Barack Obama takes a page from the Bush Administration playbook

While John McCain was jetting south, Barack Obama went to Ohio today and chatted up his belief in the Bush Administration's faith-based initiative. Our colleagues at Countdown to Crawford delve into it here.

The unusual thing is that Obama has made a point of saying a first McCain term would be little more than a third Bush term, but then he goes and gloms onto a signature issue of the Bush years (admittedly of less note than some other issues from the Bush years).

And Obama accented his support for the program in a session with reporters, with our colleague Peter Nicholas in the scrum. Obama was asked whether he would elevate the faith-based initiative to the cabinet level:

"I want this to be central to our White House mission. Just as I want a White House office on poverty to be -- which I've already discussed previously, and urban policy -- to be part of high level discussion in the White House.

"So whether we're actually creating a new cabinet position or we're simply making sure this person has a direct line to me and is working with all the cabinet officers to coordinate faith-based initiatives, we'll figure out the organization as we move forward in the context of our overall White House organization. But the important principle is that using the talents and the gifts of the kinds of folks who are here at Eastside Community Ministries -- their passion and commitment to empower the community -- making sure they can compete for the resources that are made available by the federal government to reduce poverty or help children or feed the hungry or house the homeless -– that we are getting those resources on the ground so that the people who are closest to those in need are able to access them. That is going to be a central principle of our administration.''

McCain addressed the issue in an interview in April, saying that he believed Bush's faith-based initiatives had "done very well," our colleague Maeve Reston reports. But he said he was less glowing, saying he would assess the program's effectiveness before making any decision on changes to it. But McCain cited the faith-based response to Katrina as particularly note-worthy:

"They didn’t get a heck of a lot of government help, but they got some government help, and some of the people that I talked to in those neighborhoods said they [the groups] were very effective in helping the people of New Orleans restore their daily lives."

"So I think there’s many examples of where faith-based organizations have been very successful," McCain continued. "There are times when they haven't -– so you learn the lessons. But I think the overall experiment has probably been good for America."

--Scott Martelle

Photo credit: Jae C. Hong/Associated Press

Comments

[Katy]

Oh come on folks - let's just admit it and face it -- Obama (and Axelrod) are using the Karl Rove Playbook to Getting Elected. Obama is going to turn out to be the ultimate panderer and will be known as the "Say Anything Do Anything Kid" -- he's not going to be able to fulfull any of these promises - he has the thinnest resume, the least experience, knowledge and his abilities are totally unknown and untested.

So the way to win is to do what Rove did for Bush - and that's what's working for Obama. Its a shame, its sad and its sickening. But too many people keep buying into this - so they are getting the government they deserve and the rest of us stuck with it.

[Rev. Chuck Currie]

As the chair of the faith-based working group of the National Coalition for the Homeless, I spent much of 2001 studying how President Bush intended to use faith groups to help implement his public policy position. In the end, the National Coalition for the Homeless joined the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church and many other religious organizations in opposing President Bush’s efforts.

Senator Barack Obama today will call for the creation of a new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Unlike President Bush’s plan, Senator Obama has proposed an effort that is respectful of the Constitution and that seeks to hold all programs obtaining federal funds accountable for outcomes. For example, President Bush did not hold religious charities to the same high standards as secular charities. Senator Obama promises not to make that mistake and will ensure that that government funds are not used to promote religion.

I have spent my entire adult life working to fight poverty, hunger and homelessness. We need partnerships between government, faith communities and the private sector to accomplish our goals. But only the government – with all the vast resources at the state’s disposal – can set the economic conditions that will truly reduce poverty. We need an extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit and universal health care, for example. We need better schools. As Senator Obama will say today, “We need all hands on deck.”

I applaud Senator Obama for his willingness to address poverty so directly and to look outside the box for answers to America’s most pressing problems.

- The Rev. Chuck Currie

[carlos from philly]

As far as i'm concerned, anything he can do to ensure his election in November is a good thing. And to be quite frank, roping in a couple of extra fencers with talk of commitment to faith isn't a bad thing, regardless of which "play book" he took it out of. Pander to whomever you want on the superficial "issues" as long as you make a difference where it counts.
I think his organization knows what they're doing and those who pay attention know exactly what really matters in his campaign.

[Say it aint so!]

And the extremism continues. Obama and Bush (so much for McCain being 4 more years. Doesn't Obama realize that there is a SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!!

Wake up moron!

[Dave]

Okay, should Obama also try to repeal Bush administration initiatives regarding AIDS in Africa? If you disagree with faith-based initiatives, say so. Don't criticize Obama for believing in something simply because Bush does, too. It would be like a Republican being criticized for supporting Bill Clinton's welfare reforms.

[Jeremy]

I am an Obama supporter, and as such I am embarrassed that he supports Bush's supposed "faith-based" initiative. The fact the he could support one of the most brazen and clearly illegal violation of the very first Amendment in the Bill of Rights, what our founding fathers (rightly) saw as the highest of importance: government and religion must be completely separate.

How exactly does an Government office that specifically has "faith-based" in the name keep government and religion separate?

Treason.

[Lobster]

I don't care if people say "God" in the pledge, I don't care if "God" is on my money, I don't care if politicians say "God bless America," but it's this sort of thing that makes atheists like me feel like second-class citizens. Like we don't deserve to enjoy the support of a community if that community isn't centered in a church.

[Barbara Mandas]

Dissapointed to hear that faith-based initiatives will be a principle part of Obama's administration. This is where we have already wrong. Religion has no role whatsoever in the running of the country, not to say that the flowdown efforts of certain churches and organizations should not focus their efforts on helping people in need. But the government should not be involved in faith-based efforts per se. Besides, faith-based usually means Christian and many people do not select chriatianity as their source of spirituality so there is the rub. Also, many of the hierarchy who operate these faith-based organizations are doing it only for the money and are completely corruptible. This sounds like the politician talking, not the man. Hope he doesn't go there.

[Charlie]

i think Obamas stance is wrong not because its Bush's initiative but because faith based welfare does not work. The government has to take the lead roll in combating poverty. Ive worked in NYC shelters and know its a horrible system - even when there open.

Furthermore im not sure what the last comment meant but Bush's policies regarding aids in Africa are retarded. Not sure what you were getting at.

Im really starting to like Obama less and less. Was a strong supporter not to long ago. His strength, at least in my mind, was from his fresh ideas.

[TulsaDavid]

Obama is not only kissing up, but so is the media by slurping his actions in a favorable light. This is smoke and mirrors, with little or no condemnatory language by any media coverage. And his party knows it. And the goal is simply to win a few non-left votes.

[Peter Rosenblum]

I've been a free thinking Democrat all of my adult life,
For the first time in 40 years I'm thinking of voting for a republican, Here's why!..........
The single most important thing that made our country free and uniqe is the ""Separation of Church and State!" Without that, freedom quickly erodes. In all known history, there has never been freedom when any church influences a government!
Our founders knew that it is the most important tenet in our government and put it in stone that the "Separation" must never be breached.

Isn't it what went wrong in Iraq? Bush could never conceive of this and has done everything he could to breach this taboo here at home.
Barak: today you lost me.

[ben]

Just another politician. As life-long Democrat who has never voted for a Republican, I was ready to vote for Obama as the lesser of the evils. I cannot possibly vote for McCain. But Obama has lost me with this one. I cannot possibly accept the faith-based programs. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. Those who say 'anything to get elected' as carlos from philly stated are treading on dangerous ground when they will let a candidate say anything to get elected. Follow blindly if you must and if you have no scruples or care about our country, but some of us wil not stand for it. The change you are calling for is not the change I first thought Obama meant. This looks like more of the same to me.

[Candace Hammond]

Basicallly, I trust the honesty of Barack Obama. I am for a Cabinet position facilitating real connection to the poorest in our nation with direct input to Barack. If faith-based communities of ALL faiths have input, and are the best available means to get funds directly from the government distributed with accountability to the workers on the street, then I am for his position. But I also want to be reassured that there is a complete separation of Church and State in our country. No one should have to attend a certain faith or church to be helped with government funds. Barack, make CLEAR how your position differs from the horrible situation after Katrina when the only help was from volunteer church organizations. We NEED OUR GOVERNMENT to act to protect
church and state separation while aiding faith-based communities, and helping with efficient disaster relief.

[Rodney Lamprey, jr.]

Bush's faith based programs have already been exposed as nothing more than diverting tax dollars to specifc Christain organizations that politically supported Bush. it has been nothing more than a political payoff much like the illegal paybacks to Jack Abramoff and other lobbyists.

[A]

If I'd have known he'd do this I'd have put my energy into getting Hillary voted in.

[enn]

Fighting poverty and helping the disavantage is not something tht was important to Bush or Karl Rove, buying and getting the vote of the religious groups was.This addreses the errors of the current programs.Getting churches involved in helping the needdy is a good thing. for all those that think that govt and church should not cooperate in this process, pls come up with different ideas. This is not about just doing what the Republicans under the Bush administration do everytime they see a problem, throw money at it.

[Samantha West]

I commend Barack on this issue.
We are a goverment that separates GOV and STATE.
He is not forcing religon into anyone, only making sure that the Americans who have faith and a sense of community are able to receive the benefit of the goverments dollar. The "faith based" community projects often reach those that our goverment does not help. They reach for those who are left out the most. This is a great way to enrich our communities.

[Adam from Houston]

One: Show me where in the constitution that it says the words "separation of church and state." You can't. It's not there. In fact, the framers meant it NOT to keep religion out of politics, but to keep the government out of religion (ala Church of England).

Two: I echo the statement that you can't fault Obama for agreeing with Bush on an issue. To be against an issue just because Bush is for it is just plain dumb (and childish).

Three: If he is pandering, it IS a bad thing. If he truly believes it, and I think he does, then that's all well and good. But if he is just playing politics, then it makes him no better than what the democratic party was looking to change.

Four: I never want to hear the term "change" in this campaign again unless its followed by details. Its annoying.

[Mark Bunch]

Oh wow, is this all republicans pretending to be democrats? I think so. It's good that Obama is reaching out. It won't be like Bush's admin. It will actually probably do some good. I've never seen people bitch so much.

[Dave Long]

I can't believe this guy. First he has a surogate bring up his worst possible arguement against McCain (military experience) highlighting the fact that he has none, then he goes and talks about faith-based initiatives as if he needs to remind us of his scary religious connections. Who is running his campaign ayway? This must be the lets make every mistake we can this week, so we have them out of the way plan. What kind of stupidity does he have planned for tomorrow?

[Gavin]

I think we all need to see the details of this ... I have read Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and know he thinks of religion as an agent of change in communities. Certainly, a black man would not be a serious contender for president without the work of Martin Luther King, and Obama knows this. Churchs can mobilize large groups of citizens in times of disaster, or to assuage some of the effects of poverty in a community, among other things. If it is done constitutionally and well, I see no problem with this. Why undo everything Bush has done? One or two of his initiatives might find merit.

[Eric]

I will help to get Obama elected and then I will support the Freedom From Religion Foundation lawsuit again him for blatantly ignoring the first amendment establishment clause. If he wants to support faith based initiatives, he must also support atheist based initiatives.

I hope he is just pandering...

[Tim Irwin]

Obummer is just a scam artist.Listen to his buddy priest Wright for 20 years and others he surrounds himself with.BEWARE---ANTI-CHRIST he is.He's a black Muslim Marxist how dare him talk anything of GOD.

[Milton Viils]

At least IRAQ and SAUDI ARABIA do not *pretend* to keep church and state separate.

The US is *worse* that IRAQ and S.A.
We preach about the separation of church and state, then shack up with the holy mythology crowd like whores. ANYTHING for a VOTE.

[Eric]

First sentence of the first amendment to the United States constitution (Part of the Bill of Rights):

"Congress shall MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

To translate for you, the United States may not support religion and it may not prevent religion from existing.

[AKK]

He's just another politician. Face facts.

[Kevin]

Get your facts straight Tim Irwin. Wright is not a priest. Obama is not Muslim and never was (his father was, but his father played no significant role in Barack's upbringing). And your last sentence should have read "how dare he," not "how dare him." It's uneducated people like you who make America look stupid to the rest of the world. So, how dare YOU.

[Ted]

I'm lol'ing at all these Republicans coming out of the woodwork posing as "life long Democrats". Uhm...right.

[Corry]

Another level of bureaucracy within which to lose the money. It is against the constitution to mix church and state. Why do we have to filter the money through any charity? Why can't our current government just help the homeless and poor using the programs that was started by FDR. Of course they would have to remove all the restrictions they placed on them. Instead let us give our tax dollars to organizations that promote ideals that are not secular in nature. Get real. Remember the new president has to clean up Bush's mess.

[Chad]

To the Atheists feeling left out: don't feel bad. Yours, too, is a faith-based community. Don't feel bashful about joining with other true believers.

[who cares]

What kind of liberal is this Obama (or Osama) ? a republican liberal ? What part of seperation of state and religon he does not get ? Hope McCain beat this BOZO.

[Mike]

And the extremism continues. Obama and Bush (so much for McCain being 4 more years. Doesn't Obama realize that there is a SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!!

Wake up moron!

Posted by: Say it aint so! | July 01, 2008 at 03:08 PM

Seperation is a lot different than cooperation and cooptation (Read a book on capitalism!) my friend.

Just because there is a seperation of church and state doesn't mean the two seperate forces of faith and government can't work together to achieve a model for personal and national growth. Aren't we all getting a little tired of party warring and special interests? This isn't a special interest nor is it a combining of two constitutionally seperate things, its a means to achieve electoral votes, as well as benefit the people in the United states, wait, no...the World.. who desire vindication from poverty in this country. It sure sounds a lot better than shooting the idea down and nothing happening at all.

And I'm not a democrat, nor do I practice a religion.

Ignorant people...open your eyes...stop bashing the good people are trying to do and turning it into a means for selfish desire.

[Romulus]

Properly enforced, Obama's plan ain't all that bad in the details. Churches receiving money from this program would be required not to discriminate in hiring and not to use the money to preach or convert.

If that is enforced, then I'm all for it. I don't have a problem with my tax money being used to end homelessness or hunger or addiction and I'm not that picky about who does it. Having church organizations do it is to some extent pragmatic due to their size and operations and community reach.

I DO have a big problem with my tax money being used to convert people, spread and perpetuate bigotry and hate, or attack other faiths and the faithless. So I would want to see solid enforcement of the provisions Obama has attached to his version of the program. It'd be a marked improvement over religious handouts funding homophobia, triumphalism, or pastors' beemers, addictions, or closed-door escapades.

[Mark]

Attacking Mc Cain by attaching him to Bush ? Then, flip-flopping to accept a totally non-Constitutional Program by giving it an Executive Cabinet Post? What better way for an ultra left wing liberal to gain control over ALL Religion & Faith in the USA, where Church Organizations & State Government are to be kept separate! BUT! Know what's worse? Mr. Obama has been breaking IRS Not For Profit Religious TAX Regulations every single time he has convinced some Minister to allow him to fill a pulpit, while not allowing Mc Cain to also come & speak. By IRS Code, every Religious Org. or House of Worship/Church that has allowed Mr. Barrack H. M. Obama to mount their pulpit while attempting to use their Pastor to swing votes in his direction: Must be investigated, and by IRS Code Regulations ON THE BOOKS; are to immediately have their Not For Profit Status removed by the IRS FRAUD DIVISION! But! Since the media is in love with Mr. BHMO, they wouldn't dare talk about all the IRS Fraud going on in this Presidential Campaign. (And) Mc Cain? Well, he's been smart. He knows the IRS Codes. & Federal Statutes! So, he's steering clear of political sermonizing in worship centers! So! Whose the truly ETHICAL CANDIDATE? You decide, not by fancy speeches, but by the Federal Laws on the Books.

[Rev. Bob]

Before Bush, if my memory serves, President Bill Clinton was quietly sympathetic to faith-based efforts and eased some of the restrictions on faith-based organizations getting access to government funds for charitable work. I'm sure a President Hillary would have also revived some such effort. I completely agree that separation of church and state protects both church and state from potential abuse. The Constitutional prohibition against the "establishment" of religion - that is, the promotion by government of some particular religion over another - is balanced by an equally strong stance against "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I do have a sense that Obama will try to steer a course that respects both clauses. Here his experience as a community organizer, which was what first got him involved with faith communities of any kind, will have some real value.

Unfortunately the public perception of religion in this country has been increasingly negative, thanks in large part to the self-promotion of religious types, left and right, in the political sphere.

As one who works with the faith community, the nonprofit community and local government to try to address poverty issues on a local level, I do think it is critical for those closest to the needs - and that often means faith-based leaders - to have some kind of voice on behalf of the powerless. There is a vast difference between grass-roots faith efforts and established religious hierarchies, of course.

[Viviana]

I've been extremely disappointed reading these comments. I feel that many do not seem to understand that Barack Obama is not supporting the faith-based program as it is currenlty structured under Bush but would instead change it completely around and safeguard HIS program against the corruption that exists within Bush's CURRENT program-and the subsequent failure of it actually helping those living in poverty. Barack clearly stated that he would not tolerate faith-based organizations discriminating against those they serve nor those that work for them based on religion. Also it seems to me that it would be a very important program not because it is faith-based but rather because the purpose of it is to fight poverty! Isn't that what this is all about? Hopefully Barack will have organizations that represent many different faiths including Judaism, Islam Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and on and on. That way it will be absolutely clear that one faith does not have a monopoly on our government (and this will be essential for those who can only see things in extremes, in black and white and somehow are incapable of seeing the nuances or gray areas) and there indeed does exist a separation between church and state.

[Shanon]

"... attempting to use their Pastor to swing votes in his direction: Must be investigated..."

Were you calling for this kind of investigation when Bush made his political payola er... I mean "faith based" initiative? Was the reverend who spoke at the Republitard National Convention in '04 investigated? His church got over a million dollars of Govt money that year.

Obama is not "adopting Bush's program" at all he's overhauling it and making it what Bush pretended it was supposed to be. What Bush used as merely a political tool and money funnel to his cronies, Obama will use to actually help people who need it.

And I's so sick of people echoing the right-wing myth that the media loves Obama more than McCain. It's ridiculous. How come we hear about Rev Right or anybody else who could make Obama look bad for weeks, but hear practically nothing about McCain's wife stealing drugs from her own charity?

[Scootmandubious]

After seeing the way you set this column up, I knew exactly what you were implying and the responses you sought to get.

You were hoping to ignite a chorus of 'panderer' with this.

Interestingly, if Obama did not reach out to faith-based groups he would have been damned as being godless and would have given voice to the slimers who are sending the spurious e-mails calling him a muslim with a secret agenda.

You may not be aware, but religious groups on the left are not so much concerned with shoving their social issues down America's throat, they mostly work, trying to help America's poor. There is a distinction here. It is spirituality vs. religiosity.

I applaud Obama for opening a dialogue on this and trying to reward faith-based initiatives that actually seek to do positive things for others and not merely dictate social policy.

I was glad to read Rev. Chuck Currie's take on this, because I suspected that the Obama approach was a nuanced one, and it seems it is.

Unfortunately, you are just looking to create a false story of alleged pandering, because a close race is in your best interests.

[Lhyzz]

I'd like you all to understand what "separation between church and state" means. It is all based on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendement:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The type of faith-based initiative that Obama supports -- that is, government grants to faith-based as well as secular institutions doing SECULAR WORK (that is, feeding the homeless, helping the poor, community outreach REGARDLESS OF RELIGION) -- does not amount to establishment of religion. It simply aids the various grassroots community organizations -- many of which are religious in nature -- in helping the community.

Like he said, any programs a faith-based initiative funded would be barred from proselytizing, having religious tests for hiring, or turning away people not of their faith.

The QUESTION REMAINS -- can the government actually make sure these religious groups don't break the rules laid down for them in taking public funds? Will taxpayer money end up going to proselytization? It may be unrealistic.

Nevertheless, what he said today is not so crazy, and certainly not offensive to my very secular mindset.

[Viviana]

I've been extremely disappointed reading man y of these comments. I feel that many do not seem to understand that Barack Obama is not supporting the faith-based program as it is currenlty structured under Bush but would instead change it completely around and safeguard HIS program against the corruption that exists within Bush's CURRENT program-and the subsequent failure of it actually helping those living in poverty. Barack clearly stated that he would not tolerate faith-based organizations discriminating against those they serve nor those that work for them based on religion. It seems to me that it would be a very important program not because it is faith-based but rather because the purpose of it is to fight poverty! Isn't that what this is all about? Hopefully Barack will have organizations that represent many different faiths including Judaism Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and on and on. That way it will be absolutely clear that one faith does not have a monopoly on our government (and this will be essential for those who can only see things in extremes, in black and white and somehow are incapable of seeing the nuances or gray areas)work for them based on religion and it seems to me that it would be a very important program not because it is faith-based but rather because the purpose of it is to fight poverty! Isn't that what this is all about? Hopefully Barack will have organizations that represent a plethora of faiths including Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and on and on. That way it will be absolutely clear that one faith does not have a monopoly on our government (and this will be essential for those who can only see things in extremes, in black and white and somehow are incapable of seeing the nuances or gray areas)

[Steve Knickerbocker]

If a group of folks who had faith in atheism, wanted to initiate programs to feed the poor, house the homeless, ect. Then I believe Obama would support that faith based group’s endeavors.
Wake up people, separatist theology is the root of all our problems both here in the US and in the World.
Our country was made great only when thirteen colonels with different policies and laws got together and said we are separate but one.
When we stop acting as though we are separate from each other and start helping others as though we are helping ourselves (because we are helping ourselves), then we will have no need to criticize any person, group or special interest when they want to help others. Governments, and people equally have a vested interest in helping all in need, it is the only way out of our problems.

[bhagwan deol]

IT IS OK FOR A POLITICIAN TI SHIFT TO CENTER OR RIGHT OR LEFT FOR SOME VOTES. BUT IT UNFORGIVABLE FOR A SO CALLED PRINCIPLED LEADER TO GO SO LOW TO GET VOTES.
IS HE INDIRECTLY TELLING THE LILES OF REV WRIGHT THAT ALTHOUGH I HATE YOU IN PUBLIC BUT I REALLY LOVE AND DOH IS ON THE WAY SO GET VOTES FOR ME.
HOW MUCH HE WILL BE DISHING OUT TO THE MADRASAS OH HUSSEINS INDIRECTLY TO PROVE YES I AM A BORN MUSLIM AT HEART BUT A CHRISTIAN FROM OUTSIDE TO WIN PRESIDENCY. THIS MAN CAN DANCE NAKED FOR VOTES AND GO TO LOWEST OF LOWS ON PRINCIPLES.
DEMS WILL BANG THEIR HEADS ON WALLS AFTER 4TH NOVEMBER. THIS PERSON EVEN DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE A SENATOR LEAVE ALONE THE PRESIDENCY.
IT IS THE OUTCOME OF THE ACTS OF TRAITORS LIKE DEAN , KERRY , RICHARDSON , PALOSI AND EDWARDS
bhagwan deol los angeles

[Damien]

It's funny, you Americans are so obsessed with 'separation of church and state', yet in many European countries these are not separated, and most people are atheists, yet most Americans are religious. Even the England your Founding Fathers left allows gay marriage, with a church and state combined!

[If you cant sell 'em..confuse them]

Seems to be Obama's approach to god fearing Americans.While he is an arrogant elitist atheist,he has no shame in stealing one of pres. Bush's cornerstone
policys....funding of religious help groups of every creed.
People of faith will see through this imposture and recall
the bum's 20 year devotion to a cult that is quasy satanic.

[Is the pope catholic ?]

To Lobster
Glad to know you feel let down.Atheism is a direct by product of liberalism and a mental disease of course.
I will fight for your right to be an atheist but please let the
rest of us (95 of the population) exercise our right to
worship and expect our goverment to reflect moral values.

[Back to the goulag]

Class warfare and ACLU nonsense are Barak's cup of
tea much more than patriotism and faith. That explains
the warm reception he gets from the Chavez,Castro and
other Khadaffi and Amahdinejad.Robert Mugabe who is
84 says he feels a strong kinship with him to.Looks like
the dems will again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.Praise the lord.

[dman]

Obama has just ensured I will not vote for the office of the President for the first time in my adult life. I could never vote for McBush and now I will never vote for Obama. He can also scratch me off his donar list since I will not be donating any more money for his election. Long live science and secular humanism!

[Patricia]

Hey dman,
Thank you for not voting for Barack Obama with your twisted views and lack of insight. You would be an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. We definitely do not need an uninformed doornail like you to embarrass our candidate with smears. Go away! We, who believe that Barack Obama has the best interest of all the people in mind when he made the courageous decision to bond together some of our separatism, while ai the same time bring faith based organizations together with government funds to do secular work, that will help feed and house homeless, help the poor and much, much more without the regards to religion. Mr. Obama is doing what he promised he would do, and that is to bring this country together, where together we can re-establish and rebuild the greatness of this country. So, dman, take your donations and vote and go because you were never a true Democratic from the gate, and you deserve to be in the McCain camp, because you apparently cannot envision the change that is going to take place and already is taking place, led by Barack Obama. You are not about Change. See you in November, while you hold onto your science and the old status quo. I hope they are comforing because you will need them as we cross that line of victory in November as"Victors ""!!!!!!

[Anna]

There is no honesty in Barack Obama. How can you believe this man can do even half of what he is promising every group of people in america, and his foreign policies ideas as well ?. When Barack Obama is not giving you a phony smile, you can see behind the angry look on his face, EVIL. He is lying to try to get elected. He dares anyone to question his background, or you're a racist. Where is his knowledge and ability to get the money needed to enact all these promises he is making. He will tax us all to hell.

[Lee Ward]

Scott writes: "The unusual thing is that Obama has made a point of saying a first McCain term would be little more than a third Bush term, but then he goes and gloms onto a signature issue of the Bush years (admittedly of less note than some other issues from the Bush years)."

and, once again Scott's musings are shown to be nothing even resembling journalism. Reverend Chuck Currie set's the record straight in the second comment.

"As the chair of the faith-based working group of the National Coalition for the Homeless, I spent much of 2001 studying how President Bush intended to use faith groups to help implement his public policy position. In the end, the National Coalition for the Homeless joined the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church and many other religious organizations in opposing President Bush’s efforts."

"Senator Barack Obama today will call for the creation of a new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Unlike President Bush’s plan, Senator Obama has proposed an effort that is respectful of the Constitution and that seeks to hold all programs obtaining federal funds accountable for outcomes. For example, President Bush did not hold religious charities to the same high standards as secular charities. Senator Obama promises not to make that mistake and will ensure that that government funds are not used to promote religion."

So Scott's characterization of Obama having "glommed" onto Bush's previous efforts ... "...Obama has made a point of saying a first McCain term would be little more than a third Bush term, but then he goes and gloms onto a signature issue of the Bush years..." turns out to be be nothing more that fabricated fantasy on the part of the LA Times writer.

Why is is that LA Times journalists such as Scott don't bother to look into the story any further than glomming onto a cheap, fabricated hit on which they can stir up a faux controversy?

Amazing....

[S.A.]

Patricia,
Every past president that I know of has always brought change. What insight do you have about Barack Obama that makes you so sure he can bring about change that will make this country better ?. He has not been tested in the short time he's been in the political arena. What is his record of accomplishments ? Why do he make so many changes on his issues ?. The Obama supporters I have heard, can't name one accomplishment this man has made. You are the one with twisted views.