President Barack Obama personally intervened to change party platform on God, Jerusalem

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - President Barack Obama personally intervened to order Democrats to change language in their party platform to add a mention of God and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, campaign officials said Wednesday.

Scrambling to end a furor, Democrats abruptly changed the platform early Wednesday evening to reinstate language from the 2008 platform that said "we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential." Mitt Romney and other Republicans had seized on the omission to criticize the Democrats.

Democrats also restored 2008 language on Jerusalem, declaring the city "is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

Campaign officials said Obama's reaction on the omission of God from the platform was to wonder why it was removed in the first place.

Read more: http://www.660news.com/news/world/article/398472--under-fire-from-republicans-democrats-change-platform-to-include-god-jerusalem

---

Thank God President Obama did the right thing here. The last thing that we need is to give the Republicans fodder to paint us as Israel-hating atheists.

[on point]

1. Obama again heading in the wrong direction and lacking backbone

[Renew Deal]

5. I'm pretty sure this shows he has backbone.

Doing nothing might have proved your point. The issue may be that you disagree with what he stood up for.

[ehrnst]

8. He lost nothing - and handed Ryan /foxNews their asses on a platter.

Ryan accused Obama of taking it out. FoxNews accused Obama of taking it out.

[Evergreen Emerald]

66. Here is why it was awesome: romney said he could not change the Rnc platform

He said he did not agree with the platform--no exception on abortion for rape or life of mom...and said he could not change it.

Obama changed the platform that he did not like.

Who is the leader?

[Heather MC]

101. Exactly, The president OWNED the DNC PLATFORM, Mittens Ran from his

[Humanist_Activist]

73. Why should he be applauded for standing up for sectarianism?

Why don't they change the name to the Christian Democratic Party and be done with it?

[Jakes Progress]

24. Political stupidity is not backbone.

The idiots were the doofuses on the floor who gave fox news lots of footage of Democrats booing God. Now that was some stupid.

[loli phabay]

70. i heard that on the local drive radio station, kinda weird, probuably not the finest moment

[Jakes Progress]

84. With Florida and North Carolina

being two of the eight states that will probably decide the election, it was rather stupid to alienate supporters of Israel and God.

[alp227]

87. Y'know, if the South seceded, America would've been a more secular nation would it?

Reality makes me so

[billy_j]

71. God is a specific reference to the Christian god.

I disagree with the DNC adding God to the platform. It is pandering sure, but in an age of politics , it is a sad truth.
There are so many god's out there, and in an age of truly secular government, the creep into theocracy is disturbing.

Troubling as well is the addition of calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Yes, it is pandering again, and kowtowing in the finest form, with a platform that only makes the Mid East more aflame.

[kwassa]

82. This sounds like your assumption to me.

Got anything to back up this Christian God claim?

[JackRiddler]

92. So which god is it then?

In this culture, Capital-G allows for a pretty limited selection. They mean the hateful one from the desert religions. Now you can always come up with some legalistic argument for why it's not, but it's not Zeus the Almighty!

[kwassa]

96. We live in a multicultural country now

I think all definitions of God apply, not just the Christian one.

And, not just your definition of the Christian one.

[JackRiddler]

103. My definition of God most definitely does not apply.

God, n., a fairy tale used by religions to traumatize children and infantilize adults into obedience to arbitrary ritual conduct.

[PassingFair]

106. LOL

[still_one]

2. agreed /nt

[Brickbat]

3. Ick.

[leftynyc]

4. Agree 100%

A stupid issue to lose votes on. Is the platform 100% perfect in my eyes? Not even close but this was a dumb move and I'm glad they changed it. Thankfully this board doesn't represent the majority of Democrats.

[ehrnst]

11. but it shows the Dems actually care what their party thinks of the Platform

In stark contrast to how the GOP slapped down the Paulites.

[Selatius]

13. The Paulites weren't a representative group of the base, I would argue.

The Tea Party itself is far more representative. In the end, the Tea Party is nothing but the base of the Republican Party. They simply rebranded themselves after George W. Bush in order to make people forget eight years of Republican rule under Bush.

[freshwest]

61. That's what they are, new paint on the same elephant. Result for voting for any of them is the same.

[leftynyc]

16. I don't care what the pubs do or say

I care about my own party and they did the right thing putting the language back in.

[dmallind]

80. No it does not! The voice vote was overwhelmingly to keep these changes out

It shows that Obama carees what the Christofascists think, not what the delegates who wanted to keep the 2012 version think.

[azurnoir]

46. this DID NOT pass the delegates vote it was forced on them against their will as their boos

Last edited Thu Sep 6, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

so do you think that a Democratic move, or is it that it suits a certain political agenda that apparently you support?

For my part if the delegates had approved then so be it but in this case they quite obviously did not , if the Republicans had made such a move we here at DU would be condemning them as Fascists

as to this board do you consider yourself a discriminated against minority here?

[leftynyc]

75. It is what it is

I gave up on the fairness thing long ago. Right now I just want to do whatever I can to make sure Pres Obama wins because the alternative is unthinkable. The fight was one that should not be fought on the convention floor in the first place which is why it shouldn't have been changed.

As for your other question, I personally could never feel discriminated against on an anonymous board. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Agree with some, not with others - again, it is what it is.

[leveymg]

6. Unnecessary. He wasn't about to lose many votes on those that hadn't already gone to other side.

Pandering.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Why lose any votes when you don't have to?

[leveymg]

18. In the end, pandering loses you more than a few votes.

You lose the respect of a larger part of your base, and after eventually giving too much to those who demanded too much, comes an accounting that can be disastrous.

[levp]

29. Exactly.

Just look at the posts in the Comments section for this story on Yahoo, CNN, etc.

(Can't post links. For an example, go to Yahoo and search for "democrats-reinstate-god-jerusalem-israel-capital-party-platform-223437220--election&quot
"Anything for a vote."
"Flip-flop,flip-flop,flip-flop,flip-flop,flip-flop,"
"This was only done as an afterthought to hopefully garner more votes come November. Typical politicians. Say anything they think the people want to hear and then revert back to their original agenda after the elections."

And so on...

[leveymg]

31. My guess is that a certain someone who left the Administration a while back to return to

run as Mayor had a hand in this. I feel the same heavy hand at work that so alienated so many progressives while he was still part of the WH inner-circle.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Do you really think that President Obama lost any votes due to this?

[leveymg]

34. I think we lost the House in 2010 (in part) due to the heavy-handed shove given the Left base

This is just a rude reminder.

[okieinpain]

90. du is not the base. the base prefers

the god language. how many elections do you think the dems can win without the Hispanic or black vote.

[azurnoir]

47. because he spit in faces of the delegates

something that may also lose him votes that's why unless of course you consider this okay because of some leaning of your own

as I told another poster if Republicans had made such a move we'd be denouncing them as Fascists

[Jakes Progress]

25. Not in the real world.

With those two items and fox news, we would be giving away at least two states. The idiots who booed Israel and God are the jerks who still gave those votes away. Politically tone deaf.

[leveymg]

32. There'd be no booing if there hadn't been the heavy hand from above.

And, I suspect it was the former right-hand who was behind this. "F-cking morons" - ya, that one. Talk about politically tone deaf, turned off the progressive base. How much manpower got lost there, has anyone ever stopped to calculate the damage from that? Hint: the Democrats lost the House in 2010.

[Jakes Progress]

35. So are you going to vote for Mitt now?

I mean if you are turned-off progressive.

Hint: the Democrats lost the House in 2010. (Is it your argument that God did that? That Obama's religion caused him to lose his majority in the house?)

You will find few more disappointed progressives than myself. But for this, who cares. If you don't believe, why is it so important to you that others do? Did you listen to Elizabeth Warren?

There are at least as many far left progressives who believe as there are who do not. The fall off in progressive support does not come from the word "God". It comes from pandering to social conservatives and corporate interests (nothing more godless than a corporation - you must love them.)

You can believe whatever you want. But don't cost us two states because of your personal issue that tells others they can't.

[leveymg]

36. No, but I'm not knocking 4,000 doors this time. As for the rest,

you may have misunderstood my comment. I'm not saying God or Israel made us lose the House, I'm saying pandering to the RW turned off a great number of us, and as a result, we didn't GOTV and work the phones and contribute money like we did in '08.

[Jakes Progress]

51. I'm the choir.

The reagan-democratic party that has taken over the party that I worked for for 40 years has left me cold. But we've been left. The centrists have it. The work to be done must be done locally and long before primaries and nationals. Aid the real Democrats and ignore the pretenders.

But the assholery of the republican party as it currently exists would make our job harder. So let the DLC stay in office until we can take them from within. We fooled ourselves into thinking that the electorate could think - would think. I spent thirty years teaching those who didn't think they wanted to learn. We need to educate those who think they already know it all.

I'm not working like I did in '08. But I knew Obama was not progressive, was a fraud in liberal clothing.

But pick honest battles. From what I've seen, Obama wasn't pandering. He believes. You have to get it into your head that many do. Being self-righteously indignant that others don't believe what you do is just mental masturbation - feels good, but doesn't really matter. Pissing off liberals who take the teachings of Christianity seriously (unlike the right that don't seem to have ever read or heard anything about it at all) is making enemies of allies. Warren was right. Instead of jumping up and down on the believers, we should use the words of their own books to show them how bad republicans are.

[leveymg]

52. We're on the same train, but this trip I'm not riding all the way to the end of line.

Maybe, next time through.

[Jakes Progress]

55. Sometimes there isn't a next time.

[leveymg]

59. It's always that way, or so we're told.

This time it's pretty clear, the Republicans don't really have a chance.

[Jakes Progress]

62. Ah to live in a blue state.

If you lived here, you wouldn't think so.

[demwing]

94. The behavior you represent GIVES Republicans a chance

Arguments here at DU over whether Obama is progressive enough are relatively harmless, so let's have at it.

OTOH, saying you plan to offer less help (if you offer any help at all) on the strength of the fact that you're not getting everything you wanted out of this President, is not harmless.

If you're being honest in your intent--if this isn't just a little venting on your part--then you are giving the GOP an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have. If your posts encourage other to follow your lead, then you're increasing that GOP advantage.

You see that the GOP doesn't have a chance, and your response is to give them one?

What kind of logic is that?

[leveymg]

95. You just threw 500 years of Enlightenment thought in the trash, including the Social Contract,

Consent of the Governed, and the idea that government is accountable to people rather than the other way around.

If elected officials don't fully serve the interests of the electors, then the electors need not fully serve them in their desire to remain in office. How else does or should elected government work?

I hope you're happy as a servant without binding, enforceable contract, which should make you a happy slave, indeed.

[demwing]

97. Your hyperbole meter just shot from 0 to 11 in no time flat!

I get why. Enthusiasm is an emotional subject. If you don't feel 100% enthusiastic about Obama, do what you can, because it helps, and it is appreciated.

But the resentment you carry for those that disagree with you is excessive. Are your ideas sacred and beyond question? No, not at all -

1. I agree that elected officials should serve the interests of the electors, but not always "fully." Some things shouldn't be voted on, like gay marriage. What if the majority is wrong? Should an elected official behave politically, or according to their own ethos?

2. If you say "politically" then why are you unenthusiastic? Look for the candidate that best serves your interests politically ("best serves" not "fully serves&quot and get behind that candidate with whatever energy you have. In this way, you help direct the giant body politic more toward your ideal.

3. If you say "according to their own ethos" then once more, why are you unenthusiastic? Look for the candidate that best serves your ethical interests ("best serves" not "fully serves&quot and get behind that candidate with whatever energy you have. In this way, you help direct the ethical center of America more toward your ideal.

In either case, the time to debate the roster of players is over. Those who are playing are on the field. I'm not against third party candidates, I just don't see anyone whose ethical center or political direction is more closely aligned with my own.

This mentality serves my interests, because I get a good, maybe even a great--but not necessarily the "ideal"--candidate. It also serves the social contract, because although my actions are not focused on the constant pursuit of some absolute good, they are focused on the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Some things should not be voted on, but not all things. Some things should be moved all at once, but not all things. If believing this somehow makes me a "happy slave" in your eyes, so be it. In the future I'll know better than to give much thought to the quality of your vision.

[leveymg]

98. No, my sense of self-interest is not binding on others. If you feel that our elected officials are

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)

listening to you and serving your interests, 100%, then give them 110% (the extra effort as inducement). But, if I don't feel particularly well-served on some issues that are important to me -- and I could provide a laundry-list, but I won't bore you -- then I am not bound by my own past levels of effort.

I think you are confusing duties with choices. I have a civic duty to do certain things (those things should always be done with full effort), but am not obligated nor is it in my self-interest to choose to reward what I determine to be inadequate performance by politicians, and certainly won't reward outright insult and shut-out by those in the President's circle (e.g, "fucking morons&quot . It is not my duty to reward those whose performance is in some important way unsatisfactory - all public acts by officials are open to judgement -- and, only I am entitled to choose what is important to me. You can make a judgment about my choices, but that is only your opinion, and I am not beholden to you.

This is not a case of resentment against others for their choices, nor am I being hyperbolic.

[demwing]

100. "It is not my duty to reward those who's performance is...unsatisfactory"

And yet you decide to give less that 100% of your effort to Obama. To me, that's rewarding Mitt Romney.

[Union Scribe]

65. I'm not sure it's so much about votes as about

putting out the GOP fauxrage fire that the media was gleefully helping them spread.

[iamthebandfanman]

7. blah

personally, i think he gave them more by doing this than just by leaving it alone..
most of these stories like this dont get traction.. especially when we could be pushing clintons speech instead whenever its brought up

[Selatius]

9. The issue of Jerusalem being annexed by Israel isn't one worth losing an entire election over.

Declaring the city to be the rightful capital of Israel and not Tel Aviv was, therefore, the politically expedient thing to do. This is realpolitik in action.

[Bucky]

20. Technically, no. This isn't "Realpolitick"

The word (and philosophy of) Realpolitick has to do with the assertion of power among rival states based on relative power and the rejection of ideologies as a foundation for diplomacy. Think of France back-door allying with the Ottoman Empire because the Muslim state weakened & distracted France's rival empire in the Christian world, Austria, in the 1600s.

What the Dems did is called pandering. I don't really have a problem with it (although the Jerusalem thing is playing with matches). But I do like to see words properly applied.

[JackRiddler]

104. Yeah, it's not like the US Muslim vote exceeds that of

the kind of pro-Israeli fanatics who let their vote be swayed by whether Jerusalem is called the capital (a minority among pro-Israelis).

That's going to take a few more years, right?

And while we're going for the WIN, why not throw in some tax cuts and perks for rich sponsors?

That's politically expedient, right?

Pollution, schmollution, clearly most people are all for NOT thinking about it.

Drill, baby, drill! That's got to be popular, right?

Let's have lots of periodic little wars we can WIN without casualties.

Etc. etc. etc.

Realpolitik in action! Hooray!

Can you at least switch to a more real-political avatar? Chomsky? What are you doing? Kim Kardashian would be much more expedient.

[Fearless]

12. Oh 1950's we were almost rid of you. Sigh.

[Bucky]

19. Thumbs Up

thanks

[Dawgs]

21. +1. Another day, another move to the right.

[Jakes Progress]

26. Are you sighing for a return to the 50's?

Segregation. Illegal abortions. No gay rights.

That's what you get when you stamp your little foot and hand republicans a wedge to win at least two states. There are none so intolerant at atheists.

[Fearless]

41. Umm actually no. I was sighing despondantly at the fact we were almost done with the 1950's

And that with the addition of that language we get sucked right back in.

By all means feel free to ask a question if you would like me to clarify, but it's really unacceptable to be spoken to that way. We're not the enemy here.

[Jakes Progress]

54. But your actions will bring them back.

Is religion your only beef with the fifties? I was around then. My church brought me to civil rights marches. It sheltered war-protesters in the sixties. It taught me to care about others. It inculcated a concern for those less fortunate than I.

None of that is part of the plan that mitt wants for the country. The greed and selfishness of the fifties is their platform. If we decide to piss off those who see religion differently than you and let mitt lie to them about his motives, we only help bring their version of the fifties back.

I'm not looking for enemies. I don't plan on being called one just because my spiritual beliefs are different from yours. I don't care what you believe. Why do you seem so bent on what I believe? How's that for a question?

[Fearless]

60. Religion as a function of government.

Yes that is a problem I had with the 1950's. Make no mistake that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want to. BUT the government should make no such decisions.

I don't care what you believe. It means nothing to me. And you're free to believe it every day of your life. I draw the line when people press their views on others, like as I mentioned, through government decree, action, or inaction.

[Jakes Progress]

63. Just where

was the platform as amended pressing its views on you?

I have my share of beefs with the misuse of religion as an excuse for bad behavior. I also don't like it if government tries to force a particular belief system on someone. I don't see that happening here. Would you be happier if the platform mentioned atheism?

[Fearless]

68. I would be happier if the platform, which I overall agree with

Did not mention anyone's religious systems. Mention equates support. More so though, why does it have to be there at all? Because it panders to the right wing. Democrats are going to vote Democrat regardless. Its trying to entice "independent" and right wing voters.

I don't like it when we compromise our values, in this case of separation of church and state, for other who don't care about us at all, specifically who don't care about me at all.

[Jakes Progress]

83. Maybe your values and Obama's

don't jibe in this matter.

Is it your contention that Obama is an atheist? What evidence do you have for that. Perhaps he was taking the privilege of being the head of the party to have some say over what he wanted in the platform.

Can you live with a president who believes in God?

You still didn't answer my question about where the platform was forcing you into religion. Or how about saying how the phrase as it exists in the platform infringes on your right to not believe in God?

[Fearless]

85. Clearly we see differently.

I do not care what religion or lack of religion the President keeps. So long as it's kept personal. And as I stated before, religion should have no place in political party platforms outside of the free personal practice thereof for all citizens.

I can live with a president who does not impose religious values on party platform, nation, or other government sponsored institution. Again what they personally believe and keep to themselves is of no importance to me.

The party platform is the outline of the party's ideals. Including reference, and preference, to one religious belief, as I said to pander to the right, is anti-American. The American governmental system is forbidden from having a preferred religion due to the 1st Amendment. The political party's endorsement of one religious belief is unacceptable. It has no place in government. Separation of church and state.

The fact is, whether it hurts me or not, which is debatable, it is unconstitutional for a governing body to promote one religion over another. Does it hurt me directly? No. Does it impose an expectation of The Judeo-Christian god on voters of the Democratic Party however. While this may be ok with Republican voters, I take issue with this requirement in the Democratic Party. It has no necessary place in the platform. It doesn't do anything positive. It moves the party to the right again. There's no need for it. We have better ideas and are better equipped to solve this nation's problems. We do not need to pander. We need to offer up our solutions.

[Jakes Progress]

99. A lot of libertarian clap trap

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 10:43 PM - Edit history (1)

over something you seem not to have read. Do you know the context of the included word. Tell me how it forces a Judeo-Christian god onto you.

Your intolerance is showing.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. I can't wait until the day politicians no longer have to pander to magic.

[CBHagman]

15. However, it won't stop the GOP from screaming about the Dems.

Thus far this morning I have been treated to NPR top-of-the-hour news that the Republicans are sniffing that THEY mentioned God more times that we did, nyah, nyah, nyah, and some AOL home page headline about Romney saying that Obama had "thrown Israel under the bus." Obama could personally broker peace deals throughout the Middle East and the 'cans would come after him for not being peaceful enough.

The thing is, they exploit fodder, but they also use anything to hand.

[snappyturtle]

17. Frankly I care more about how the President's reaction appears in the Middle East

than to the right wing nuts. And, God given potential? I determine my own potential of what 'God' gave me....imho. The delegates voice vote was interesting to say the least.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Dear OP

This theory that the GOP will not attack if we say or do the right things is just stupid, flat out stupid. Did you see Eastwood? They make up an imaginary opponent and run against that. Fodder? They don't need fodder, they have mendacity.

[salib]

23. I am an atheist

So I think the whole "God" thing is silly.

Removing it would have been the best thing to do to represent the Democratic Party ideals of inclusiveness and rationality.

That said, "Nature's God", appears in the Declaration of Independence as a reference to implicit understanding of human rights. The text referred to in the OP sure looks mostly like a a similar kind of implicit understanding. Seems pretty innocuous, and even positively reflects precedent.

[Marrah_G]

27. I don't understand why Jeruselum is even an issue in our convention

[onenote]

38. You don't understand that its an important issue for a large Democratic bloc of voters?

[Marrah_G]

39. No, I don't. It's not our country.

I just do not understand why there was any need to reference what is or is not the capitol city of another country in our convention to nominate our candidate.

[onenote]

40. Well, if you don't appreciate the fact that its an important issue to a major voting block

I'm not sure what to tell you. Its not a question of whether it should or shouldn't be. Its a question of what is. And the issue of whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is an important issue to a large number of Jewish voters. And Jewish voters are a very important Democratic constituency -- both in terms of votes (78 percent for Obama in 2008) and financial support. Those are facts.
And its a fact that in Florida, 4 percent of the voters in 2008 were Jewish and in all likelihood, they supported Obama at around the same level as Jews supported him nationally. Even if one discounts the percentage to 75 percent, that means that Obama outpolled McCain among Jews by over 240,000 votes -- in a state that Obama won by only around 200,000 votes. As President Clinton would say, its "arithmetic."

[azurnoir]

48. so you seem to saying that this was done to please Jews?

and that Jews wield enough power and money to win or lose the election for Obama?
Sounds almost like something out of the Protocols to me but have it your way

hint Jews are less than 2% of the US population

[onenote]

50. As a Jewish supporter of President Obama

who would support him regardless of whether the platform addressed Jersualem or not, I'm saying what I know about my community: that there are a great many Jews for whom the elimination of the Jerusalem plank of the platform would create a major problem. Enough to cost Obama a state like Florida? Maybe, maybe not. But not out of the question.

As for your suggestion that my pointing out that Jewish voters have been and continue to be a major element of the party's base, both in terms of voting and financial support is "something out of the Protocols" is not merely ridiculous, its highly offensive.

Yes, Jews are less than 2 percent of the US population. But at 4 percent of the vote in a swing state like Florida, which is likely to be decided by as little as one percent, they are very important. Which might explain why "the American Jewish Community" is one of the specific groups to which the Democratic Party website devotes a page. http://www.democrats.org/people/american_jewish_community

[azurnoir]

53. yes there is a group called IvoteIsrael saying much the same as you

this group is dedicated to encouraging people with dual citizenship American/Israeli to chose their candidate according to Israels interests and has pointed out that the this voting could actually choose who is elected and suggests that is what happened in 2000

[leveymg]

56. There are also many American Jews who see unilateral annexation of Jerusalem as a violation of

international laws which created Israel. It's pandering to the aggressive RW of this community that has me upset, as if the rest don't matter, even within this Party. It's just symbolic, but what isn't?

[onenote]

57. I agree that there are differences within the Jewish community on the question of Jerusalem

My only point is that the reason that the campaign changed the platform is that they felt it was in the best interest of the campaign -- that, I suspect, they had done the polling (the "arithmetic&quot and decided that was the safest route.

I don't even object to the characterization of the decision as pandering. However, the suggestion that my pointing out that Jewish voters are considered a very critical part of the Democratic electorate and that the issue of Jersualem is important to many of them -- probably a majority --somehow puts me in the category of sounding like I subscribe to the Protocols of Zion (as suggested by another poster) is utterly uncalled for.

[leveymg]

58. The differences within are more significant and deeper. It's always been that way. Taking sides

on issues like this wasn't such a great idea -- it rewards the Netanyahus -- and it's most telling about which side really has Obama's ear.

Don't let people taunt you as either an antisemite or a Zionist, unless you are one. If you are, embrace it. If you aren't (and most people are neither), let your would-be critics know their understanding doesn't stand up in a three-dimensional world.

Don't let people turn you into a cardboard cutout, if you aren't.

[PassingFair]

107. Atheists, agnostics, free thinkers and other people who choose "none"

When asked what religion they practice arguably make up 14% of the population. And that's not counting the HEFTY percentage of ethnic Jews who are atheists! Your "voting block" numbers don't add up!

[Comrade Grumpy]

42. Yeah, this ought to help with the Arab-American vote.

Please one bloc, alienate another.

[Ash_F]

76. Pretty sure Arabs aren't going to go red this year.

But I get your meaning.

[JackRiddler]

105. Muslim Americans, you mean?

Oops, I see 2 others beat me to the same point. Well, good. It should be said!

[alp227]

88. Israel is a third-rail topic.

My theory is that the 12th Commandment (following Reagan's 11th Commandment) is "thou shalt not speak ill of Israel". So any politician or anyone who dares criticize Israeli policy is banished to the underground of third parties. Do you expect the criticisms of Israel heard on Democracy Now or the indie progressive media to be echoed in the mainstream Dem convention or among members of Congress?

[AngryAmish]

28. I thought the platform was the platform. How could it get changed?

I thought it was voted on and everything.

[HomerRamone]

30. "The Republican noise machine, then, successfully changed the Democratic platform document...

a day after the fact. For context, there were lots and lots of liberals who spoke out about deficiencies in the platform, on housing, on civil liberties, on all kinds of subjects. None of them merited a change. But when one Weekly Standard writer and a group of trolls carp, Democrats leap to attention. Never mind that this kind of tactic never once leads to conservatives somehow letting up on their criticism. The olive branches never lead to anything positive."

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/09/05/democrats-cave-on-platform-make-changes-on-god-jerusalem/

[and-justice-for-all]

37. Israeli-hating atheist you say??!!

I take offense to that and for the DNC to invoke gawd in their platform is vehemently unconstitutional and I am pretty that they all swear to uphold the Constitution and not the bible or other dogma.

Israel deserves far less praise and needs much more criticism for the continuous illegal annexation of land that does not belong to them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. "they all swear to uphold the Constitution"

"so help me, God."

[and-justice-for-all]

69. "So help me god" also a violation..nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

43. This may have been politic, but I am disappointd with the pandering.

And not too happy with the anti-democratic actions taken to make it part of the platform.

[defacto7]

44. Ha... Israel-hating Atheists.... that's funny.

A majority of Israelis are Atheist/Agnostic. Most American Jews are Atheists/Agnostic. There's a huge rift between secular Jews and practising Jews. That's a huge brush you're using.

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. Only 13% of Israelis are athiest

http://jcpa.org/dje/articles2/howrelisr.htm

[defacto7]

81. good call... but I think it's 37%.

I would say that this article actually shows 37% atheist/agnostic per my comment. But still it's a good call. My information originally came from a study group that teaches Jewish history, Hebrew and Torah taught by several Rabbis; it's an interesting bunch. They are the ones that informed me that most Israelis are atheist/agnostic by way of their families that live there are their own experience.

Thanks for the article.

[defacto7]

45. I have to add....

This is not pandering to anything religious. This is specific to Israeli politics and those who are in power plus the fundamentalist Jews in the US.

[marshall]

64. Too bad they didn't consult the President last week!

Somebody's got a lot of egg on their face!

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. He's only one man and there are only so many hours in the day

[Redford]

67. So Bret Baier asks Dick Durbin about the God thing,

Durbin gets overly offended and defensive and BOOM God is back even though he was denied 3 times by the majority. Glad to know FOX is in charge of our platform. NOT

[wickerwoman]

72. I'm an atheist, it's 2012 and I'm sick of ignorant bigots acting like its something to apologise for

We've finally reclaimed "liberal". I'm not about to give up on "atheist".

[Humanist_Activist]

74. I guess, to many Democrats, Atheists aren't "Real Americans"...

gotta love that bigotry.

[madrchsod]

79. agreed....

unfortunately in this country religion and non religion has been at war ever since the rise of the christian right.i grew up during the 50`s and even into the mid 70`s the christian right was ignored by most americans.

today`s reality is the christian right has taken over the airwaves and thanks to fox news,the television news. should the democrats ignore christian left or center while the right wing whips their followers into a frenzy?

[madville]

86. That was a tough spot for Villaraigosa

He had orders to pass the changes and didn't know what to do when the voice vote clearly failed the 2/3 required. You could see he was visibly shaken when ruling for the changes against the delegates wishes.

[JackRiddler]

93. You're sympathizing with the one who...

was "forced" to go against the democratic will?

It was a tough spot for the delegates with brains, not for the guy abusing procedure to force through whatever he was "ordered" to do.

[nopedontlikeitatall]

89. This whole issue about god is pathetic and disgusting

Separation of Church and State it seems like a few Democratic have heard of it even if the Constitutional Scholar POTUS must have skipped a class or two when the lessons were taught and WTF does Israel have to do with the Democratic Party anyway.

Someday America will actually move forward but that won’t happen until ‘our’ so called leaders stop acting like frightened children and rebuke mythological figures in Government.

Perhaps the plan is that Pres Obama does not need the votes of Atheists, Agnostics, and Muslims Democratic Support seeing that so many think he has this in the bag already, I don’t know, but I do know I am seriously considering why I am in the Democratic Party anymore when it is becoming apparent that it is no longer interested in representing my values any longer.

Pandering to the lowest common denominator and corporations seems to be the new way of doing business now within the party.

I am glad the convention is over at least nothing else can be jammed down our throats against the will of the delegates. If this had gone down with the 2/3 vote I could have accepted it, still not happy but it least it would have been what the majority wanted.

The way this went down was just wrong and everyone knows it.

[JackRiddler]

91. Oh oh, thank GOD! - Disgusting.

Like this makes any difference whatsoever. Maybe it will lose votes among atheists and others who aren't enslaved to visions of fictional sky-gods.

People delusional enough to care whether your "God" is in the platform aren't going to be swayed by this.

[bowens43]

102. stupidity and ignorance in the party platform

When are peoeple going to grow and stop believing faries and omnipotent sky peoeple?


When will our leaders stop promoting this bullshit?