(Hillary) Clinton hires faith guru

I think that Mrs. Clinton's continuing embrace of war in the Middle East will do much to enthuse the evangelicals. Maybe she could mention The Rapture a few times or something.

need a leader not another prefabricated overly polished politician.

She's starting to look like Joe Lieberman in drag. :sarcasm:

:rofl: I am SO gonna steal that. :evilgrin:

and it's not even *our* base...

(Evangelical Christians are)...not even OUR base...

It's the religious NON-fanantics she should be going after by valuing religous equality for all, reproductive choice and the separation of church and state. THEY'RE the majority, Hillary!!!

:banghead:
rocknation

Enough of this horsepiss.

... and a reader of sheep entrails, too.

Doesn't anybody have the balls to hire a science advisor?

:shrug:

have become Republican Lite. Screw them.

I don't think he's DLC.

There are a lot of shared values between Democrats and faith-based voters. Not all faith-based voters are Republican. I believe we need to tell those voters that it's okay to be Democrats. How we do it is key. And I think Hillary hiring a consultant (I find the word "guru" to be a bit misleading) is not a bad idea.

supports Bush's oil war. There is no middle ground for people who believe that a one celled fertilized organism is a human being and that people who happen to be born gay should be ostracized!

That was my point.

And I think there is middle ground. We won't and don't intend to convert people or change their religious beliefs. However, Democratic values can - and should - appeal to people of faith. That's where we can come together.

No one should push one religion - or religion in general - to any group. But value-based issues, which are what many of our Democratic positions espouse, can be part of a campaign. Again, how that's done is important.

The way Bush and his minions have been pushing religion is not the way to do it.

will turn out "values" voters on election day. An issue that the national Christian leaders will espouse from the pulpit rather than talk about homosexuality and abortion. Something that will get thaose "values" voters out and voting democratic. Hint, the environment, deficit spending, ending corruption, and getting out of Iraq are not "values" issues, these are issues that everyone cares about.

Being good stewards of the earth and all.

Also, making sure children don't go to bed hungry; making sure people have shelter and clothing; education...many issues.

Just because "everyone cares about" something doesn't mean it's a value issue.

In fact, polling results from November show that many many faith-based voters were concerned about corruption and voted for Democrats. Truthfulness is a value. Many who voted for Bush in '04 were upset that he's been lying. It is resonating with them.

you have reduced the concept of "values voters" to a meaningless term that is worthless!

that now even I am a "values voter"!

and people ask why I dont like her...

It doesn't actually confirm that Mrs. Clinton has hired Mr. Strider, but uses the curious term "guru" to describe the alleged relationship. While Republican men of action have deep talks with their pastors and other religious leaders, Mrs. Clinton hires a "faith guru." An interesting locution, and just short of saying "damn dirty hippies."

And considering the ripeness many in the evangelical communities are for the plucking, one would think that most Democratic operatives would be eager to peel away some votes that the Republicans formerly counted on without even thinking about it. Does it somehow compromise some chimera of Democratic purity to court evangelical voters who may have become disillusioned with Republican policies and practices in the last 20 years? For some people, even here on DU, that appears to be the case.

But what values might be important to evangelicals that would make them a more natural fit with Democrats? Concerns for social justice for one. Environmental awareness and good stewardship of our natural resources for another. How about not waging imperial wars? Quite a number of people seem to like that idea. Why aren't we looking at our commonalities to build the Democratic base instead of assailing a candidate who is looking to capitalize on evangelicals' disaffection with the GOP? You got me, except that all the Kewl Kidz have decreed that all religion and communities of faith are inexorably, irredeemably, and irretrievably evil. So mote it be.

over the years. They are pushing hard on their campaigns against abortion and gay marriage. If these issues aren't important to you, so be it.

Your evidence that Hillary is turning against a woman's right to choose and is about to join Focus on the Family in bashing gays is . . . well, what exactly?

By the way, as a person of faith I don't much appreciate (if you couldn't tell) the broad brush that gets hauled out by some folks here at DU whenever believers get mentioned. We are no more monolithic any other segment of society. If you have a particular beef with someone or some group, then identify them. But "sky-people worshippers" is every bit as offensive and ignorant as any number of other epithets.

Now I suppose we can be treated to a bunch of posts about intolerance and hypocrisy, traits never, ever evinced by self-described atheists and agnostics. At least, not without a real good reason.

over in a nanosecond. Protecting the environment is a secular issue of concern to all rational human beings. The issues that have driven the so-called "values" voters are incompatible with liberal ideals. So the intersection that is left is little stuff, video games, flag burning, etc, Hence, the apt term for Hillary, panderer.

I tossed out the term that you seem to hate so much because of your gratuitous slap with the use "the kewl kids."

"Now I suppose we can be treated to a bunch of posts about intolerance and hypocrisy, traits never, ever evinced by self-described atheists and
agnostics. At least, not without a real good reason."

...which I have saved in the thread on my hard drive, without it showing that you edited your post?

Weird!

(And btw, that itself was the same type of broad-brushing you decry.)

oh how I loathe the media spin...

the evangelicals will have to come around on their own to see the shortcomings of their alliances with corporatists and imperialists, because they won't hear it from their leaders and the mass media isn't going to let them know.

I'm a Hillary supporter-if she runs, I'm voting for her. There are a lot of liberals who don't understand pragmatism-to win office, you need lots of votes. A good number of those votes need to come from people who don't agree with you on all issues, so you find people to help you in your campaign who understand how to reach out to voters outside of one's base of support.

I swear, some people are just allergic to anything that rings of christianity.

du siecle religion here in the US. There will always be a religion, as most people are followers. A very few leaders with many, many followers is true in all mammalian societal species.

One would like to think of politics is a slightly positive sense, where one stands tall for what one believes in. Too many of us here, Hillary appears to be nothing more substantial than a panderer. She is right to worry about Obama.

"Convert or Kill" that targets Jews, Muslims, atheists, and especially gay Jews. Since Hillary and Joe Lieberman are burning their panties by pandering to the masses over violent video games!
My guess is that Hill's "guru" is saying "Keep quiet!!" since we haven't heard a peep from Hillary over this issue. Hillary's silence is speaking volumes.

The two most vocal "anti video game violence" politicians haven't said anything about a loony RW video game which promotes killing non Christians.

Tells me a lot about them. Fuck Hillary. Every day, I'm getting closer to not voting for her even in the general election.

speak in tongues, she's on her way to winning them over.

a funny movie.

He helped win this in 06. Tom Manatos and Burns stood tall for us. I hope he is the right person for the job

Note, this "faith guru" thing is a good move, but it also shows how little she understands the subject. But at least she obviously knows she doesn't.

I'd be skeptical about this story if it was anyone other than a Republican or a Clinton, not that there's much of a difference between the two.

Shit like this is indicative of the fucking problem with politics in this country. Instead of getting input from as many knowledgeable economists in an attempt to solve the devastating economic future this country faces - you know, formulating actual POLICY - she's concerned with producing a PR campaign to seduce religious people. What about putting together a real energy policy? How about seducing voters with real POLICIES for real issues, rather than fucking ads?

This is a big example of why we do not need her.

Nothing wrong with it.

n/t

if she needs a faith "adviser" to talk to religious people.

Maybe, just maybe, Democrats should try talking to religious people, like they talk to anyone - by addressing issues affecting us all, like health care, education, the environment, excess wasteful spending, social justice, and the war...The election won't be won by being quiet on key issues (like the war) and idiotic, meaningless nanny state bullshit like video game violence.

If those issues aren't enough to budge these evangelicals from the repuke party, nothing will. Try a little candor, sincerity, and less triangulating, and pandering Hillary. It just may help.

"Values Voter" is a term that is a question-begging-definition. One who uses it will exercise values laden, subjective definitional stipulations to the limit. It isn't in the dictionary. It's a matter of opinion. Common usage means values derived from a literalist, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. So, selective passages are lifted to show that women should be obedient to their husbands, abortion is wrong, Darwin was wrong, homosexuality is a sin, and, even, that the earth is 6,000 years old. For "values voters" God, Guns and Gays have been the issue for a quarter of a century. For "values voters" anything that conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, including science. For them, science and reason have no place in their lives. About 40% of the voters think the earth is not over 10,000 years old and about half don't think the "theory" of evolution is true - that humans are the special darlings of creation. About 20 per cent of the electorate - a conservative estimate - will vote in elections if sufficiently aroused by Republican demagogues. Victory or defeat can be determined by them in a Presidential Election.

Actually, these fundamentalist evangelicals are full of shit. Just one example: The greatest commandment is to love God and your neighbor as yourself. You shouldn't kill your "neighbor" anymore than you would kill yourself. in the 21st century our "neighbor" is anyone in our communications close, rapid speed, interdependent world. The 10 Commandments specifically state, "thou shalt not kill." But look at their sermons on the internet. They are militant militarists and warmongers who do not value human life. Christian theology is complicated, but, as someone said, fundamentalism is to Christianity what finger painting is to art. Literalist interpretations of the Bible are for morons.

What choice would Hillary have but to pander to these folks? This is a democracy and, at least to a certain extent, the imbilicities of key segments of the electorate must be reflected in candidates for national office. She deserves our sympathy, not the scorn manifested in some of the posts here.

Ethics? Morals? Integrity? Pardon me while I :puke: