Bill Moyers Journal: How Responsible Are Candidates For The Views of Their Supporters?

« SEATTLE TIMES Reporter David Heath Answers Your Questions | Main | A National Taxpayers' Bill of Rights? »

How Responsible Are Candidates For The Views of Their Supporters?

After Pastor John Hagee of CUFI endorsed John McCain for President, some groups offended by his views called on the Senator to repudiate the endorsement. In response, McCain said today:

"We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."

John McCain isn't the only candidate to run into trouble over controversial support.

Barack Obama's campaign has repeatedly faced criticism about his Afrocentric church's connections with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, especially after the controversial minister publicly endorsed Obama. An Obama spokesman said:

"Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan's past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister's support."

Republican Representative Ron Paul came under fire for not returning a campaign contribution from the founder of a white supremacist Web site. A Paul spokesman said:

"If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money. Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom... And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does."

Some have questioned Senator Hillary Clinton over contributions she accepted from lobbyists and her support from corporate CEOs that led FORTUNE magazine to declare on their cover that "Business Loves Hillary!" Regarding the lobbyists, Clinton said:

"A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people. I don’t think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don’t think anybody seriously believes I’m going to be influenced by a lobbyist."

What do you think?

Should candidates accept endorsements and/or contributions solely from those with whom they entirely agree? Is this practical? Why or why not?

How responsible are candidates for the views of their supporters?

How much should political endorsers and/or contributors affect how voters perceive the platforms and views of the candidates they support?

Tag(s): election '08
Posted by Bill Moyers Journal on March 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1328

Comments

Are you fay or fau you spazzy spammer? People aren't gonna read all that crap. Almost everyone on here knows about polarization of wealth and the tendency of the population to mimic the wealthy. Quit blabbering and tell us what YOU are going to do, your part in fixing it. Some of us are ready to roll....

Posted by: Grady Lee Howard | October 9, 2008 2:56 PM

Amazing. The first ever global depression will go down in history horribly misunderstood. What a pathetic bunch of ignorant fools we have become. Consumer junkie credit card morons. Perfect little victims. Say that reminds me. Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold ALMOST 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, offshore accounts, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST ONE PERCENT HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for any of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within...

Posted by: fay | October 9, 2008 2:30 PM

I don’t find the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or theologians who belong to his church racist. They speak from a history of opposition to and analysis of our racially prejudiced culture. I hate watching Rev. Wright take the fall in this campaign. I do object to those who imply those of us who have reservations about Senator Obama’s qualifications for the presidency are ourselves racist. To some degree, Senator Obama and some of his supporters remind me of members of the Kennedy family in their relentless ambition and disregard for other members of the Democratic Party. I have never forgotten how Robert Kennedy divided the anti-war vote and eventual resulted in the election of Richard Nixon. I have not forgotten the disdain with which the Kennedy clan showed President Carter and President Clinton for that matter. Senator Obama might not be like members of the Kennedy clan, but he seems extraordinarily ruthless in his zeal to become president, especially when he seems to have surprisingly little experience to be president . Even though I will probably vote for Senator Obama, I will do that with regret. The contempt that his partisans have shown for people who supported Mrs. Clinton lingers like...

Posted by: Ted Michael Morgan | June 4, 2008 10:11 PM

I detest the intrusion of sectarian voices in our political campaigns. When the leaders of some denominations made an opposition to reproductive choice a vital matter for too many voters, I cringed. The matter simply goes from bad to worse. I wish that candidates had to courage to do what Senator Obama did when he separated himself from his former pastor. Still, I happen to like Rev. Wright much more than I like people like Billy Graham whose pandering to President Nixon alienated me from Rev. Graham, a man I had once admired. I believe that religion has a great role to play in our common life. I consider myself as a spiritual heir of Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Lehmann, and others.

Posted by: Ted Michael Morgan | June 3, 2008 6:47 PM

Well, I am not as bothered by the Rev. Mr. Wright as I have been from time to time by Billy Graham. Several important theologians belong to Trinity United Church of Christ. They are not necessarily out of the mainstream

Posted by: Ted Michael Morgan | June 3, 2008 6:38 PM

what is the deal with Obama and these preachers?...I've never heard such racists' comments in my life...I think there would be a public outcry if comments like these showed up on a rap album getting airplay, much less out of the mouths of these preachers!...Let's call it what it is: 'these guys are nuts'...fruity-tooty, living in their own worlds...and Obama shows up every week to drink it up...until someone says " uhh, you may wanna' distance yourself from these guys, cause it could hurt your chances of getting elected"...so, he cuts em' loose and denounces them...I don't know what's worse...Obama's unyielding commitment (one week) or his 'about-face back-turning' (only a week later), because of what the polls 'say'...That looks like (1)either a 20-year 'poor judge of character' or (2)'a poor excuse for a friend and ally'...either way, it's a damn poor excuse and in no way a presidential one...But then, we've gotten use to that type of thing, haven't we?...I'll have to agree with 'J Gaw' who posted here (apparently a well informed, independent 'thinking' woman - when she states: "Do not let the media sway the voters again, as they did in 2000, going with a personality. There will...

Posted by: Sir Vertual | June 3, 2008 6:00 PM

What a sweet, innocent exchange (Billy Bob vs Irene) below as contrasted to the mindless racism on the Jeremiah Wright page. If anything could ever induce me to get off my crippled ass and vote for Obama, those exchanges could, just to spite the fascist cabal. Meanwhile,I don't think Obama is responsible for my soulmate Jeremiah Wright anymore. Wright has made it pretty clear that his beliefs require he vote for Cynthia McKinney in November. He agrees with her on most everything and is not the pragmatic type, unlike myself.

Posted by: Jack Martin | April 29, 2008 1:55 PM

P.S. Yes, I recommend forgiveness, but not forgetfulness. I even advocate institutional reparations, from the wealthy to the entire working class. It's a matter of give and take: Rich boys give it, or we take it.

Posted by: Irene | April 14, 2008 4:48 PM

FYI Billy Bob: Black men were inducted into slavery by arrest (for loitering, trespassing, resisting) right up into the 1980s, though it slowed down some during WW II. And most of the debt peons of agriculture in the South right up into the 50s were Black families. It was easier to kill and replace these later unfortunates than people you bought and maintained. Two good books to catch you up are "Peonage In The Shadow Of Slavery" (Peter Daniel) and "Slavery By Another Name" (Douglas Blackmon). This is not to say Blacks in the rest of the country didn't do the dirtiest lowpayed jobs and get screwed out of education or advancement until the late 20th Century. Even now, if police want to find a perp , they grab the nearest Black. Hispanics (often termed "gangs" even when alone) are beginning to take more of the heat. Billy Bob, do you associate with minorities outside of work? Would you go to a mixed church? As for Jerimiah Wright, most of what he said was accurate. Just like Martin Luther King he is standing up for your rights too. He knows no American can be free with others in bondage. Obama...

Posted by: Irene | April 14, 2008 4:42 PM

To Irene Mar. 28 12:10 AM Clearly not your church! So, Jeremiah Wright did some good and, therefore, his paronoid, racist, hate message should be forgiven? OK--You may be right. There seem to be those that want to lay guilt & cost at the feet of some that were born 133 yrs. after the slavers were defeated in the Civil War--would you advise equal forgiveness? Good night Irene. Respectfully, Billy Bob, Florida where votes don't count unlike Chi-town where even the deads' count

Posted by: Billy Bob | April 11, 2008 5:00 PM

Time to torque some loose bolts and steer the discussion. New question: How responsible is Bill Moyers for his (?) choice of Journal guests and subject areas? We all are wondering. This week's piece on the Congo was highly sanitized, appropriate for use in any SBC Sunday School. Send money, not potatoes and bike parts parishoners. The boy who likened the effort to bailing a bottomless boat was cruel but had a point. The Congolese are informed moderm people just like our citizenry, and the powers that police,plan and profit from our world allowed or caused these horrible events. Americans must remember Katrina and the lost B-52 warheads, and realize big business is not protecting us either. If cowboy piracy corporatism is not brought under control like the raging fire it is, we are all gonna die or regress to primate colony existence. All you John Birch Juniors out their fearing world government, the UN or other management had better tighten you lug nuts and wise up. The Ron Paul Indian Fightin' Days are long over, and you can't hunt quail in a condo development despite the quaint names of the streets. We need a World Court now to prosecute...

Posted by: Grady Lee Howard | April 9, 2008 1:31 PM

As usual, Bill Moyers Journal continues to sidestep the endorser/supporter who's the elephant in the room this election. That would be Tony Rezko, on trial in Chicago right now. Obama's longtime relationship with this political fixer is so well-documented, yet underreported, it boggles the mind. And it's not as if the charges are unrelated to the candidate, either. "Extortion and influence peddling". It doesn't get any more blatant than that. (Actually, it does. The prosecutor in the case is Patrick Fitzgerald, the same guy who let Karl Rove and Dick cheney off the hook in the Valerie Plame leak case.) Moreover, with all of the Journal's interest in the Iraq War, the fact that Rezko got a loan from Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi in order to purchase the Obama estate does sort of appear relevant to the programming. If anyone's interested in following Obama's apparently endless money trail, click on my screen name.

Posted by: Factcheck2 | April 5, 2008 6:06 PM

Bravo, Clinton Freeman (good monikor for a Hillary man) How well you illustrate your own complaint.

Posted by: Jack Martin | March 29, 2008 11:17 AM

A candidate should only be only be held responsible for HIS or HER own views. Unfortunately, too many people believe AND REPEAT anything they feel can support their preexisting prejudices, no matter how irrational the argument is. (As discussed in a prior edition of "Journal.") Also, candidates should not be allowed to divert questions about THEIR behavior by blaming others, the way Sen. Obama made a question about HIS judgement a "question about race."

Posted by: Clinton Freeman | March 28, 2008 10:08 AM

I laughed and laughed this week at the "call and response" between John McCain and Joe Leiberman. Joe, take little wooden headed John on your knee, grasp his neck lever firmly and talk without moving your lips. See how easy that is, works much better. McCain: I just flew back from the middle east. Leiberman: No wonder your arms look so tired. McCain: I don't know much about e-con-o-me... Leiberman: But he's good on female lobbyist biology.., McCain: But I do know we can fight 3 wars at once... Leiberman: What bullcrap, Johnny,you're a dunce (throws dummy on ground). McCain: And people will vote for me out of pity...(Whispers:"Good show, Joe.)

Posted by: Gladiola Victrola | March 28, 2008 12:29 AM

Billy Bob from hot ol' Florida- Do you ever even go to church? I can guarantee you that crazy talk goes around in every congregation, and the gossip is even dirtier. This year I found agendas under every new Easter hat, most of them crazy. It's not fear of God keeping truth out of church, but fear of backstabbing and ostracism. It's hard enough to pay the tithe to remain a club member in good standing. Only the networking and counter vouching gives church value. I doubt 20% of members really believe all the mumbo-jumbo. Billy Bob, America ain't such a great place anymore, and most people know it, just ashamed or afraid to say. Jesus is probably up there having a belly laugh about flag lapel pins. Would you like one, Billy Bob? And a Ralph Nader button? To wear to church? Did you know Jeremiah Wright is a retired Marine who converts inner city Muslims? No cred to Barack...

Posted by: Irene | March 28, 2008 12:10 AM

Very impressive, heart rending!

Posted by: Iris flowers | March 26, 2008 5:39 PM

Your program centered on the film "Body of War" was moving and significant. I'm advising my relatives and friends to watch it. At the end you say that one can find local showings of "Body of War" on your web site. I couldn't find this information. Could you tell me where to look. Thanks.

Posted by: Peter Jamgochian | March 23, 2008 1:40 PM

A picture is stronger that 1,000 words--we saw the movie & heard the words & the message was not out of context, as many have tried to tell us, & they try to say that what we saw & heard was not what we saw & heard & anyway it is justified. RonP 3-21 2:03PM Who is trying to think for whom? Seems as though someone got caught with their hand in the cookie jar of spin, denial, deception, & etc. Americans' free speech from the extreme left or right is sure to upset some, BUT, to have a candidate for nomination for the democratic party affirm his long time mentor & say that the message was not unusual causes me to question how well the mid-stream & right wing would be representated if your candidate becomes pres. Europeans received death threats from bin ladin for a "cartoon"! I reject Wright's paranoid msg. & if being considered an unthinking child is the reaction I must endure then so be it. In my view, God has blessed The United States & I am thankful for the different views expressed this election year and trust far greater blessings that having a black...

Posted by: Billy Bob | March 22, 2008 10:35 AM

Unfortunately too many of us will with our esteem and inferiority complexes stay stuck on Sen. Obama's relationship with Trinity Church of Christ and Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. until it's dealt with in a healthy way. Too bad it's the senator's campaign that has to bear the brunt of these vicious attacks but, thank you Barack for taking the high road in spite of it all. At last here is an opportunity for the news media to do what their profession expects from them; search for the truth, report it and take to task colleagues who threaten the integrity of the profession. Below are links to the Christmas Day 2007 Sermon at Trinity Church of Christ by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., which FOX News acquired and disingenuously used to intentionally create a false and unrepresentative caricature of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., and by association Barack Obama. This was the service with the Hillary comment towards the end of the sermon. Unfortunately people are too lazy to think critically any more, and continue to fall prey to news commentators with extreme mal intent who continue to treat us as immature children who allow others to think for us. Part...

Posted by: RonP | March 21, 2008 2:03 PM

Rev. Wright tells it like it is. Obama has to pussyfoot because he's "sellin' the product" to ignorant masses. If you listened to "Winter Soldier" this weekend you know about racism and genocide, and that it has never stopped. Next they will be herding up foreclosees and credit debtors for slavery and extermination right here at home. If it makes a profit the elite don't care about your color or any other trait. Hatred is hatred and self-defense is self-defense. Arab baiting is hatred, mobilization of the oppressed is self-defense. Hagee: hate; Wright: self-defense. I would rather attend Wright's church than Hagee's: I'd feel safer and more welcome with Wright. It is Obama who is perpetuating a goody-goody myth when he would be powerless as a puppet president. I'm a white guy and I'm scared, scared of property grabbing police, Blackwater and other paramilitaries, false flag attackers and the mobster monsters at the top with all the wealth. (Penny Pritzger- look her up.)

Posted by: Griffin Jones | March 20, 2008 11:56 AM

When I heard Wright's paranoid, race biased, hate message, I was concerned. But, when I heard Obama & black ministeries attempting to justify Wright's hate message as normal in black churches around this country I became alarmed! Obama may not be a racist, but he clearly is a politician. The winds of controversy around Obama's close relationship, & vow to continue it, with his long time pastor Wright make it difficult for Obama to maintain his balance between the black vote and the non-black vote. Obama will say anything & associate with anyone that he feels is necessary for him to get to the White House. Sounds like "The Clintons". Where is the CHANGE? Why are we talking about only 3 choices this early in the year? Because the national parties have conspired to end-run the Constitution by making "rules" where a few small States eliminate those candidates not approved by the behind-the-scenes power brokers! This results in USA citizens voting from a select few candidates. Wasn't this covered recently in our news about Russia's recent election? Just the facts mama! Senator Nelson, of Florida, is drafting legislation to address this problem. However, The Constitution handles it, the people have...

Posted by: Billy Bob | March 20, 2008 9:57 AM

General FYI re: candidates and the political ramifications of their religious affiliations, in specific instances: The story about Hillary Clinton's long (since 1993) membership in "The Fellowship", also know as the "Family" is being largely ignored. The story was covered by respected publications such as Mother Jones in 2007, and has just been brought up again on Huffington Post. This group is much more than a religious group; it has very clear agendas regarding the power of the elite not only here in the U.S., but worldwide. Please investigate this story so that we the public can be better informed about the agenda of this (in their own words, "invisible") organization which Clinton and numerous other U.S. and world politicians and leaders belong to. This affiliation has more significant ramifications than the Obama-Wright concerns, which have been reported on so extensively. Given your time spent informing us about that issue, I hope you will give this at least equal time. (For the record, I also think that McCain's increasingly deep ties to the religious right, and his contradictory stance on that group since at least 2000, is also at least very significant and in need of more investigation, again, because...

Posted by: SRT | March 20, 2008 1:19 AM

Becky, I agree with you, Mccain is no better-with the hagee and co. So the only choice left is Hillary Clinton. If the Rev. Wright comments/or pastor Hagee-Were aligned with Hillary-the Media would be all over it. they would be giving it round the clock coverage. Cspan'washington journal had two people on the program this am who are obama supports-and of course they had nothing good to say about Hillary. the two groups were the nation mag. and Michelle? from the independent womens orga.-and she didn't have anything good to say about Hillary. so I say no to obama and pastor wright, and no to mccain and pastor hagee. Hillary is the only one qualified to lead this country-everyone knows it. she runs circles around obama and mccain on the issues confronting this country. and she is fighting a uphill battle. the media is no help-she is trying to help the american people in spite of themselves. America please lets not cut off our nose to spite our face. Let Hillary lead this country. Not much conversation on this site. go to abc-jake tapper-political punch.I hope there are some statesmen (women)among the superdelegates and will do what is right for...

Posted by: j gaw | March 17, 2008 11:18 AM

We have the lying con artists of politics joining forces with the lying con artists of religion. If people ever wake up and realize they are being controled by the very religions they were born in and see these men for what they are, then maybe this world will stand a chance at survival. Mr. Moyers, you need to run the documentary you did with Joseph Cambell. John Hagee is evil incarnate and I can barely stand to hear his voice. McCain is no better.

Posted by: Becky | March 17, 2008 1:18 AM

I do not understand, as an African-american female I will repeat what I have been saying-ever since I heard obama speak-and watched him in debate. People we do not want some one else in the White House who cannot think on their feet when dealing with the issues. When we listen to Rev. Wright saying the things he has said, and accept obama just saying I distance myself from him now, because I never heard any of the things he is saying-wake up people-I looked at the web site-the church is pro pro black-How can a person claim to be a uniter of people when he goes to church and listens to such as that? We need to read Shelby Steeles book "A bound Man: why we like obama and why he can't win. Do not let the media sway the voters again, as they did in 2000, going with a personality. There will be more-we need to quickly ask the hard questions of obama, because we are fast running out of time. Listen closely to Hillary Message, Obama copies everything she does. Again I say you cannot listen to Rev. wright and he is your spiritual mentor and not...

Posted by: j gaw | March 15, 2008 8:22 PM

I am a white female but I have little issue with Rev. White's comments because 1)terrorism did not begin in America on 911. Native Americans and black slaves experienced terrorism at the hands of white Americans. 2)Pres. Reagan sent arms to the Afghan rebels in their fight against the Soviets. Osama bin Laden was a leader of the Afghans and he expected to lead the attack against Iraq after their invasion of Kuwait but was angered when Saudis aligned with America instead. Bin Laden used our own weapons against us, which is so often the case. 3)Long-standing American support for the corrupt government of the Shaw of Iran infuriated Iranians & helped fuel an anti-American backlash there with the installation of Khomeni. These are only a few instances where American "chickens have come home to roost." If we Americans knew our history, we might begin to understand where the anti-American sentiment originates instead of thinking we are always on the side of good and others are either on our side or part of an "axis of evil."

Posted by: Kathleen | March 15, 2008 1:33 PM

I think the Obama's relationship with his pastor, Rev. White, is a very different situation than that of McCain recieving an endorsement from a preacher whom McCain is otherwise not affiliated with. In Obama's case, I do think it is unbelievable for him to try to step away from his own pastor for 20 years! (The same pastor who married Obama and baptized his children.) This is a man Obama chose to be affiliated with for 20 years ... not just an endorsement from a fringe person in his life. Let's hear more from the preacher so we can understand the spiritual guidence that he values. Why is Obama hiding the faith he has practiced for 2 decades? Why isn't Obama isn't being honest about his faith? This is the church and pastor he has supported for 20 years, it is a valid issue to understand the man who is running on judgement and character.

Posted by: Anne Greene | March 15, 2008 1:00 PM

I don't agree with everything Rev. wright said. But considering his take on 9/11: what really bugs me is some people acting like there's no truth to the fact that our foreign policy, and our domestic policy for that matter, has caused deep distrust on the part of non-white and poor people. Someone on another blog claimed I wanted people on 9/11 to have died because I mentioned this. That disgusts me. We're back to calling traitor and treason to anyone who wants to speak the ugly truth. Some white Americans would rather just keep their heads in the sand about our role in the world and how this country's history of racism has created such a different perspective of our country for African Americans or Native Americans.

Posted by: Lesley | March 15, 2008 10:53 AM

Many 9/11 Truthers supported Ron Paul with all the resources at their disposal. Ron Paul publicly denounced the Truth Movement more than once. Why should he refuse my money if I still chose to give it knowing his position? I completely despise McCain but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If he publicly denounces this religious extremist, and Hagee's radical followers still send support, #1) Why should he refuse it? #2) How could he refuse it?

Posted by: Jack Heginbotham | March 15, 2008 2:50 AM

Regarding CUFI, I find it frightening that people in this country are so gullible that they are willing to be party to this type of religiosity. Several of my friends here in Ohio told us that their 'pastors' told them to vote for Senator Clinton on Super Duper Tuesday.... Doesn't any American know how to think for themselves anymore? I love the Journal!

Posted by: jonakron | March 14, 2008 6:52 PM

Normally I would not hold statements by supporters against a candidate. I was considering voting for Obama until I heard the hateful and racist comments of his minister. If Obama had gotten up and walked out of that church never to return I would probably be more apt to vote for him. Just saying he "disagrees" is not enough for me.

Posted by: Robert Wood | March 14, 2008 11:27 AM

I’m heart sickened and bogged down by the democratic blog bashing tactics of Karl Rove type supporters. The cock sure posture surrounding the arrogant sophistication of ignorance, rising up in words tempered by a culture rooted deep in deceit. The lisping slip of a wicked wagging tongue steadfast cast in bitterness, turned twisted in certainty then hardened in hatred seething with menacing dark shadows, stirring in the fires of inner silence. The banging pang rearing up in the crushing rush of a raging roar, poised to sway the vision of perception.

Posted by: pedro santos | March 14, 2008 11:15 AM

Since when is Louis Farrakhan considered on The Left?!!!

Posted by: Amneris | March 13, 2008 8:16 AM

• Should candidates accept endorsements and/or contributions solely from those with whom they entirely agree? Is this practical? Why or why not? Obviously, in a Democratic Republic, where the political objective is to garner the most voter support for your candidacy, it would be disadvantageous to cavalierly dismiss the endorsements or contributions from groups which you may have some political disagreements. Any shrewd politician will have to make a political calculation and determine what are the potential political costs and benefits of such a public alliance. Naturally, if the potential political costs outweigh the potential political benefits, then it would be politically practical to distance his or her self from the group or individual in question. • How responsible are candidates for the views of their supporters? Because of my belief in the freedom of speech as being a right that is extended to all Americans, it is nearly impossible to hold a candidate responsible for the mainstream or radical views of their supporters. In short, an individual’s viewpoint is just that – the viewpoint of that individual, but not necessarily the viewpoint of the candidate. • How much should political endorsers and/or contributors affect how voters perceive the platforms...

Posted by: James Monroe Powell | March 13, 2008 2:18 AM

I would like to see Hillary' civil rights record-next to obama-then we will see who should be getting the black vote. I am black-and I am appalled at the fact black people are just blindly voting for obama, without knowing anything about where he has stood in the past. I say while we are spending so much time talking about what surrogates are saying. someone should be looking a little closers to see if obams IS really qualified to be president in these terible times. Hillary has shown what a good leader she is by the mere fact-she is driving this election-everyone is hanging on to her every word-the media-obama copying everything she does-why?-because everyone knows she is more qualified that obama or mccain to lead this country. she runs circles around both of them on the issues. Black people are not voting their interest-obama is going to have so many people he is beholding to if he gets into office-he will not be able to get anything done-especially for black people and the poor. a lot of obama supports-it does not matter a lot to them who is in office. Deniro,wil-i-am, all of those people. they will go on...

Posted by: j gaw | March 13, 2008 12:28 AM

To Sandra Noble 3-13 12:07PM & Michael Caddell 3-11 12:35AM You may find Independant Lens' "An Unreasonable Man" aired on PBS, to be enlightening, if you are not familiar with Ralph Nader's political positions. For decades he has told us of our loss of rights to big money. I thought of Nader as a consumer protectionist , but did not consider his politics until I happened to see the above story. Respectfully, Billy Bob, Florida

Posted by: Billy Bob | March 12, 2008 11:13 AM

It seems like Obama is the only candidate that is not entrenched with the pro-Israel lobby. It'll be more of the same if John McCain or Hillary Clinton is elected.

Posted by: lmj | March 12, 2008 2:45 AM

President of IRAN embraced by ORTHODOX JEWS? I STILL ADORE THIS VIDEO OF President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being embraced,and praised, by so many Orthodox Jews. Can I post the link here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR-jaFegt5w Thank you

Posted by: JJ | March 11, 2008 10:31 PM

The End-timers are about to go back to their backwoods chapels with the coming redoubt in November 2008. They know that Bush ruined their chances of a theocratic dictatorship in America, as much as they wanted it since Reagan. In Kansas a very powerful backlash is brewing against social conservatives who have focused on a "Christian Nation" rather than fiscal responsibility. By contantly cutting taxes, bankrupting the state, time and time again after over twenty years of this folly, even old school Republicans are turning against them and either leaving the party and going over to Democrats or going independent. So goes Kansas so goes the Republican party ... and it ain't pretty what's taking shape here. A fine and usually funny lady at my local wine store said it best last Friday evening on my home from work. She said, "My Lord what are people out here going to do with gas at $4 a gallon? People aren't going to be able to make it, we'll be stealing from each other just to get to work." She also had some choice words about the rising prices of food and of course beer. People are going to be forced in...

Posted by: Michael Caddell | March 11, 2008 12:35 AM

Not all Christians support the views of John Hagee. I don't see preemptive strike as Christian doctrine. There isn't a lot of Love or charity in the remarks of John Hagee. Mr. Hagee needs to spend more time with Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Read the letters from Paul. Maybe a little fasting would help too. Not all Christians support the views of John Hagee. I don't see preemptive strike as Christian doctrine. There isn't a lot of Love in the remarks of John Hagee. Mr. Hagee needs to spend more time with Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Read the letters from Paul. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 1- Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2- And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. KJV Mr. Hagee seems angry. Maybe some time spent in meditation and prayer would help. A little fasting would help too. I don’t think John McCain should be held responsible...

Posted by: Bob Wold | March 11, 2008 12:13 AM

What ever happened to thou shall not kill"? Bush says he is Christian McCain says he is Christian Hagee says he is Christian All three think pre-emptive war is a good thing. Am I missing something?

Posted by: Michael | March 10, 2008 6:17 PM

In a country where the media is controlled by a handfull of corporations how can any of us expect to hear the truth on any subject? Who endorses who is relevant if the endorsement is accepted with no spoken reservations. I see that McCain is willing to do anything to become President. This should strike fear into the hearts of any informed citizen and demonstrates a willingness on his part to change his rhetoric to meet the expectations of the group he happens to be addressing at the time. In short, he sold out!

Posted by: Sandra Noble | March 10, 2008 12:07 PM

This is unbelievable. The fact that any of these christian fundamentalist wackos are being listened to at all or given any voice whatsoever is shocking. I just don't understand how anyone can believe them. I don't understand why there is not more of a backlash against this offensively moronic and violently dangerous rhetoric. This has made me lost what little faith I had in humanity. I am just so completely baffled - please please explain to me why the religious nuts have proliferated - is it because our educational system and entertainment conglomerate have made such driveling morons out of americans? Where are the sane rational enlightened lobbyists? What happened to secular politics? Why do the secularist advocates just lie down and let these religious fanatics and bigots walk all over them?

Posted by: Morgan Pecelli | March 10, 2008 1:21 AM

Rachel, I agree with you. There are many instances of people of the liberal persuasion smearing Christians and dismissing the importance of faith in general, but I am a christian and John Hagee frightens me. If you watched the Moyer's show you would have seen christians waving American flags and cheering wildly as Hagee calls for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. When you mix God and the flag like that, it's kind of like idolatry and blasphemy.

Posted by: JohnW | March 10, 2008 12:42 AM

Bill, would you please run a program on the topic of the logical reasons that voters must have full disclosure from the candidate now, in the primaries, not when they are the general election candidate. Take a look at this from YouTube as a place to begin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzzJspLOxHE

Posted by: Mary Nitkowski | March 9, 2008 5:05 PM

You pay/take the money and take your chances . . . You make/take the endorsement and take your chances. Or maybe it's as mom used to say - "They'll know you by the company you keep." Pastor Hagee and senator McCain need each other. Senator McCain needs pastor Hagee's influence for votes. Pastor Hagee needs McCain's acceptance to help generate those votes. They will note their endosement and acceptance as it becomes expedient and qualify it when necessary. There is one thing to keep in mind as more "religious content" enters political process. We have a participatory democracy, this does not work well with any one religion or religious view. When political influence is gained, religion and the religious will dictate, not participate. History; ancient ,medieval and modern bears that out. A good example of the use of that influence is trying to get their "endorsee" to load the Supreme court with judges whose conservative political and religious views are hoped to have more influence over their decisions than the precedent of law.

Posted by: Gerry E. Powell | March 8, 2008 10:40 PM

This is yet another distraction from the catastrophe that looms in this presidential race. Since the G.O.P. arranged his U.S. senate election in 2004, the Obama candidacy has functioned as the "weapons of mass destruction" equivalent for Karl Rove and the neoconservatives in their quest to hold onto the White House in 2008. The paper trail linking the two camps is endless, but simply not being reported by Bill Moyers Journal or any other outlet. Rove knew he had the perfect foil in choosing an African American to run against the first viable woman candidate. And when it comes to reporting the truth, the fallout of a racism accusation is enough to shutter the lips of even the most fervent anti-war activist. Click on my screen name for a link to an article that outlines what Rove is up to.

Posted by: Factcheck2 | March 8, 2008 10:33 PM

How responsible are the candidates for disclosing their own tax returns, especially when they "lend" their campaign $5 million? Petition Clinton to disclose her tax returns. In the comment section suggest asking that she please also disclose her records as First Lady and her and her husband's $500 million charity which also employed some of their key campaign staffers and received tens of millions in donations from their top campaign donors. http://www.petitiononline.com/hcinctax/petition.html

Posted by: Duck Soup | March 8, 2008 6:48 PM

A Comment on Content First your own words: You're going to have your hands full, frankly. I don't need to tell you of the gloomy scenarios being written for your time. Three books on my desk right now question whether human beings will even survive the 21st century. Just listen to their titles: The Long Emergency: Surviving the Convergence Catastrophe; Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed; The Winds of Change: Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations. I'm sure you are aware of 'Peak Oil'. When will the Journal discuss this most important debate? Since it's another of those topics that might get a couple of hours on cable a year (along with overpopulation) shouldn't someone at PBS say something also?

Posted by: Lee Wells | March 8, 2008 12:07 PM

After watching John Hagee on Bill Moyers I came away disturbed and frightened that people like Hagee have so much influence over politicians and foreign policy.I believe that he and his fellow wackos are more dangerous than any terrorist and must be repudiated and their influence negated.

Posted by: Steve Capizzi | March 8, 2008 11:52 AM

Yikes, this Hagee guy is nuts! A religious wing nut(notice I did not say Christian). My opinion is that Hagee is not what he seems---figure that one out for yourself. McCain would do better to stay away from this guy and all other religious nuts like him. He needn't stay away from the church or the church's support, just nutjobs like Hagee. Each candidate ought to check out those throwing support to them in order to see what kind of agenda they represent to the rest of the electorate. Accountability and integrity begins with these simple measures of review of supporters. Money is important to a campaign, but not at a price of ones own integrity.

Posted by: Rob Mitchell | March 8, 2008 11:44 AM

Yipe! Hagee is a definitely a religious wing nut--not Christian in my opinion. There is a big difference. He sounds just like Robertson, Dobson, and the late Falwell. Read Gary Wills "What Jesus Meant" and you will see reasoning and compassion and more of the mind of Christ than you could from Hagee or Dobson. As to contributioins and support, the candidates are responsible to know the platform and political views of those throwing support and money behind their campaigns. To have any integrity these candidates need to do this at the very least. Then they can decide to endorse those endorsing them, or repudiate and refuse their support.

Posted by: Rob | March 8, 2008 11:38 AM

I try to evaluate how much influence the person has on the official--do they seem to have the ear of the candidate? OJ Simpson does not have any influence. A lobbiest, CEO? It would seem they would have the ear and therefore some influence. In McCain's case, he clearly listens to and praises these charlatan preachers--in true Karl Rove-ian fashion, he desperately needs their followers' votes , of course.

Posted by: Greg | March 8, 2008 11:33 AM

American's are afraid. The Republicans are afraid of radical Islam and the Democrats are afraid of the economy. McCain is capitalizing on the fear of terrorism and Clinton is capitalizing on the fear of the economy. Americans, I fear will vote for whomever panders to fear their fears. I don't feel Americans are ready to come together peacefully and work together for a united, prosperous and peaceful country and world. It may be that those of us who yearn for change and hope may be naive to think that Obama could win.

Posted by: Jim Conner | March 8, 2008 8:30 AM

OJ Simpson has endorsed Hillary(no kidding, look it up). Who cares? It's the endorsements that a candidate welcomes, like McCain Hagee, that are interesting.

Posted by: John Smith | March 8, 2008 4:38 AM

Come on. Farrakhan endorses Obama, and explains in full that he is "hopeful" when he sees the change he represents. I'd be interested to know what particular things he's so happy about, I suppose, but it's not like he's endorsing Obama's friendlyness for a specific Nation of Islam agenda. Hagee endorses McCain, and hails his Israel- policy, his Iran policy, and plugs the conservative mainline by announcing that being Strong on terror is a virtue. In other words, Hagee has found a politician that clearly agrees with him on central issues, and therefore endorses the candidate. And it just doesn't help for McCain to suggest Hagee has "come over" to the republicans when that is the case. So this is not the same thing. And why is that so difficult to point out? So where are the headlines with "McCain and right- wing theologian agree on fundamental foreign policy- issues"? "Crazed minister has the same foreign policy agenda as presumptive republican nominee"? *shakes head* You know - it's depressing. It's really depressing what america has managed to do with itself over the past ten years. Seriously - before we could at least pretend to like you once in a while...

Posted by: fenris | March 8, 2008 4:10 AM

Nutjob Pastor John Hagee endorses McCain, McCain returns compliment: http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=85521 Senator McCain and his admiral father sold out the USS Liberty crew for Israel (see www.ussliberty.org as well): http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Hughes0712.htm February 12, 2008 John McCain and the Neocon Resurgence http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=12345 Fallon 'may lose job over Iran war' http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=46317§ionid=3510203 Latest on coming war with Israel: http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=71055 The Clinton Years Revisited (look at all the Israel firsters in Clinton's regime, so the neocons won't have any problem with a Hillary presidency either!:) http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=12418 Obama is owned by the pro-Israel lobby as well: http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_12_03/cover.html

Posted by: James Morris | March 8, 2008 3:08 AM

I do not think that endorsements should ever reflect badly on the politician. If David Duke were to endorse Barrack Obama, I would take that as a sign of inclusive persuasiveness on Obamas side. If Senator McCain had secured Minister Louis Farrahkan's endorsement, I would have applauded them both. I think that endorsements like Super Delegates (I always think of spandex and capes.) shouls be considered an votes that show that someone with influence has been persuaded, little more.

Posted by: Scott L. Sammons | March 8, 2008 2:58 AM

Rep. Ron Paul Stands Alone (defying AIPAC) in Voting Against Gaza Bill (see the latest CNI send about Dr. Paul's courage which is included below after the following): 'Going after Syria and Iran would be right in accordance with the rest of the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda as discussed by James Bamford (who is the most respected intelligence author/writer in America) in his 'A Pretext for War' book (see the 'A Clean Break' link at the top of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM as the following is the direct link for it): 'A Clean Break': http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rep. Ron Paul Stands Alone (defying AIPAC) in Voting Against Gaza Bill: On Wednesday, March 5, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 951, which condemns the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, holding both Iran and Syria responsible for "sponsoring terror attacks." Additionally, the resolution claims that "those responsible for launching rocket attacks against Israel routinely embed their production facilities and launch sites amongst the Palestinian civilian population, utilizing them as human shields …". For the full text of House Resolution 951, please click here: http://cnifoundation.org/images/stories/HR_951.pdf This resolution problematically includes a strong defense of the recent Israeli incursions in Gaza. The following is...

Posted by: James Morris | March 8, 2008 2:55 AM

The more I learn about John McCain the less of a "straight shooter" I see. McCain's challenge appears to be three-pronged. To secure a sufficient number from the base, he has to create a perception of right-wing-nut bone ides to mollify Limbaugh and friends (prolife constructionist judges). Then he has to make a slight left turn to capture a sufficient enough of the independents (national security). Then, he has to take an even harder left turn to appeal to anybody dumb enough to "believe" (global warming and energy independence) on either coast in the hopes of capturing a purple or, God-forbid, blue state. Gosh, his (and Liebermann's) empty words have inspired me already. Rachel: You'll never catch me dismissing the Bible as nothing more than entertainment. No. I prefer the full monty of blasphemy and choose to call it crap. Thanks for the threatening words, anyway. singsing: Judging by your indecipherable diatribe, I'm guessing the moniker reflects a state of mind. Right? Paula: McCain wasn't looking for Hagee's money. He was looking for the votes the good paster could deliver. Public financing with 527's is laughable.

Posted by: Ian Macgregor | March 8, 2008 1:48 AM

Bill Moyers is aptly conversant with the philanthropic side of the legitimate expression of Christianity. He is also well aware that the American Religious Right has an ignoble history of shameless self-promoters. I for one am most grateful that someone in the U.S. media is not afraid to blow the whistle on the curious bond between state and church that has developed in America which we in Canada find more entertaining than what the late night TV comedy script-writers can conceive.

Posted by: Canucklehead | March 8, 2008 1:34 AM

I'm enraged and disgusted at the constant use of the terms "extremist" and "dangerous" being used to describe Christians!You "sheeple" need to try authentic individuality and ivestigate for yourselves what Christians have done for thousands of years and will continue to do for society. We are not dangerous and we are not the "threat" you should be worried about! Are you all familiar with every aspect of John Hagee's ministry and others like him? Most likely not. Countless lives of missionaries have been sacrificed to bring the love of Jesus to the far reaches of the earth in the form of food,clean drinking water, warm clothing, education and every form of compassion you could dream up. Our Christian churches continue to humbly and quietly provide outreach to society's rejected and down-trodden. Just recently, my church (in one night)gave an offering of over $20,000.00 to a ministry that rescues girls who are sold into sex slavery. When many secular charity groups perform these types of acts of generosity they usually have a camera catching it all. The problem with my fellow Christians is that we need to stand up and defend ourselves. Somewhere along the way, it became acceptable to "Christian...

Posted by: Rachel | March 8, 2008 1:10 AM

What scares me is the fact that, as a graduate student of international relations and particularly as a student of the intersection between religion and politics, I have found in my research frighteningly striking similarities between the "theology" and politics of such U.S. "Christian" political clerics as Hagee and the "theology" and politics of "Islamic" political clerics such as the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. For instance, the ideology of the political "Islamic" cleric Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution (who was, first and foremost, a politician and only secondarily an Islamic cleric), relied upon tapping into religous belief and fervor and religious or theological means for purely political ends. Khomeini provided religious or theological justification for combatting secularism and a "holy war" against U.S. political and economic dominance over Iran [U.S. imperialism] and its perceived agents, the Shah and Israel. Likewise, the ideology of "Christian" political clerics such as Hagee (who also is, first and foremost, a politician and only secondarily a "Chrisitian" cleric) also relies upon tapping into religous belief and fervor and religious or theological means for purely political ends. Hagee provides religious or theological justification for combatting secularism and a U.S. "holy war...

Posted by: Stephanie Riccobene | March 8, 2008 12:51 AM

There you go again ... Your CUFI program was captivating for a moment. Then your producers bigotry shown through compromising your veneer of objectivity. After which, I could not tolerate viewing your blatant HATE PROPAGANDA any further. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/watch.html Ahmadinejad may be a fundamentalist ideologue, but he did not explicitly call for Israel to be wiped off the map as you "QUOTE" he did. Check your sources and the translation again. Ahmadinejad did not say “wipe Israel off the map” He was purposefully demonized by the media as well as the bush administration and their right wing cronies. http://snipr.com/ocupyingregimevanish I expect you will come away with the same interpretation just as may continue to proclaim that the USA is founded on Christian values and the US was defeated Vietnam because of the press, or wasn't defeated at all. WHAT"S YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION? Aren't you aware of the fact that you are promoting genocide, or are you just STUPID?!!!!!!!! That's a rhetorical question since you are convince that the "OFFICIAL" 9/11 story about FLYING KAMIKAZE CAVEMEN beating NORAD/NEADS and WTC7 collapsed symmetrically at freefall speed from scattered diesel fires is true. MILITANT ZIONIST WARMONGER BONEHEADS IN LEFTIST CLOTHING ABOUND!!!

Posted by: singsing | March 7, 2008 10:32 PM

I was sadden when Tim Russert ask Sen Obama about denouncing of Minister Farrahkan, even though it had nothing to do with the issues, there haven't been anything about Sen Obama having dealings with Mr Farrahkan in the past, Tim Russert had never ask any other canidate that question, then John Hagee gave his support for John McCain and you haven't seen Tim Russert or the so call main street media ask him in detail about the support from Hagee, and John McCain have not denounce Hagee yet, I guess the media is going to let him get away with that, my guess McCain can do no wrong in the main street so call media.

Posted by: Jerry | March 7, 2008 10:21 PM

It is too bad Hagee left off auctioneering. But seriously, these ppl have forgotten that Israel was a republic of judges, and adopted monarchy, which, as I recall, displeased God, and the country fell to the Philistines, although the Biblical spin doctors have left different interpretations behind in the scripture. St Paul had the last word on this idea of Christianity in Romans (esp Chap 9), which Hagee has specifically denounced. I don't know if McCain is an incipient fascist or not. I doubt it. But Eisenhower had to put up with McCarthy during his campaign, yet he left no uncertainty about what he thought of him in private. Personally, I agree with New Orleans Mayor Nagin that the hurricane was God's judgment on US environmental policy, not on the city's sexual policy. BTW, Hagee was defrocked by Assemblies of God for his divorce on grounds of infidelity. I think it is hard for any of the surviving Vietnam generation to think, as many did then, like Curtis LeMay, but I do think he knows as well as they should that we lost in Vietnam after we had, for all practical purposes, won, when we did not stick it out...

Posted by: RE Mant | March 7, 2008 10:07 PM

Endorsement by a religious leader seems like an invitation to jihad. Hagee owns his church, literally. The size limitation on the House of Representatives should be lifted. Look at the size of Canada's Parliament, or Great Britain's House of Commons. Triple the size of the House, cut their budgets and staff by a third each. Throw out the desks, and put them in bleachers. What were the founders intentions? Two Senators per state, and one congressman per 10,000 citizens. Why did you leave out Senator John Cornyn, sharing the pulpit; a worthy successor to the smarmy, fed fat at the government teat, Phil Gramm? Cornyn has trash-talked as much as any right-wing radio nazi. Don't you miss Ralph Yarborough, and Henry B.?

Posted by: georgepwebster | March 7, 2008 10:03 PM

gluttony, greed, pride. No wonder Hagee's so down on Catholics. He's headed straight to Hell.

Posted by: georgepwebster | March 7, 2008 9:27 PM

Private special interest money polluting the election process for years, big media providing a public platform for the two major parties only, fifty state election laws with fifty different registration rules for everyone except the candidates of the two major parties, and voting stations with partisan polling judges that discriminate against certain ethnic groups who characteristically don’t vote for their political interests. No wonder only a minority of the population votes with that number decreasing in every election. At what point do we cease to be a Democracy, or have we already crossed that line? Ralph Nader is right, this process has ceased to be a Democratic Election and looks increasingly like a coronation of a candidate from the current two-party duopoly!

Posted by: Richard | March 7, 2008 9:20 PM

I am actually surprised that McCain has accepted Hagee's support uncritically. It could be (McCain expects)that Hagee will find a way to campaign through his extensive media outlets with no enforcement. "In the day" broadcast license holders would have hesitated to carry Hagee's fear and hate mongering, but it seems acceptable over the air as well as on cable now. Having endorsed McCain he can now tell superstitious viewers how to vote without mentioning names (and stay within regulations), so that his religious tax exempt status is not threatened. The real revelation will come when a McCain running mate is chosen. Should it be Sen. Joe Lieberman (who seems crazier all the time to non-CUFI voters)the die is cast and McCain becomes an extremist candidate with the potential to divide Americans more severely than ever. Israel's disinterest in a fair settlement is a millstone around our necks that could drown us in a time of financial and military overextension, especially under such an injustice enabling regime. It remains to be seen, but maybe Obama and Clinton will commit gaffs just as insane as those of McCain. Anyway, public finance won't cure mental illness.

Posted by: Jack martin | March 7, 2008 9:16 PM

If campaigns were publicly financed, all these questions would be moot, and candidates would not have to pretend that their endorsers and lobbyist payoffs didn't influence them. Unfortunately, winning candidates will never vote for public financing, because they are influenced by their endorsers and lobbyist payoffs.

Posted by: Paula | March 7, 2008 8:29 PM

Candidates are responsible for the endorsements they embrace, and to show that money they receive is not going to influence their judgment. If John Hagee speaks out in favor of John McCain, that shouldn't matter. If John Hagee sends large amounts of money to John McCain's campaign, directly and indirectly (through "bundling"), it raises the question of what play he expects for his pay; the easiest way to avoid this question is to return the donations. If John McCain publicly welcomes the endorsement of John Hagee, it is reasonable for voters to assume that John McCain is endorsing Hagee's values and to vote accordingly.

Posted by: Max Kaehn | March 7, 2008 6:07 PM