Monday, August 18, 2008


Starting this comment has not been easy. As I
came out from under my anesthetic on Thursday, it
seemed like I must have been having a nightmare.
What was waking me up from my sedative was the
television in my room for the next four days. With
all the commotion of family, doctors, nurses and
aides was the "braking news" that Obama had agreed
to an interview with McCain at a 20,000 member
mega-fundamentalist church in souther california with
the pastor of this church. At the moment, I could
only passively lay there and think "how stupid Obama

In the next couple of days, as I laid in my bed watching
the news and reading the newespapers, the hype was
never ending. It was crouched in terms like 'learn his word view,
insight to his inner self, discover his personal values,
what is his integrity, and so forth. Obama foolishly agreed
to this religious interview, yet there is no compelling reason
for him to be questioned on religious matters as a candidate for
the public office of president of the United States. He
did poorly, and he walked right into it.

Talk about a set up....My point is that Obama violated the Constitution by
taking part in this "interview". Check ARTICLE VI of the
Constitution of the United States of America. His fitness for
the office of president is determined by his political party
and the system of national primaries he survived. Millions of
voters from past elections in Illinois and in all the States o
2008 deemed him to be qualified.

Moreover, candidates usually conduct campaigns for conservative and
liberal voters, trying to persuade them to vote for him or her
on secular issues. No candidate for president of the United
States has given himself up to be questioned as this. No candidate
has campaigned for religious votes of themselves. Yet, now one
of the major Parties is an openly theological Party, namely, the
neoconservative Republican Party. Does this now mandate that the
opposing candidate has to specifically woo voters on religious
issues? Whose religious tenets? Must be just literal biblical

Why is Obama going out of his way to be associated with the
fundmentalist religious fringe? Why is he moving so far right?
Why is he so intent on courting evangelicals? The President
of the United States represents all people of the U.S.,
regardless of whatever their belief. We have one theological
Party already, is Obama suggesting by his actions that another
one is needed? He has already embraced the Bush-Rove faith
based initiatives program. One religious political party is
already one too many; let the neoconservative Republican Party
have the god-vote. Obama needs to be fighting the growing
religious fundamentalism, not joining with it.

Lefty Blogs