That interview was simultaneously nauseating and reassuring. It was nauseating because 'Jesus-talk' is now required by the electorate. It's a sickening reminder that anyone not at least professing to be a Christian has no chance of becoming president.

One's religion is irrelevant to one's ability to be an effective political leader. Competence and incompetence are spread throughout all religions and the non-religious alike. Thus one's religion shouldn't even be considered when choosing the best candidate.

It was reassuring because he articulated the liberal interpretation of Christianity, which has all but disappeared from the public's eye. I've heard rumors of a resurgence of this form of Christianity so Obama's comments add to my hope.

McCain wants you!

;)

Well Sid our country is majority religious so odds are good that anyone running would be religious. And I certainly agree that it should not be a requirement (officially or unofficially), but in the case of this particular interview I don't see how you can call it nauseating. I think Barack is legitimately a man of faith and when interviewed by a Christian publication they're going to ask him about it. If he were being disingenuous or pandering then it would bother me too. As it is I think he's being honest and as long as he doesn't turn his political office into a pulpit (as some have done) I can't see why this should bother you.

Whether or not they are a Christian certainly doesn't effect competence and I don't think that's the argument. Here we get back to what you believe about the universe affecting your worldview which governs your actions. For a lot of Christians what a candidate believes is relevant, as relevant as their platform or any other issue. You could certainly try to make the case that it shouldn't be relevant and knowing you, you might succeed, but you wouldn't convince "the choir".

As far as his interpretation of Christianity being liberal, it sounds pretty mainstream, but what is "liberal" is the idea that that faith requires us to take certain social actions. So it is a case of his faith informing his actions. And that is refreshing.

Well Sid our country is majority religious so odds are good that anyone running would be religious.

Sure, but a good chunk of them are nominal Christians. These are the ones who rarely enter a church, never really think about their beliefs but still say, "yeah, sure, I'm a Christian, I guess" when asked. Of course, there is a spectrum from these nominal Christians all the way up to those who define themselves via religion. The de facto requirement has shifted more towards the religion-as-THE-defining-principle end of that spectrum.

I think Barack is legitimately a man of faith and when interviewed by a Christian publication they're going to ask him about it.

That's a good point. I should have paid more attention to who conducted the interview and who their general readers would be. I read it as though I were reading the New York Times. That certainly makes less nauseating.

For a lot of Christians what a candidate believes is relevant, as relevant as their platform or any other issue.

My first question to those Christians would simply be, "Why?" I think too many of the Christians who find what a person believes about theological concerns as important as what a candidate believes about domestic and foreign policy also think that non-Christians are inherently less moral than Christians. This, as you know, is a conceited attitude that I abhor.

As far as his interpretation of Christianity being liberal, it sounds pretty mainstream, but what is "liberal" is the idea that that faith requires us to take certain social actions. So it is a case of his faith informing his actions.

That is exactly what I mean. A liberal interpretation of Christianity focuses more on the teachings of Jesus (mostly poverty, service, etc.) whereas conservatives focus more on the doctrinal aspects of the OT and Paul. Jesus never talked about abortion, homosexuality (or sexuality in general much at all), or invading other countries of different religions. It probably seems mainstream to you because you already know this. But there are a lot of Christians who believe that what some ancient Jews wrote (remarkably sparingly) about homosexuality is more important that what their God, Jesus, said about helping the poor. At least, that is the way they've been voting for the past few decades.

How would you have answered Chris Matthews' question to that Texas state senator about Obama's legislative accomplishments? (http://kansasbob.blogspot.com/2008/02/hardballing-obama.html)

Hello Kansas Bob,

here is a list of over 150 House bills and resolutions sponsored by Obama. The fact that the one man was unable to cite any of Obama's accomplishments when put on the spot is not sufficient evidence that he has none. here's one that even conservatives would appreciate.

Obama's amendment to provide meal and phone benefits was co-sponsored by Lindsey Graham. (Imagine that.)

More interesting is the in the present Congress alone, Obama and Clinton have sponsored/co-sponsored together on 233 bills and resolutions. It's over a third of all the bills and resolutions the Senate proposed this session.

Just added for info. I'm voting for Obama, in the interest of full disclosure.

Funny thing about Chris Matthews' question is that he couldn't answer it himself and Olbermann put him on the spot for it.