008.

Dear Lord God, that's less than 6 weeks from right Now!!!

Get Barack Hussein out there - RIGHT NOW - defending his Super Black crazy Black Black Nationalist Black dangerously Black and frieghtenly Black, Blacker than a thousand midnights Black, Black, Black,Black,jet Black, Black,Black, Really,Really,Really,Realy Black, Anti-American Black and Hatefully Black Emotional Late Louuddd and Wrong Racist Black N****R Pastor, and by May, 2008 Mr. and Mrs Clinton will appear as victims of Black Racist Obama Hussein revenge......again???

Another Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Rove Mr. and Mrs Clinton pre-emptive strike.

Sure, wars of agression are illegal, but what the hell does that mean when you are above the law? F**k the Law and while you're at it, go F**k yourself. signed: Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld/Rove Mr. and Mrs Clinton

again???

Aren't you sick and tired of being sick and tired of this low life scum purveying it's perversion in the name of God and American Patriotism?

Can we rise higher? RIGHT NOW?

YES WE CAN!!

OBAMA '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion (and spirituality) is relevant, not definitive
Posted by: dgleason on Mar 20, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A persons associations and beliefs are relevant fodder for the the political mill.

at the time someone is examining Obama's would be the appropriate time to examine all candidates, that is how one moves to exploring the subject in some depth and balance from a witch hunt of some sort.

All 3 major candidates have some questions to answer, and they should answer them.

Personally I think Hillary lost her right to any righteous indignation when she started spouting her nuanced paused ' i have no reason to believe obama not a christian '.

The american people have to get smart enough to process all of this as information. In fact the nature of our global-ness means it is the next test of humanity to see if we have developed any sophistication with rhetoric.

The thing I find amazing about the very selected rantings of Obama's former minister is that he kind of has a point on a number of levels and it is very difficult to say so without inciting a riot of indignant responses.

Americans absolutely need to grow up. Stop settling for the veneer instead of the substance. If we don't learn this it will cost us, direly, because it is absolutely necessary in the current age.

We need to be able to explore, without loosing hold of our identity, things like 'is pre-emptive war' a part of the ethic we want to assimilate? That pastor's assertion that America accepts Hiroshima and Nagasaki without blinking, and at the same time asserts 'we are a christian nation' is a level of cognative dissonance that absolutely needs to be talked about. A church is a good place to contemplate that.

The assertion that the American people cannot survive 'a constitutional crisis' or 'an examination of the mixed motivations of it's leaders' are the assertions of 'parents' about 'children', not adults about adults.

Do we really want to assert we are that weak?

Danielle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How nuanced?? Try honest! Posted by: Andie927
» RE: How nuanced?? Try honest! Posted by: dgleason
Clinton allied with fundamentalists on the war
Posted by: zunes on Mar 20, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Virtually every mainline Protestant church as well as the Catholics went on record opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, noting how it did not come close to meeting the traditional Christian criteria for a "just war." Only the right-wing fundamentalists churches supported it. In voting to authorize the invasion and so vehemently supporting it when it started, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that her theological views on war and peace are far closer to the fundamentalists than other Christians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ridiculous: Why then would the right hate Hillary?
Posted by: RitaBird2 on Mar 20, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The left that I have been part of since before most of you were born will once again go down in flames on their own stupidity. The dems and the left have been poised to take power and make changes to the horrors that have occurred under GW and, as usual, we will eat our young so that nothing will survive. Who said you get the government you deserve?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please seek help, Barack not=God
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 20, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Print out your comment, take it to a mental health clinic, or your minister, and get some help!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:To: bc430 above, Posted by: Andie927
When is it Enough???
Posted by: Andie927 on Mar 20, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She said: she believes he's a Christian, has no reason to doubt what he says!

Do you want Hillary to say 'She Knows', but she doesn't! Neither do YOU!! Have you known Barack Obama his whole life? I Believe he is a Chhristian, as well! Do I 'KNOW' it? Of coarse not! I raised my children as Christians, do I KNOW they still are? Nope, their adults now, and free to believe (or not) as they choose!

Obama's minister, Rev. Wright is a 'Hate-Monger', teaching his followers to prey on the 'white-guilt' factor! Civil Rights, (which I supported, and help fight for) have existed for 40 Years! Slavery ended how long ago??? None of my family were even in this country, when slavery existed! Exactly how 'guilty' am I suppose to feel??? There is a Black Miss America contest (because they wanted it,)BET Black Entertainment, Black Music Awards, Black College Fund, Black Rights Org. NAACP, and Affirmative Action!! Could 'we' even have similar exclusively 'white' organizations??

Exactly when is enough enough? When do they start being Americans, not (Black) or African-Americans? I'm not a Euro-American!

IF 'we' as a Nation owe anything to any minority group, it's the Native Americans!!
We have an excellent Native American candidate for President, on the Green Party Ticket, a Kent Mesplay!! Check that out!!!

I am NOT a Hillary or Obama supporter, partically becuse of this issue: I strongly believe in Seperation of Church and State!!

I'm a Progressive, not a Liberal: I believe in giving people a Hand Up! not a Hand Out!
Then, they have to at least 'try' to help themselves!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When is it Enough??? Posted by: dgleason
» RE: When is it Enough??? Posted by: desidid
When will we call this for what it is?
Posted by: Cwood on Mar 20, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This country is full of insane people. When will we grow up and leave this religion crap behind, or at least at home where it belongs, out of politics?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT THIS TIME!
Posted by: djnoll on Mar 20, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his speech on Tuesday, Barack Obama made the following comment:

"I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change....Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, 'Not This Time'."

I have no doubt that Hillary has religious beliefs that would not be acceptable to many in this country after the last 30 years. Do they support a grab for power? Probably, if not definitely if this article is to be believed. But, I find myself torn between wanting her to deny her beliefs and saying "Not this time." Not that it is not important to know, but I find myself wanting this election to be about the issues, not the race of one person over the gender of another, not one person's religious beliefs over another's.

It is time for us to put aside the issue of who believes what and concentrate on getting all religions out of government. Our Founding Fathers believed that a separation of church and state was vital to a thriving nation built on the principles of religious freedom. They recognized the dangers of having a theocracy at worst or even the combined control of church and state as they had in England in the 1700's. So, not this time! Stop the Witch Hunts and simply ask each candidate to state that they will not allow for religious influence in either the actions of their office nor within the government itself. Get rid of the Offices of Faith currently in every agency in government,and go back to a free, non-religious based form of democracy.

Witch Hunts are for the likes of Hagee, Parsley, McCarthy, and the others. They were from a different age and public mind, and failed because in the end they did not and do not serve the public good. It is time to move on to discussions of how to help our fellow human beings, not how to hate them and use them to be sacrificial lambs on the alter of power. It is time to stop this distraction, perhaps with one final word from Hillary disavowing her connection to the Family (to please the public lust for scandal), and then move on to discussions of real issues like the economy, racial tension, religious intolerance, the War in Iraq, health care... Are you seeing the interconnection and pattern here on these issues? It is time to act!

So, NOT THIS TIME! NO MORE DISTRACTIONS!

http://www.standanddeliveramerica.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOT THIS TIME! Posted by: dgleason
» RE: NOT THIS TIME! Posted by: djnoll
» RE: NOT THIS TIME! Posted by: dgleason
Clinton: elitist warmonger? Lady Macbeth?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 20, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She's in favor of the unitary presidential authority, by all indications. She likes what Cheney has tried to do to the Presidency (i.e. make it more like a dictatorship) and she wants that power for herself.

She went right-wing pro-war in 2002 and actively advocated for the invasion and occupation, and repeated the lies about Saddam's WMDs.

In one of the televised debates (before Kucinich and Edwards, the best candidates, were forced out by the corporate media) she said that she would continue the occupation of Iraq because of "our strategic interests in the region."

We have only one strategic interest in the region, which is controlling the oil output and making sure it is sold in dollars, not euros. Thus, Clinton's agenda is more or less identical to that of Bush in terms of Iraq. Obama is only slightly less hawkish. Neither candidate has committed to an immediate withdrawal of troops, or even an eventual complete withdrawal.

So, who is winning right now? The corporate press is not winning, actually, even though they managed to boot out Kucinich and Edwards. The media in this country is sick, sick, sick.

What the corporate press wanted was a Hillary vs. Romney matchup - but now it is looking like an Obama vs. McCain matchup.

Of course, John Edwards, a more honest and Democratic candidate than any of the leading contenders, would have beaten McCain hands down - a total KO. That's why the corporate press did an over-the-top hatchet job on him.

If predictions are worth anything, mine is that Obama wins the Presidency - unless the vote is rigged by Diebold, Sequoia, and the other corporate-controlled voting machine systems.

The U.S. elites, you know, the ones who hate real democracy with an abiding passion and who believe in their own God-given aristocratic privileges, are very unhappy with this situation, and with the rise of the independent media, for example the Washington Independent and the Real News Channel - all web-based publications.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jammer
Posted by: Jammer on Mar 20, 2008 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it is wrong to tie Obama to Wright's comments, it is even more stupidly wrong to connect Hillary through the Senate Prayer Group meetings to people in the 1940's who might have courted fascists (unattributed so I am doubtful until proven) or to anti-communists in the early 1960's. Her joining the prayer group was an effort to connect with Republicans to achieve bipartisan legislation and progress, something I thought Obama supporters were in favor of.

One last thought, today I cannot find a single person who supported the Iraq war when it started, yet polls showed the majority of Americans supported it then as did many people I know, who now say they were deadset against it. History re-written is history forgotten. People of good faith were split on the issue. Many people supported it because Tony Blair did and they thought if Bush is an idiot, Blair isnt so there must be something there. One thing is certain: had Hillary been president at the time she would not have INSTIGATED such a war, which is very different from voting with your president when asked to do so on these kinds of issues, which is what I assume Obama was referring to when he later said he did not know how he would have voted had he actually been in the US Senate at the time. I thought then he was being very honest with that comment. People should try to understand the nuances of what happened back then, instead of this steady drumbeat that we were all so smart and knew the war was a disaster from the start and anyone who voted for the Iraq Resolution is unqualified to lead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jammer Posted by: jareilly
You people turn my stomach
Posted by: joeunix on Mar 20, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Republicans couldn't do a better job of tearing the Democratic Party to shreds.

Bringing up a candidate's religious affiliation is irrelevant and incredibly stupid.

Vote for whoever you wish--Obama, Clinton, McCain or the Easter Bunny for all I care--but keep religion and religious affiliation out of the debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You people turn my stomach Posted by: VZEQICVA
How may I muddy the political waters?
Posted by: willymack on Mar 20, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me count the ways. We can start with religion,since it's the flip side of politics, anyway. First, Obama becomes guilty by association with emotionally charged sermons from his preacher. Of course, in this matter, "presumption of innocence" doesn't apply. This is RELIGION after all, NOT democracy. Obama replies to this silliness with a masterful speech, revealing to all his humanity, compassion, and above all, his fitness to be president, the direct opposite of bush, I might add. Now, it's Billary's turn to be raked over the coals. She purportedly belongs to a "subersive" lunatic fringe christian group whose true purpose can only be guessed at (by those with less than a full deck, I might add). You see where this is going, folks? ANYTHING to distract from the fact that both Clinton and Obama are far superior to the bushie stooge with presedential aspirations. The religion card is a dandy as it plays right into those who would judge a candidate over which end an egg should be opened from. Nice work, Turdblossom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BINGO! thanks willymack. Posted by: johngary66
This is no one's fault but our own
Posted by: Kym525 on Mar 20, 2008 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eight years ago we liberals/progressives/etc. sat by and allowed the far-right conservative wackos not only define and demonize what being a liberal was, but we allowed them to co-opt an entire faith that is based on love and caring for the least of these. We all thought the American people would see through the rhetoric, but unfortunately fear and mistrust became the rule as well as a marketable media commodity. The far-right ran with their fire and brimstone message and scared us about gays getting married. 9/11 happened and suddenly everything that was good about this country turned on its ear. We grew cynical and insular instead of stepping up to the plate and taking the hate and fear-mongers head on.

We let this happen and we continue to let it happen with Obama's minister and now Hilary is going to feel the heat. As thinking adults it's time to tell the right-wingnuts to put a BIG sock in it! Being a person of strong faith is not a crime--using that belief as a bully pulpit IS. Neither Obama or Clinton are or have done that. It's just a part of who they are. It's time to put things in the proper perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion expose'
Posted by: RobNLA on Mar 20, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, the campaign for president has dug up some dirt on Obama...actually it's on a former pastor of Obama's church...so guilt by association.
If this is a legitimate issue to raise (and I don't concede this at all), then it should be raised fairly to include all candidates.
Obama is being held accountable for his former pastor's comments, so it's perfectly fair to look just as closely at the religious leaders (current and former) associated with Clinton and McCain. This has already been done to a small extent on alternet, but not in the mass media yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

crazyivantx
Posted by: sawdust on Mar 20, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's indeed getting harder and harder who to believe. If this is true, I have no use for her in any context. If it's not, what's it doing on here? If it's partially true, don't publish until you have the facts. The same holds for partially false. Mud is just wet dirt. I'm tired of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Important than Clinton
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Mar 20, 2008 3:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama listens to his hate-speech minister.
Hillary attends Dominionist right-wing meetings.

But McCain and all of his Republican cronies admire and respect - despite his flip-flops - an entire segment of fundamentalists who hate whole groups of Americans. Specifically, those who have no religion, ALL gay people, and anyone who has ever contemplated abortion.

The people who comprise those three groups alone are a LOT of people. There are more. All you have to do is get one of those fundies alone and they'll tell you all about the groups of people they hate with a passion in the name of Jesus.

And, McCain is perfectly happy having Hagee stand there and support him. McCain can have it both ways by saying 'I don't necessarily believe everything he says', but he DOES. He does NOT denounce Hagee. He never has and he never will.

It's far more important to understand, really understand that fundamentalist preachers and ministers are supporting those Republican candidates who hate the most. This is NOT the case with the vast majority of Dems.

So, the real question is this: why is everyone giving McCain a great big pass with his embracing of fundamentalist televangelist a**wipes who have made it perfectly clear which Americans they hate and hate with a passion.

Forget Obama's preacher. Obama has spoken exactly the opposite of what Wright said in a couple of sermons. Forget Hillary. She's never spoken about her religion and I really don't care what she believes. What she believes is irrelevant as long as she KNOWS the Constitution.

As for McCain tho, he's a different story. We already know that fundies run the military. McCain is a warmonger even in his sleep. Thus, the support from that group is the most troublesome. And McCain is right there with them.

Forget Hillary's religion. Forget Obama's religion. Focus on McCain and the gigantic group of fundies that surround him and hold him up as an extension of themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All Fundamentalism is Evil..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Mar 20, 2008 4:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Religious Fundamentalism is Evil all of it no matter which Religion It is all Evil..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is laughable
Posted by: Adler Berriman Seal on Mar 20, 2008 5:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The chances that Hillary Clinton is in anyway devoutly religious is nonexistent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly! Posted by: joeunix
Why I won't vote for Hillary
Posted by: wireup on Mar 20, 2008 8:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This says it all:

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/310/

Scroll down to

AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY CLINTON FROM A WELLESLEY COLLEGE ALUMNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hillary's involvement with the religious right
Posted by: cherylsass123 on Mar 20, 2008 9:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as to why this was so - a woman's perspective and yes, hillary supporter

guess #1 - maybe bill got her involved with this " family deal" ; as , I believe, he was always the more religious/christian one of the two? bill, in all reality, is more of a " centrist democrat" , or southern democrat; and of course, was brought on up where the christian right is involved in everything [ the town called hope, arkansas, as he once said back in 1992]

guess #2. maybe she was trying to learn why, as to why they feel that both a woman's right to choose to legally abort her fetus[ aka: "unborn child" as uncle george w bush would say!]as well as to why they feel that all forms of birth control; from RU 486 to even condoms and birth control pills- should be made illegal in america. ?

guess # 3. she was still busy trying to find herself, still thinking she was at the time, as the[supposedly liberal???] new york times calls her; "MRS. BILL CLINTON"; to which she later added the RODHAM to show her feminist leanings.
guess #4- they are bringing this up, perhaps some of the obama supporters; this after obama's involvement with that black minister whom really don't care for white people [ another "rev. al sharpton" , sort of, BUT SHARPTON IS FOR HILLARY 100% ]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Very Funny Story
Posted by: CJHames on Mar 21, 2008 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, as is always the case, this writer proves with this article that it's the Left in this country who are truly racist, divisive, hate-filled, dishonest and ignorant of facts.

This story is so void of logic, truth, reason, and fairness it makes me wonder if McCain won't breeze in to the White House in November. Barbara Ehrenreich managaed to make CNN look like a profressional news organization!

I'll be the first to admit I'm not a Hillary Clinton fan, and John McCain doesn't turn me on, either. There's nothing worse than a politician who tries to convince me they're a conservative six months before an election. I'm not buying it. And when you look up the definition of "empty suit" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of Barack Obama.

It is fascinating - no, hilarious is the word - to watch the Democrats eat their young. I can't wait for the DNC convention. Talk about "Must See TV!" The only question is this: where will the riots and demonstrations be bigger ... outside the Chinese Olympics or the DNC convention?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ICK
Posted by: Jeanne on Mar 21, 2008 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't we just have an atheist candidate? What a hullaballoo about beliefs, because that's all that religions are. Compilations of dogma that must be accepted on faith. Don't let fact or common sense get in the way. I wish it were the case that the more candidates proclaim their religiosity, the less likely they are to get elected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dottie
Posted by: Dottie on Mar 22, 2008 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't care about Hillary's religious affiliations. I care about her sewer politics. When the the kitchen sink strategy didn't work, she has now turned to the bathroom strategy down and dirty in the toilet. When will she just go away?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BARAK'S PASTOR
Posted by: shd1230 on Mar 22, 2008 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE REMARKS QUOTED BY THE (I BELIEVE) FORMER PASTOR OF THE CHURCH TO WHICH SENATOR OBAMA BELONGS WERE TAKEN OUT OF A SERMON WHICH OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT QUOTED IN FULL. THAT PASTOR GREW UP BLACK IN THE SOUTH. BEFORE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED HIS PEOPLE LIVED AS BLACK PEOPLE LIVED THEN--IN A SEGREGATED SOCIETY WHERE A BLACK CHILD COULD NOT DRINK FROM A "WHITES ONLY" FOUNTAIN. TODAY YOUNGER PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE HIS VIEWPOINT--BUT I (A 77 YEAR OLD WHITE FEMALE) WILL TELL YOU THAT WHAT HE SPEAKS IS TRUTH. GO BACK FORTY AND FIFTY YEARS--DO SOME RESEARCH INTO WHAT WAS IN THE NEWS AT THAT TIME. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS IN POWER EVEN TODAY BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS BACKED CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE SOUTH, WHICH HAD BELONGED TO THE DEMOCRATS SINCE THE CIVIL WAR (ALSO BECAUSE OF THE RACE QUESTION) BECAME OVERNIGHT REPUBLICANS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: