Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

The most galling thing about Sen. Clinton's foray into the Rev. Wright mess is how she finally decided to answer it. Let's not kid ourselves. When asked how she would have handled the situation, she could have said, "I would have spoken to Rev. Wright privately," or "Really, I'm not going to get into that...that is a private situation for Sen. Obama to handle." Something along those lines.

But what she did say demonstrates something very disturbing about her character.  Because, in saying that "he wouldn't be my pastor anymore" because "you can't choose your family, but you can choose your church," she explicitly passed judgement on Sen. Obama's choice on how to worship, one of the most personal decisions one can make.

To this I say to Sen. Clinton: Judge not lest ye be judged.

Some have begun to suggest that perhaps one should judge Sen. Clinton's own personal choices, including the very personal choice to stay with her adulterous husband.  Granted, when I read what she said yesterday, that very thought did cross my mind.

But the fact of the matter is Sen. Obama has not "gone there." And nor should his supporters.

Because we are not in the business of questioning personal choices.

We do not question the choice of one's friends.

We do not question the private choices one makes in their lives.

That is judging on a level that frankly has no place in our politics.

The stunning part, to me, of the Rev. Wright debacle is the speed at which the media and others pillioried Obama for it.  Who are they, or anyone, to question his friendship with Wright, his faith, or the personal bond he has with anyone? His relationship with Wright dates back far before he was ever in politics.  

It isn't a political relationship...it's a personal one.

In short, it isn't "fair game" or anything else.  And Sen. Clinton opened a huge door for anyone and anything to be questioned about her personal choices.

To which I say, no.  It's not right, and it's not fair game.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Sen. Clinton, I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears, given your kitchen sink strategy, but let me remind you of another passage from the New Testament:

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Sen. Clinton, you cast the first stone.  

Are you honestly saying you are without sin?

I sincerely hope not. And I hope you "go there" no more.

Because it is leaving a digusting stain on our politics.

•  This was going to be a different diary.

  I was so pissed with Hillary's comments yesterday, I was ready to send the kitchen sink at her.

  A rarity for me.

  But it's not worth stooping to that level. It really isn't.

  by wmtriallawyer on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:26:42 AM PDT

  •  This Will Not Help Hillary

    The Rev. Wright flap has come and gone as far as having a negative affect on Obama. He's probably come out of it stronger after giving that great speech, and it certainly laid to rest the "Obama is a Muslim" meme.

    For Hillary to flog it now does indeed open her up to more criticism and make her look bad.

    by Mr X on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:32:00 AM PDT

  •  Obama, Hillary have no business denouncing ...

    preachers unless the preachers are inciting law breaking. They're running for the presidency in a nation with separation between church and state.

    Of course they can disagree with preachers. But denounce them? That's not a skill they'll need in the Oval Office.

    by overlander on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:38:55 AM PDT

    •  There's also that little piece of the

      Constitution about no religious tests for public office. Hillary never should have "gone there." I hope that Obama maintains the high road in this.

      by blue jersey mom on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:44:24 AM PDT

  •  you can also choose to

    pardon your family members, as bill and Hill did.  The leadership needs to stop this.  Obama won!

    by allie123 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:42:01 AM PDT

  •  My thoughts coincide with yours

    Sen. Clinton's own personal choices, including the very personal choice to stay with her adulterous husband.  Granted, when I read what she said yesterday, that very thought did cross my mind.

    When Hillary stated yesterday when asked about Rev. Wright:

    "he wouldn't be my pastor anymore" because "you can't choose your family, but you can choose your church,"

    I thought it a not so veiled attempt to quell any future questions regarding why she stayed with her wandering husband. Kinda made me squirm, while fuming with disgust over her broadside decision to "go there".
    It's past time for the party leadership to show her the door. Her attacks on a fellow Democrat are beyond the pale, and serve to reinforce the growing opinion that her campaign's scorched earth tactics are designed to destroy Obama's chances. Her MO seems to be, if she happens to get the (unlikely) primary win, fine. If not, tough luck for a crippled Obama campaign with little hope of beating McBush in the general because of all the accusations, inuendo, and low blows coming from HRC.

    by Lisa Lockwood on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:47:24 AM PDT

    •  you don't choose your blood relatives

      but you DO choose your spouse, and you choose to stay or not stay with your spouse.

      by elmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:43:46 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for this.

    There is SO MUCH out there that the Obama campaign has held back on out there.

    For her to do this is just despicable in my opinion and my wife's.

    by rick on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:55:15 AM PDT

  •  Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

    by fxq on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:59:51 AM PDT

  •  Blow off steam at the fundraiser for Kratovil

    I will see you there, and I will buy you a new drink called the Kitchen Sink.  17 types of liquor mixed in such proportions that you will swear you are taking sniper fire.  

    by LarsThorwald on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:00:51 AM PDT

    •  Heh. I won't be there, though

      I've got a speaking engagement tonight at a local Dem club.

      Have no idea what I'm going to talk about, either.

      by wmtriallawyer on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:20:06 AM PDT

      •  Snipers. Fire. Ducking.

        Also, please wear your flag pin.  

        by LarsThorwald on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:28:28 AM PDT

  •  Go ahead, send the sink next time

    You'll be given further cause to do so.   Team Clinton isn't merely burning all of their bridges, they're mining the causeways that lead to the bridges, too.

    Given HRC's vouching for McVain's CIC bona fides, and given WJC's repeatedly stating what a great guy McVain is, I took the trouble to check McVain's votes on WJC's impeachment.  As I assumed, McVain voted aye on both counts.  The same guy who voted to remove WJC from office, who "joked" about Chelsea's parentage, and who "joked" about bombing Iran is, according to the public statements of Team Clinton, preferable to Obama.  

    Think about that fact for a minute.  Forget about party loyalty, and forget about the obvious concerns that exist about McVain's temperament and about his trigger-happy nature.  Team Clinton prefers a guy who made fun of their only child and who voted twice to remove them from office.

    There's something really skewed about these people.

    by RFK Lives on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:08:18 AM PDT

•  thanks for the spiritual lesson today...

  I needed that this morning. :))

  by jdmorg on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:31:20 AM PDT

•  Obama's jujitsu was perfect

  When Hillary decided to play the Wright card, Obama's spokesman correctly pointed out that the tactic was merely a pathetic attempt to divert attention from her own troubles.  Thus Clinton's comment became widely perceived as a measure of her own desperation rather than Obama's weakness.

  Have to think the Obama people were ready for that one.

  by Dallasdoc on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:31:35 AM PDT

  •  Did they use the word "Pathetic?"

    Granted, we all felt it was, but I don't think the Obama campaign would use that word.

    But you sure nailed it -- PATHOS.

    It was pathetic, but I suspect it is merely the latest of many pathetic actions to come before the end.

    You've seen people have a breakdown?  This is what it's like when they've got a major Presidential Campaign at the same time.  But its a collective breakdown because it isn't limited to the candidate.  (Although one might make additional cracks about Carville...)

    by polecat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:03:10 AM PDT

•  Better Rev. Wright than . . .

  the nutcase Doug Coe, head of the right-wing fundamentalist, elitist power cult The Family. which hosts the yearly National Prayer Breakfast, who Hillary claims is her spiritual  mentor.

  by bobdevo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:32:10 AM PDT

•  Doubt you'll get many takers today

  Rational thinking here lately has all but disappeared.  But Hillary's innuendos remind me of a manipulative little girl.

  by JFinNe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:32:59 AM PDT

•  I'm not concerned about private religious beliefs

  Senator Hillary Clinton has a church where she worships -- the United Methodist Church. Her pastor recently spoke out forcefully in support of Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

  Where Clinton worships, and with whom, is none of my business; it's a matter of private religious belief.

  On the other hand, when Clinton joins a covert network of conservative political influence -- The Family -- that should be a matter of public interest.

  The Family is not a church, and its leader Doug Coe -- whom Hillary praises as a "mentor" in her autobiography -- is not a pastor.

  Why has Clinton refused repeated requests by respected journalists to give an interview on her reasons for participating in The Family, and praising its leader Doug Coe?

  The purpose of The Family is to inject rightwing political agendas directly into the halls of power by recruiting elected officials -- such as Sam Brownback and Hillary Clinton.

  Why her silence and stonewalling?

  by jhutson on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:33:10 AM PDT

  •  Does her relationship with The Family date back

    to the Monica scandal?  I recall frequent references to her 'prayer group' and how important the members became to her because of their support.  Sometimes we take nourishment from places we otherwise wouldn't frequent.

    by JFinNe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:38:34 AM PDT

    •  Jeff Sharlet writes about The Family

      in his forthcoming book: The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, due out in May 2008. This will make headlines.

      Yes, Clinton has been involved with one of the Family's highest level "cells" (The Family's own term), dating back to the early 1990s.

      And she has even used her Senate position to advance a conservative political agenda on an issue that The Family has pushed.

      by jhutson on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:52:01 AM PDT

•  We now proceed directly to the tragic phase

  The epic battle has wound to a close. Hillary had the opportunity to bow out earlier and save some measure of dignity and maintain her position in the Senate. She might have worked on building an organization to support a run in '12.

  Now it appears that we're going to get an epic tragedy. She's going to ruin her own political viability and try to inflict a mortal wound on the man who will be our nominee to vanquish McCain. It's going to be very sad.

  by The Raven on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:37:47 AM PDT

•  It's more understandable

  if not much less irritating if you internalize that she's simply not going to act in good faith on any matter that she perceives might affect the nomination race, unless it helps her. No need to be "shocked, shocked" about anything she does anymore. It's all about propaganda. It seems to me that this a sort of ham-handed type of propaganda, but it may have some effect on the intended audience in the sense that it allows people who already had doubts, or need to pump up their own self-righteousness, would agree with her.

  Granted that neither McCain or Huckabee are in a tight spot right now, and would probably act differently if they were, but both have shown more graciousness to Obama recently than HRC, who is in his own party! And granted, I'd rather have a nasty Democratic president who advocates good policies than the nicest Republican in the world who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. But still, it remains, that that is NOT the choice we face. We can choose between two people who have good policies, one of whom is as genuine and thoughtful as could be expected in a good politician, the other of whom is trying to bring down the first person with every nasty trick in the book. I've made my choice--it's the people who are only now starting to pay attention I worry about.

  by JMS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:50:26 AM PDT

•  Excellent now tell the media that

  Hillary has been wrong in allot of this campaign, but the comments yesterday, she once again crossed the line.  The Superdelegates should start coming out and now.  The sad thing for her and Bill, they have lost all credibility in their pursuit of the White House, and have shown to the American people that they will do anything to win, because they some how feel they are entitled to it.

  by pjbamerica on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:54:45 AM PDT

•  Its time for MSM to seriously look at HRCs Pastor

  problems. I know Clinton Network News and Faux News won't.  But isn't it time some of these stations to delve into Hillary's personal and religious life.  As far as I'm concerned she cast the first stone and by placing herself above Obama, morally, has essentially challenged the press to follow her around and see if she's ever done anything wrong.

  That's the thing about judging others, it can come back to smack you in the ass if your not a Saint.

  by ecostar on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:56:51 AM PDT

•  I don't think she said anything that

  had to do with his choice of religion, just the choice of what church he attended.  There were, no doubt, other churches of the same denomination that he could have attended.

  What I perceive as a disgusting personal attack is the fact that she chose say anything at all about it.  It was none of her business.

  When Chelsea was asked by a college student if she thought her mother's credibility was damaged through the Lewinsky affair, she replied, "it's none of your business".  

  Apparently only the things that effect Clinton are nobody's business.

  by nupstateny on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:58:40 AM PDT

  •  If you presume to chose my church

    you attempt to take control of something you've got no business in.

    by boadicea on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:20:04 AM PDT

  •  Well

    Chelsea was perfectly right to do what she did.  

    That said, I don't agree with Sen. Clinton's idea that you get to choose the cantor at your place of worship.  No, you only get to choose the place of worship and you do that based on the institution's beliefs.

    by jim bow on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:24:09 AM PDT

    •  She wasn't asked how she felt about the

      affair, she was asked if she felt that her mother's credibility was damaged because of it.  

      by nupstateny on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM PDT

•  Clinton wants the Wright door open. So do I.

  Well she doesn't really want the door open, she wants people looking at the door that is painted with the media distortions.
  They have done harm. Many people will vote for him anyway but some that would will not because of that ongoing question of "Why did he sit listening to that hate for 20 years and expose his kids"

  I think the media should investigate. This has driven me nuts, I've never seen such a one sided hit job in my life, really.

  I am just going to copy a post I just made and put it here:

  They take selective minutes from years of sermons to make him sound hateful and thus demonize the man and his church to use as a weapon against a candidate.

  The media did that so carelessly without thought to presenting the other side or hinting that there was another side.

  On TV they still say that he never explained how he could sit there and listen to that for 20 years, expose his children, voters won't forgive that. Well I sort of thought he said it when he posted on March 14, 2008
  On My Faith and My Church

  I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

  Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

  The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

  I thought that was a pretty good reason to go to church if you are into that sort of Jesus, love, compassion, justice thing.

  If they think he's lying they should investigate that. They don't want to know and that is frightening really.

  Last week on Morning Joe a reporter said he went to that church, two reporters he worked with were members, Joe changed the subject.

  On "This Week" Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said her brother went to that church and it was acyually pretty mainstream and conventional. That her brother found it even conservative because it put so much emphasis on family and responsibility and pulling yourself up...
  George seemed to misunderstand and think she was talking about Obama's speeches including those things about responsibility and took over from that.
  Transcripts are not available unless you buy them, you can just view the video. Unfortunately the video cuts out before Jay Carney, TIME's Washington bureau chief, says there isn't really more to come out on Wright, reporters have been combing through all his sermons and aren't finding anything. No one remarks on that.

  On MTP

  MR. EUGENE ROBINSON: (snip)Why doesn't he leave the Reverend Wright?  You know, Reverend Wright has been portrayed in, in--throughout this whole thing as, as a, as some sort of exotic fringe figure who no one had ever heard of before, and those snippets have been portrayed as the, the whole of his ministry. Neither is true.  Later in the week, a photograph surfaced of the Reverend Wright at the White House being received by, by Bill Clinton at prayer breakfast the day the Starr report was, was released.  The point of which is he was not a fringe figure.  He was very well known in Chicago and elsewhere as a prominent clergyman whose, whose ministry is not fully represented by those snippets that, that keep, as Senator Obama said, running in a loop.

  (No one asks more)

  From the Chris Matthews Show Sunday

  Mr. PAGE:(snip)Plus, you know, Jeremiah Wright, I've seen the man preach, long before I knew he was Barack Obama's minister. And people knew he had been Oprah's minister. There's a side to him that has not been shown on these clips. He is a Marine. He is a guy who's had a tremendous program for black families, etc.

  MATTHEWS: OK. Would you get those tapes out?

  PAGE: Well, it's going to happen.

  MATTHEWS: Let's get the good tapes out.
  
  PAGE: I don't need to. I don't need to.

  Ms. BUMILLER: I think a lot of people would defend him, yeah.

  MATTHEWS: I think a lot of people would like to see them.

  PAGE: I think--you're going to be seeing it over the next few weeks and months...
  MATTHEWS: OK.

  PAGE: ...and that's going to help to change his image around and soften the blow to Obama.

  I watched the show. The part I have in italics was cut out when it was aired.

  That was just a few from last week. Is the misrepresentation not a story in itself, a story much bigger than the few words on the clips?

  Where IS the defense of this church? I expected it to happen almost right away. I found so many postings and articles about Wright and the church that I sent along with videos or text of sermons to the networks and shows. I doubted it would make a difference and it didn't.

  What's going on?
  When I was picking a candidate and looking at potential problems I had looked into the church since there were rumors about.I found it was a fine church that did a lot of good.
  But reporters don't bother?

  Whoever we support we should be outraged that the media has this power to use distortions to trash a man, a church and a candidate. If they aren't interested in correcting it some grassroots movement should force it. I don't know how.

  by joynow on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:04:21 AM PDT

  •  My answer:

    You don't get to choose the cantor -- you only get to choose the place of worship.  That's why Obama stayed in the Church that long.

    Second, why wasn't the media so upset over Joe Lieberman sending his kids to a place where women must sit in the back of the synagogue, and have their views obstructed by men such that women cannot see the service?  Double standard?

    by jim bow on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:20:45 AM PDT

•  Choosing your church

  to her is choosing one that would be politically expedient.  Dropping the church would be appropriate for Sen. Clinton if it proves it doesn't suit her goals.  The rest of us choose a church and it becomes like family to us.  When trouble arises we stick it out to make it better.  Sen. McCain has the same cynicism as Sen. Clinton.  Which of the three do you want leading the country based on their loyalty and compassion?

  by tobendaro on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:16:34 AM PDT

•  Two things, Steve:

  Both are from a diary I wrote two days ago.

  First, you don't get to choose the cantor -- you only get to choose the place of worship.

  Second, we seem to have one standard for Barack Obama and another standard for Joe Lieberman, who has attended synagogues for 20+ years where not only are men and women not allowed to sit together but women must sit in the back and not be able to see the service.

  by jim bow on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:17:22 AM PDT

•  question please *raises hand*

  how is hillary's "ME, MY TURN, ME" attitude different from dick cheney's arrogant disregard for the country in general?

  by labwitchy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:46:48 AM PDT

•  "It was his choice, " said Hillary

  when an interviewer recently pointed out that Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot but she didn't.  I wish the interviewer had asked why she didn't make the same choice, given the agreement about the Michigan primary. Hillary's amoral comment about the Michigan ballot disturbs me a lot more than her comment about Obama's choice of pastor.  

  by ybruti on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:59:36 AM PDT