That seems to be Hillary's motto. This seems to go along with her fondness for The Fellowship, the right wing religio-politio group that's set on destroying as many moderate Christian churches as possible. Hitler admirer Doug Coe is the head of this group. Someone on this blog earlier claimed that Clinton never met him. On the contrary, not only did she meet him, she had glowing praise for him. She has also referred to Coe as her spiritual mentor.

She said of him "[Doug Coe is] a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deeper his or her relationship with God." The Fellowship endorses the use of power by their members, in the sense of an entitled imperialism. They believe the elite win power throught the will of God. In a sense you might say The Fellowsip worships power and justifies that by saying that the powerful must be powerful because God wills it. This is a kind of religious twist on social Darwinism.

Read more here:

http://www.oliverwillis.com/in...

Not to beat a dead horse, but again it has been apparent to me for a long time that the 2008 election was programmed by the super elite to be between McCain and Hillary. Once Obama surprised the Powers That Be, threatening to short circuit that plan, the plutocrats had to start helping Hillary. Being of the old school of politics, she is pleased to accept the help of her former bitter enemy, but I am sure she realizes full well that, if she defeats Obama for the nomination, her erstwhile allies will turn on her with the full ferocity of their unrelenting smear machine.  The anti-Hillary smear campaign has already been set up, ready to go, it's just this Obama thing that has caused a diversion.  Hence the bizarre meeting.

Hillary has been courting the right wing behind the scenes for years. Why else would Rupert Murdoch hold a fund raiser for her?

She maintains her public persona of a Librul Democrat for the consumption of Democratic Party regulars, but I suspect that deals have been made behind the scenes for some time. One doesn't really have to suspect such things when we see pictures like the one above. No conspiracy theory is necessary. What are you going to believe, Hillary or your lying eyes?

The fact that Clinton would ally herself with Rupert Murdoch tells me that long ago her lust for power has overcome her alliegence to Democratic ideals. But the right wing is just using her I suspect. They know how to manipulate her. Later they will dispose of her.

This bit about giving Hillary Clinton a break for her shameful, destructive behavior is just silly. You could make exactly the same case for giving Bush a break.

Here she is, harping on the Wright thing again. Doing anything to distract from getting caught lying about the sniper fire thing.

AZNew,

Now that the Wright thing had died down and even the right wing had more or less dropped it, but Hillary Clinton stirred it up again, are you still supporting her? I'm recalling your excellent post last week about a line in the sand...

This behavior is the kind of tendency that I've noticed in her for the last few years. During the Clinton years, I always explained it away when Republicans attacked her. I supported and defended her. But once she got into the Senate and voted for things like the flag burning amendment, I couldn't deny what I was seeing her engage in.  We've all been fooled by Hillary Clinton for some period of time. Eventually we each run out of excuses for her. The Democratic party can do better than this person.

That was snark, awesome juicy blogger snark! :)

I commented about the Wright thing yesterday here:

http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

In which I said:

Very distressing. Her campaign came dangerously close to the line on this issue with the trial balloon they had Lanny Davis float last week at Huffington Post, but when they pulled back, I had hope.

I suspect her campaign is seeing the polls Lowell cites in this diary (actually, I would guess they look at their internal polls, but I would guess they are showing basically the same thing), and is now going for broke. They have to realize that anything less than a commanding win in PA followed by an upset in NC means the end of her candidacy.

I doubt it will work.

I understand why she is doing this, but I don't condone it, and I don't defend it as just another tactic or error in judgment. This is just wrong.  

Am I supporting her any longer? She has lost me because of this. That doesn't change the fact that, IMHO, Clinton gets a raw deal from the press and detractors, and some of the allegations against her remain just plain silly.

that there have been Clinton haters on the blogs for a long time.  I was never one of them; in fact if you look back at my posts here at RK this summer and fall, I decried the irrational Clinton hatred on numerous occasions (for instance,  I denounced the infamous 1984 ad).  However, I must say, over the last few months I have seen a side of the Clintons that I had never seen before (or had forgotten), at least not in this way.  Look, I'm well aware that politics ain't beanbag, and that the lust for power can overwhelm good judgment in the best of 'em (including Barack Obama).  But the bottom line for me is that Obama has inspired me that positive change in this country is possible after 7+ terrible, divisive, nasty years under Bush/Cheney/DeLay et al.  Unfortunately, Clinton's campaign has failed to do that, and is now actively infuriating me by joining in Republican attacks on our probable nominee.  Thus, my journey from "strongly leaning Clinton" to "neutral" to "strongly supporting Obama" (with a few Edwards flirtations thrown in for good measure as well).  I certainly hope we can add your intelligence, passion, determination and eloquence in the fight to make Barack Obama our next president.  Thanks.

an American Spectator article about Obama's "Jewish problem."

with Obama.  But I DO have a problem with a Democratic candidate distributing anything from the American Spectator.  A big problem.

In fact, he seems to have a better handle than most Americans on issues involving Israel and the nature of the problems there, IMHO.

And while the American Spectator leaves much t be desired, if this story is true, I DO HAVE A PROBLEM  with people at the highest levels of our government and in the campaigns of any candidate actually thinking that U.S. policy decisions with respect to Israel are being driven by "New York and Miami."

Obama should dump McPeak. Not to appease Jewish voters (I don't think Obama himself thinks like this), but because if you do think this you are an idiot and an anti-Semitic bigot.  

towards the Middle East is being drive by "New York and Miami" (blatant code words for "Jews"), they should be canned.  That's unacceptable.

are, as we know, flooding the Internet with all manner of garbage about Obama. I received a copy of one from an Arlington resident who was worried about the content. It had been sent to her from Israel by a flummoxed Obama supporter wanting help in answering the smear; he was worried because the e-mail claimed its content had been checked out on snopes.com.  Much of the content was designed to rouse the fears of right-wing Christians, but some of it touched on the "Jewish" problem. Much of it was a re-hash of the same ol' same ol' lies.

I understand right wing evangelicals not only have been courting Jewish groups but recently made speeches against him to these groups in New York, emphasizing Obama "is not a friend of Israel," and seeking to split Jews from their traditional allegiance to the Democratic Party. If we're looking for conspiracies, here may genuinely be one.  

As for Clinton, I believe she has always had a tight relationship with AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups and, since she is in such a tight race with Obama she is naturally using every arrow in her quiver, in a typical old-time political slamming match.  

Teddy is still on the Repub mailing lists so she knows what she is talking about.

Lowell observes:

Hillary Clinton being interviewed by none other than Richard Mellon Scaife, Clinton archenemy #1 and the "nerve center of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Utterly bizarre.

Not to be overlooked: the same Scaife, through his family foundations, is a major financier of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and its affiliate, the American Anglican Council. These outfits have been tearing the Episcopal Church in the US apart for its progressive (and very Christian) acceptance of gays, and encouraging the breakaway right-wing Truro Church in Fairfax County and The Falls Church.

I do not believe for a minute that HRC holds or even defends the homophobic views of Scaife and his allies, but it saddens me to see her sit down with him and malign Barack Obama and his pastor.  

She has made many connections with these types at The Fellowship (The Family) retreats. Its time to ask the question: "Is Hillary turning back into a Goldwater girl? Or has she already?"

Just because Obama found spiritual meaning from the Rev. Wright does not mean that he subscribes to Rev. Wright's political positions, and he should not be tagged with them merely by his spiritual association with this Pastor.

He was asked about specific statements. He denounced the statements. End of story.

By the same token, Hillary Clinton should not be tagged with the political philosophies of this Fellowship or the Reverend associated with it merely because she finds spiritual meaning in a Bible Study group with which it is associated.

If you have a specific charge against Sen. Clinton other than the guilt by association smear that you have been peddling here (with the sensationalist adjective "Hitler loving" to describe that Fellowship character with whom you like to link Clinton), then state it. I think her stand on issues is pretty clear, whether you agree with them or not. Are you suggesting she might really feel differently based on how she chooses to worship G-d and with whom she chooses to study the Bible?

It was wrong when Clinton did it to Obama. It is equally wrong when you do it to Clinton.

I agree with you that it would be unfair to assume that anyone subscribes to each and every one of the beliefs held by their pastor, "spiritual" mentor, or prayer group leader.  I disagree with your suggestion that the relevant questions should not be asked.

I think Rev. Wright has done a great service to this nation by providing us with an opportunity to discuss not only race, but also the proper relationship between our "spiritual" beliefs and our secular democracy.  In a time when right-wing fundamentalists are determined to saddle us with a theocracy, I don't think we can afford to continue to do the "polite" thing and ignore the religious or allegedly "spiritual" beliefs held by our elected officials.

I had heard about Hillary's (and Frank Wolf's) group but, until a few days ago, I hadn't read much about it.  Anyone who hasn't read the Harper's article from 2003 should do so:  http://www.harpers.org/archive...

To me, it's hard to understand how anyone could spend more than two or three hours with this group and not see it as a cult focused on the worship of worldly wealth and power, while it builds its membership by stroking egos and appealing to personal vanity and delusions of grandeur.  

According to the Harper's article:

-One of the initial goals of this group was (and, perhaps, still is) to "crush the radical unions"

-The leaders of this group "consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride" and consider themselves "the new chosen"

-Young devotees pray to "soften [their] hearts to authority" and are told that they are in training to "learn how to rule the world"

-David Coe interprets the Biblical story of King David as one of Divine permission to do "really bad things" as long as you are one of the "chosen"

Has Hillary heard these statements and others like them?  Did she get up and walk out when she did?  Has she subjected her daughter to these statements?  Are these her beliefs?  Is the adoption of these beliefs her idea of "spiritual" growth?  Are these beliefs compatible with our American ideals?  

Fair and important questions, in my opinion.

that any of this was discussed or ever went on in Clinton's Bible study group? I doubt it.

I'm not Christian. Perhaps one of the many Christian posters can say what goes on in Bible study. I picture is as a bunch of folks discussing whatever Bible passage they choose to for that day, both in theological and personal terms.

I would ask, where does the witch hunt to track down the secret religious beliefs of our leaders end? Barack Obama says his mom did not believe in Christ, but she was a good person and he is sure she is Heaven.

Really? Again, perhaps some of my Christian friends here can enlighten me, but isn't acceptance of Christ as the Lord a pre-requisite to entry to Heaven?

Forget what the Rev. Wright thinks about race relations and the HIV virus. Let's get down to it with the religion tenets of all the candidates' churches, shall we?

I am not trying to trivialize what I am sure is a more complicated theological proposition than that. Nor do I mean to suggest that the practice of any religion entails an all-or-nothing mentality. Rather, I am just trying to show where this kind of inquiry leads.

It leads us to right where we are.  

In an ideal world, we wouldn't be talking about what I agree should be private, personal beliefs.  We don't live in that world.  We live in a world where the theocrats among us insist that their "religious" beliefs are perfectly acceptable, while the beliefs of the Rev. Wrights of this world are simply horrifying.  

If we're going to live in this world, I think we're better off airing all the dirty "religious" laundry, whether it comes from the left or the right side of the political aisle.  In a secular democracy, no one should get a free pass on a belief of any kind simply because they call it a "religious" belief.  

And, as one of your Christian friends, I can tell you that many Christians have grown enough to be able to read the Bible as metaphor and allegory and don't believe that anyone is "eternally damned" because they have not "accepted" Jesus.  Of course, neither you nor I are one of the "chosen" as defined by Hillary's group so what do we know?  

Do you really believe this:

In a secular democracy, no one should get a free pass on a belief of any kind simply because they call it a "religious" belief.  

First, I'm not sure what you mean by a "secular democracy," but I suspect you mean a country like the U.S. where, at least in theory, there is a separation of Church and State.

This is not the same as secular.

I mean, just what does "freedom" of religion mean if it doesn't mean a "free pass" on all sorts of beliefs that are religious. That is the entire point.

Now, if there is some evidence other than guilt by association (another freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, BTW), that would be a different story.

As for my point about the acceptance of Jesus and Heaven, it was whether it would be fair to ask the question of Obama simply by virtue of the fact that he is a Christian.  

You raise an important point.  Sorry I didn't have time to address it until now.

Aznew: "I mean, just what does "freedom" of religion mean if it doesn't mean a "free pass" on all sorts of beliefs that are religious. That is the entire point."

Well, no.  Many people hold the mistaken belief that our American "freedom of religion" means that as soon as anyone labels any of their beliefs "religious," those beliefs are instantly immune from any form of challenge or criticism.  Therefore, if someone tells us that they've prayed about it and determined that it is their "religious" belief that Jesus wants us to "bomb all the Arabs back to the stone age," we're supposed to simply shrug our shoulders and say, "well, if that's your religious belief, I guess I can't challenge you on it."  Not true.

In relevant part, the First Amendment provides that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  These prohibitions have been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.  Thus, neither the Federal government nor the States can enact a law prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion.  Obviously, this is very different from saying that you and I, as private citizens, are prohibited from questioning, challenging, or criticizing the "religious" beliefs of our fellow citizens.

Moreover, even the Federal government and the States are not required to give you a free pass "on all sorts of beliefs that are religious."  For example, you will not be immune from your obligation to pay taxes, even if it's your sincerely held religious belief that you should be.  You will not be permitted to unlawfully obtain controlled substances, even if it's your sincerely held religious belief that you should be able to do so.  You will not be permitted to engage in human sacrifice, even if it's your sincerely held religious belief that you should be able to do so.  Etc., etc.  Point is, freedom of religion does not mean, and has never meant, that we all get a free pass on "all sorts of beliefs that are religious."  

And, I'm not saying Hillary is "guilty" of anything merely by virtue of her "association" with this group.  It may very well be true that she thinks everything David Coe ever said is absurd and that she is merely blowing him a few disingenuous kisses in order to network her way to a few more campaign contributions.  In any event, there are a few questions that really need to be asked.  When I'm told that the leader of a "spiritual" group apparently believes that democracy is "ungodly" and I'm also told that forty United States Senators, including Hillary, regularly meet with members of this group, I'm genuinely and sincerely horrified enough to want an explanation.  

A good exposition on the First Amendment, given the inherent limitations of length on a post of this nature.

Your argument, however, misstates the issue.

I agree that the mere labeling of a non-religious thought or action as religious does not, simply by assertion, transform the idea into something it is not.

To use your example, if the president tells us Jesus wants him to bomb all Arabs back to the Stone Age, his expression of that policy as having a "spiritual" basis does not remove it from public scrutiny. I made it clear that a candidate can be asked to explain their positions and their actions, and be held to account for them.

So, I would hold Pres. Bush to account for the policy of bombing Arabs. As for his rationale, I could I even begin to evaluate that? I, frankly, have not a clue what, if anything, Jesus want to do with respect to Arabs. All I can do is evaluate the proposed policy in light of my own experience, my own worldview and my own spiritual beliefs.

At issue, however, is the basis for making the inquiry in the first place. Clinton has made her public policy positions very clear. There is no evidence, not a single scrap, that Clinton subscribes to Coe's political beliefs or that she sees himas a spiritual guide in the same way that Obama viewed (and, frankly, I hope he still views) Rev. Wright.

You admit that the sole basis for your inquiry is her indirect association with this fellow through what you probably properly note is merely a networking opportunity of the kind that is repeated millions of times a day throughout this country.

And leaving aside the Constitutionality of such an inquiry, I just think it is wrong if that is all it is based upon.

I also objected to the charged rhetoric of a poster (not you) consistently trying to link Hillary Clinton to Hitler by referring to Coe at every mention as "Hitler-loving."

In any event, I want to say again that I appreciate the well-written and sincere response.

And, I've always thought your posts here have been both interesting and extremely well written.  I hope to see more front page diaries from you, if you have the time to write them.

Hate to seem like I'm harping on this but, to me, the issue of whether, and to what extent, our religious and/or spiritual beliefs are or should be a topic of political debate is one of the most important issues we face.  For my part, I'd prefer to live in a country where all politicians could, like Jack Kennedy, publicly and without equivocation, state their firm belief:

"in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute...and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference...where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials...and in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story...

Jack Kennedy gave that speech in the America of 1960.  In the America of 2008, I don't believe any politician could get away with it.  After thirty years of Republican pandering to Christian Fundamentalists, we live in a nation that, like it or not (and I don't), imposes an informal religious test on our politicians.  Our politicians are, with some exceptions, expected to be Christians.  Not only do we expect them to be Christians, but many expect them to be Republican-Jesus style Christians (Republican-Jesus is the one who cut his hair, ditched his sandals, forgot about all that silly peace and love stuff, and put on a suit with a flag lapel pin so he could hang out at country clubs and say things like, "blessed are the billionaires, because God wants them to have all the money generated by the work of the peasants of the world").  

I think the only way we, as a nation, are going to be able to rid ourselves of this informal religious test (and rid Christianity of this fictitious Republican-Jesus character) is to dive right in to the religious swamp our Republican brothers and sisters have created.  If we can use the candidates and their "spiritual" advisors to highlight both the foolishness of a religious test and the decidely non-Christian nature of much of what passes for "Christianity," I think we'll be able to make some additional progress toward "a more perfect union."

Rev. Wright preaches standing up to power. The Fellowship (i.e. The Family) preaches submitting to power and/or stiving for power over others. In other words, this is power worship, and yes they are promoting a bizarre type of theocracy. It would be even more accurate to say that they are promoting dictatorship under the cover of religion.

I forgot where I read it but somebody on another site pointed out that the difference between Rev. Wright and Donald Coe is that Rev. Wright preaches liberation theology, which does, despite it's hyperbole, speak truth to power from the point of view of the oppressed.  Donald Coe, on the other hand, seeks to ingratiate himself with the powerful to gain more authority for himself and his theocracy.

Rev. Wright seeks to liberate from oppression (whether you agree with his language or not) while Coe seeks to dominate through a theocracy.

Very different aims.

Does anyone anywhere have a scintilla of evidence that Senator Clinton is an actual spiritual person?

As opposed to her checking a box on the requisites list for running for national office.  Religious, check.  Cute golden retriever, check.  Pro-military, i.e. showers appropriations on the defense industry, check.   Member of a(n ostensibly, in Senator Clinton's case) nuclear family, check.

Out here in the real world, many folks of an educational, cultural and experiential background similar to, say, the Clintons or John Kerry or even the loser-in-chief, are purty darn secular, agnostic or pantheistic when it comes to organized religion.  But due to the clueless superficiality of much of the American electorate, being openly secular, agnostic or pantheistic is apparently unacceptable.

that Hillary Clinton has been religious her entire life.

As for whether she is spiritual, I cannot say.

In any event, my purpose here is not to defend Clinton, but the principle that one should not be tainted by association with any particular church.

The problem here is the contention that Clinton's association with a Bible study group that is associated in some manner, probably benign, with what is by all accounts a mysterious organization -- and this association in and of itself, with absolutely nothing else -- warrants a line of inquiry into the sincerity of her political beliefs.  

Is the crux of the matter.

IMO, on the face of it, the former counts for nothing -- even less than nothing if it's an organized religion with a central tenet of exclusivity; the second is the real deal.

President Carter, for instance, would be the real deal.

and I'm not looking for a debate over religion that leads nowhere.

In fact, that is my point. In the public sphere, we should argue about and be subject to peer judgment based on the opinions we express, and the manner in which we treat others, not based on our thoughts about religion and our place in the Universe.

It is precisely the reason why Obama's spiritual opinion about whether you or I will go to Heaven is and ought to be wholly and totally irrelevant. What he believes about this means nothing. How he treats us means everything.

It gets a little trickier when you get someone like Bush, who sees himself as fulfilling some sort of specific divine purpose here on Earth to which he is privy.

All I have asked for is a piece of evidence that Sen. clinton believes this as well, beyond here mere somewhat second-hand association with, and one line of praise in a 900-page book for, a religious figure who may believe something similar.

fraud.  He's not even a plausibly superficial Christian.

He's about as Christian as he is a genuine Texas rancher.

When the Clintons were in the White House, the church they attended every week, when they were in Washington - they were both frequently photographed either coming from it or going into it - was Foundry United Methodist Church, which had a very liberal pastor. I believe he was the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman

In fact, it was the same church that the Doles attended and they dropped out because of the liberalism and began going to a more evangelical church.

Was Clinton aware of all Coe's beliefs when she attended the Bible study?  If this was a Bible study at the Senate building, Coe might have kept some of his more controversial ideas quiet.  I don't know, but it's certainly worth asking before we jump to conclusions.  Also, was Hillary the only Democrat to attend?

Also, before all this, back in 1993 or 1994, Hillary had given an interview in Time Magazine about her religious beliefs.  

It also became known that she had met with Jean Houston, a fixture on the New Age circuit, who had put Hillary through a guided meditation about meeting one of Hillary's heroes, Eleanor Roosevelt.

Well, the media picked it up and ran with it as Hillary channeling Eleanor in the White House.  She did nothing of the kind.  She was aware that it was an imaginary exercise, not practice in mediumship.

But such is the way the press sometimes blows things out of proportion.

Gallup:  If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105...

but still, it's truly astounding that so many Clinton supporters are willing to vote Republican for President. Wow.

would vote Republican?

Though it's dipping into cliches and stereotyping, it's hard to imagine, for the sake of discussion, that it would be her core core group of professional women and feminists going over to the GOP.  Older white women?  Hispanics?  Blue collar and lower middle class white men?

I suspect it's the latter.

It's a real issue and one that presidential nominee Obama is going to have to address.  He could practice on that large hunk of Pennsylvania that lies between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Now if his VP pick were you-know-who, that one demographic might be cracked wide open.

"you-know-who." ;)

The one thing the Wright controversy did was make one certain Senator from Virginia an obvious choice for VP.

Yes, but a lot of Republicans would vote for Obama if he were to oppose McCain.Whereas the same people would vote McCain over Hillary. Pick your poison.

Richard Mellon Scaife?  Apparently, those of us who suspected Senator Clinton would do a deal with the devil himself if it got her the White House were correct.

Let's recap, from the sublime to the ridiculous:  Against Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq?  NAFTA?  Glass-Steagall?  35 years of experience?  Ready on Day 1?  Feminist?  Named for Sir Edmund Hillary?  Barack Muslim -- to the best of my knowledge, no?  I am honored, honored to be here with Barack Obama?  Peace in Northern Ireland?  Under fire in Bosnia?  Married to Bill Clinton?  $ 50 million dollars in seven years?  Tax returns?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Hillary Clinton is rated as "honest and trustworthy" by 44% of Americans, far fewer than say this about John McCain (67%) and Barack Obama (63%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105...

n/t