Religion: good or bad for presidential candidates?

http://usnationalgoverment.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-am-not-against-religion.html
A blog from a fellow classmate for my Government class. It is very well argued but I would debate the idea of getting rid of religion within presidential candidates and politics.

Religion is a topic of controversial discussion among many, if not all, American citizens. The United States has set a long tradition of separating church from state, yet somehow tends to intertwine within politics.

Is it a bad thing? Let us start with the publics view on this. According to an August 2007 poll (http://pewforum.org/surveys/campaign08/) by Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, the majority (67%) of Americans agree that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. Yet, 63% of the American public opposes churches for endorsing candidates during election campaigns.

Think about it, we live in an increasingly religious world in which belief and faith affect every dimension, therefore politicians talk about it and address their beliefs. In China, dominantly atheistic within politics, repress believers because they believe that Christianity and/or the Catholic Church were a factor in undercutting the Soviet Union. Therefore, if we were to take religion out of politics freedom of speech would, in a sense, be limited. It is a topic that our presidential candidates should stand firm on and voice. This helps us gain a better understanding about their tendencies on ethics and civics.

So, when we are attacked by people whose ideologies we cannot understand unless we learn to take their religious doctrines seriously. Politicians whom have no religious orientation or position would not know how to handle those situations.

Our country was founded upon the want to gain more freedoms as well as religious freedoms. England was known for repressing its citizens due to their religious status. They even have a national religion: Christianity. This discourages other religions due to favoritism towards a certain religion.

Just seeing a difference in beliefs among our politicians is a comforting note on behalf of citizens in America who practice many different beliefs without the fear of prosecution.

Very well written, yet I would have to disagree on your proposal that religion should not be brought into politics (even on the subject of presidential candidates).

Hillary Clinton: Not Pushing Obama for Vice President

Today, Greg Sargent, blogger for Talking Points Memo (TPM) wrote commentary declaring Hillary's spokesperson made a public statement that she is not seeking Vice Presidency. This informs Democratic Americans where their potential President candidates are standing. Sargent quotes Hillary's spokesperson, Howard Wolfson, to not only keep his audience's attention but gives them a reliable source on Hillary's current thoughts on gaining a Vice President ticket with Obama. This helps the readers understand her stance and make informative decisions of their own concerning content of Sargent's blog. This goes on to shape several of his thoughts on the subject, such as Obama "offer[ing] the slot to her more remote."

Sargent argues that Hillary is not seeking the Vice President (VP) nomination from Obama. Therefore, the choice is his and "his alone" and she will not push for it. Sargent comments that Hillary's "supporters for her to be make Veep are now hurting more than helping--moves to distance itself from all such efforts by sending out this statement." In essence, the only thing everyone should do is wait and see the result of Obama's VP decision. This seems to be the most important issue concerning Hillary's VP ticket through Obama, according to Sargent.

The argument is backed up by a reliable source, Hillary's spokesman, Wolfson. Sargent's interpretation seems to be right-on. There is not much concern that the quote was misinterpreted or misquoted because it is claimed to come from VoteBoth, a group devoted to bring about an Obama-Hillary ticket, from senior adviser Lanny Davis. Sargent even gave a URL to VoteBoth that is also linked in his blog. His argument and reasoning seemed to just restate facts and give an update on his view of Clinton's stand on her possible VP position.

Sargent's argument shows to be successful. It convinces me, as a reader, through sources and does not veer from his main objective. He gives the facts and shows that Clinton is a contender for VP ticket. Clinton has a lot of power and voters backing her up, but I am uncertain if she is the right person for this job. Clinton is a strong lady, of whom has a ton of experience, may be what we need in our executive office in 2008. Time can only tell who Obama will pick. Although, I believe that this will have some division among the Democrats if this did take place. It could turn out to be a weapon, but it could also be a problem for the Democrats.

This is a significant task for Obama, that surely he will take quite a lot of thought into. This argument was a must for Democratic citizens, but now that it is here it will be a very tough issue for both parties. This could mean the end for Hillary as a participant for this election, but it could also mean a beginning of something that would make or break the Democratic party's candidate gaining Presidency in election 2008.