Obama has no other choice.
He’s run a positive campaign for months and fallen further and further behind in the polls.
And Americans say they hate “negative campaigning.” The next time I hear someone say that, I may do a very un-Christian thing and smack them.

We Christians have survived Nero and Hadrian ruling over us. If God so orders the unthinkable, and Mrs. Clinton were to become President, we’ll survive that too. Didn’t Jesus mention “the abomination that brings desolation?” Sounds like a prediction to Clinton’s political promises.

Donny – just wondering if there’s any eschatological significance to David’s being moved from the right side to the left side of the new redesigned BeliefNet webpage?

President Hillary Clinton represents the end of the Nixon Republican era, which everyone does feel arriving. (Well, technically it will also take replacement of one of the 14th Amendment rights-perverting/denying Supreme Court Justices, but that should be manageable.)
The present Republican field and their major backers are a bunch of mini-Nixons struggling to make a case for their survival.

I don’t really want her to be president but I think people who react in horror at the prospect after the current administration probably need the therapy.

so just because she is the better of choices are we in for another 4 years of choice due to lack of options??? I am wondering why it is that the church sits so quietly and does nothing for leading this country. It is time for the body of Christ to get up and out there and start speaking up.

From this article:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9611
It looks like the SBC is ready to claim Mormonism as one of the great monotheistic faiths and a sister religion to Christianity. This is really mind-boggling to me.
Is the SBC really willing to change their stance on the Mormon church in order to “feel good” about voting for a Mormon? Why can’t they just say, “We don’t agree with his religion, but endorse him as a social conservative?” I guess I expected the SBC to remain steadfast in their positions. Afterall, they generally seem so sure of them. Are they really going to reverse their historic position that Mormonism is a cult with absolutely no legitimate claims to the God of the Bible? Seems like they are selling out and compromising their positions to be able to back a candidate they think can win. Is this kind of compromise really a better alternative to Hillary Clinton?

The Baptists selling out? Say it ain’t so!
Well I just have to laugh at the convolutions and panic that the prospect of President Hillary Clinton has produced on the right. And look at the candidates the GOP insiders are touting! Rudy & Mitt: A couple of flip-flopping liberal blue state retreads, one a cult member and the other a notorious public adulterer with a puffed-up rep based on his supposed “leadership” on 9-11. LOL. Way to go, GOP.
It would almost be worth having her elected to listen to those radio dopes like Hannity choke and sputter.

I am one of those Christian Conservatives, and I don’t find the idea of Pres Hillary frightening. I find it unfortunate: She’s an opportunist who wants to be president for her, not for us. I also find it unlikely, as she it one of those people that, the more you see her, the less you like her.
She is running against George Bush right now, which will hold her in good stead during the primaries. However, when she is in the crosshairs of scrutiny in a nationwide election, against an opponent who, unlike her current crop of cronies, is not fishing for second spot on her ticket, she will get beaten.
The fact is that most people simply don’t like her. Most Dems will hold their nose and vote for her; but nominating her will envigorate conservatives. She wouldn’t wreck the country if elected; she’s far more grown-up than any of the other Dem candidates. But finger in the air politics is dangerous and the Clintons epitomize the art. And she carries the Clinton baggage without Bill’s likeability.

Doug:
It’s not that she won’t be better than Bush (sorry, David).
It’s that she will be such a marginal, triangulating improvement at a time when we need leaps and bounds of inspiration.
Some Democratic candidates (Obama, Edwards) are displaying that. But it looks like Democratic voters, of all people, will be voting for cynicism over idealism during the primary season.

I can support Hillary without cynicism and without holding my nose, though she’s never been my favorite person. The Presidency as a popularity contest gets you George W. Bush.
There’s simply nobody in the race who is better than Hillary. I certain think she is ambitious, and wants to win, but since when has that been a fault? We only want to elect people who don’t really want to be elected? We want a statesman or stateswoman, not a politician? From my perspective, she’s the most disciplined, the most mature, and the most trustworthy (as in, she won’t do something reckless like invade Iraq). I trust her to be an adult, and I trust her to be cautious when caution is called for. But, I don’t have to like her personality to vote for her.

Hillary is a woman of faith. Having said that, I don;t think that is relevant. She will be a good president – and has the possibility of greatness. She seems to have learned from her mistakes during Clinton 42. She is motivated by a sense of service that is genuine and she offers competence (a change after 7+ years of Bush 43). She is not my first choice, but I will be able to vote for her with a certain level of excitement and hope.
Compare her to Rudy, the Republic party’s front-runner. As Joe Biden says, his sentence structure is a noun, a verb and 9/11. He is a little man in search of a balcony (thank you Jimmy Breslin). Having lived through his mayoralty in NYC, I can assure you that Rudy is a thug (nothing more and nothing less).

Larry, I think you just made the most articulate case against Hillary I’ve ever read. That line about voting cynicism over idealism is a perspective I’d missed completely and, while I won’t be voting in the Democratic primary, I find it very persuasive.

I find her being president frightening and unfortunate. Shes not an inspiration to me. Shes a part of our history that shames me. Find the candidate who is the most biblical and voet. If 60% of all christians vote for the right one, we win along with the rest of the world wether they know it or not.

Canucklehead,
I’ve seen David “on the left” since he burst onto the scene in the mid-term elections. I also see him as a Christian though. Just misguided for now.

From this article:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=9611
“It looks like the SBC is ready to claim Mormonism as one of the great monotheistic faiths and a sister religion to Christianity. This is really mind-boggling to me.
Is the SBC really willing to change their stance on the Mormon church in order to “feel good” about voting for a Mormon?”
Posted by: eleanor | October 31, 2007 9:20 AM
\\\\
Here’s some quotes from the article:
Land’s own denomination formerly listed Mormons under “cults and sects,” but a new apologetics page of the North American Mission Board categorizes the LDS among “newly developed religions (from approximately the last two hundred years) that disagree with the traditional Christian understanding of God and Jesus Christ.”
“Mormons are undeniably polytheistic,” says one article on the resource page. [The three generally recognized Abrahamic faiths--Judaism, Christianity and Islam--all share belief in one God.]
“Jesus Christ, according to LDS doctrine, is also one of Heavenly Father’s spirit children who has attained godhood. Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three of many gods of other worlds.”
///
They are neither selling out the Lord, NOR are they changing a single truth about Mormonism being a non-Christian, yet, Abrahamic religion. Islam is not a Christian religion it is in the wrong theologically, and yet is IS an Abrahamic religion. So is Bahai etc.. Mormons are not Christians, but are certainly yet another religion that has come from the religious world set in motion by Abraham.
I read the article. No where is it even hinted that Mormonism should be thought of as anything but what it is. A non-Christian ideolgy/religion.
Like islam, this is true (from the article):
Another article summarizes: “Jesus of the LDS Church is not Jesus of the Bible. God of the LDS Church is not God of the Bible.”
///
And just like Muslims (from the article) showing that Mormons are not Christians:
“Unless we take the Gospel to them and are active about sharing the truth of Jesus Christ with those caught up in error and untruth and a reconstructed false gospel, their destiny is one of separation from the Lord Jesus Christ,” Roberts said.
///
I’ll vote for Clinton before I’ll vote for Romney.
At least Hilary has the correct Jesus to ignore. Romney does not.

Yeah, David is very misguided… telling people not to worship the altar of the GOP. Shame on you, David.

“Yeah, David is very misguided… telling people not to worship at the altar of the GOP. Shame on you, David.”
Posted by: D
///
David has never articulated what is wrong with the GOP from a Biblical test. It just appears that now he desires that Evangelicals kneel before the image of the Progressive deity of death to the unborn, the selling of humans as medicines for rich sick actors, and the redefinition of the family. I cannot believe that Jesus is OK with what Democrats actually do to children born and unborn.
I would say that “shame” is a word that is veru un-PC only to a “certian kind” of person. I’m certainly ashamed at what my Liberal and Progressive politicians do with MY tax dolars. How many children died this week I wonder from the licentiousness of the Democrats? It was a lot I’ll bet.

“How many children died this week I wonder from the licentiousness of the Democrats? It was a lot I’ll bet.”
Not so many as the number of children who have died as a result of so-called “compassionate conservatives.” David posted numbers some time ago that more than 24,000 children die of hunger and the ravages of poverty each day! Each Day! Every #*&^@!$ DAY! And yet the compassionate ones of conservativism refuses to allocate funding to take care of the poor in this country, much less around the world.
“That which you do for the least of these my brothers and sisters you do for me.” I would rather see my tax dollars help provide for these poor children than line the pockets of already rich executives. The God I listen to doesn’t ask if those children have the same father as their brothers and sisters, doesn’t ask which church they go to, and I imagine gets quite irritated at those who do ask.

PatientWitness,
Evangelical, Born-Again, “conservative” Christians have been the missionaries going to the world’s poor and feeding, clothing and caring for them for hundreds of years.
The Liberals talk about raising taxes to keep the poor voting for democrats. Pure evil. And the poor in America’s inner-cities care more about free handouts and new Jordans than they do the world’s really poor people.
Walk the streets of America’s inner cities some time.

I cannot believe that Jesus is OK with what Democrats actually do to children born and unborn
Actually, conservatives have more abortions than liberals do. The Bible belt is the abortion capital of the world. If only you knew what the women of your conservative churches are doing.

And yet the compassionate ones of conservativism refuses to allocate funding to take care of the poor in this country, much less around the world
PatientWitness, you have it all wrong. Conservatives aren’t lacking in compassion. In fact, they are among the most compassionate and generous in the world. When the oil companies were hurting from 7.8 billion in profits instead of 8.0, who bailed them out with tax breaks and incentives? Conservatives! I mean, come on… everyone can help the poor. It takes a special kind of generosity to help the rich. The kind only conservatives have. You shouldn’t be so critical.