Obama Defends Choice of Rick Warren

One of the reasons I didn't support Barack Obama in the primaries was that I objected to his constant refrain, "We aren't red states or blue states, we're the United States." What's the point of electing a Democrat if he's going to give equal time to Republicans? We've had 8 years of Republican rule and we elected a Democrat to reinstate Democratic values and positions.

We didn't get that with Rick Warren, of course, and I'm not surprised. Obama today defends his choice.

Get ready for more of the same. The last line of the article quotes Obama as saying:

A "wide range of viewpoints" will be presented during the inaugural ceremonies.

Shouldn't President-Elect Obama be showcasing Democratic viewpoints and values as an indication to the country and world of the change he's going to bring from the last 8 years?

< Brancato Juror Bounced, Did Research at Home | Chuck Todd To Be NBC WH Correspondent >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The leaders of the party in their infinite (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:40:47 PM EST
    wisdom chose a standard-bearer who refuses to bear the standard. In his defense, he never ran as a diehard Dem that would stand up for Dem values.

    Which is why (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    I couldn't and didn't vote for him.  

    I'll be quoting you for as long (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:57:01 PM EST
    as I can remember what you said.

    Take a bow, ruffian.


    Aw, thanks! (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    I pat myself on the back enough though!

    no diehard Dem (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by noholib on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    Very well put Ruffian.  During the primary, many of us on this site wanted a diehard Dem, at least a fighting Dem, at least a Dem who would bear the standard.  As time went on, it became abundantly clear that HRC stood up proudly for Democratic values and partisanship, while BHO seemed to shy away from that stance. And that's precisely the reason that many of us supported Senator Clinton.  
    Some said BHO is really a progressive but was masking it to be clever and wily and that he would win a majority this way; some said you really couldn't tell where he stood/stands; some said he's a pramatic centrist whose plea for post-partisanship is sincere.  

    Unfortunately I, like many others on this site, am not surprised by his choice of Warren for the inauguration. And I don't think I will be by any move that Obama makes "to the center," or "across the aisle," or "across the divide of red and blue states." I love the color purple, but I don't find it too useful in politics. Last I looked, the Republicans don't either.  So since they remain committed to red and not purple, I don't see the advantage of blue Democrats moving into purple.


    Thanks. I'm not surprised either (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM EST
    Having listened to him for the last 2 years, I'd be surprised if he did anything else. I guess we're going to try it his way and see what happens. I just get tired of the liberals always having to be the ones to tolerate the other side and go the extra mile toward reconciliation.  That is probably inherent in the definition of liberal, so I feel stuck.

    Yes. Warren is won't renounce torture, is (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by jpete on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    anti-choice, anti-gays, anti-stem cell research.  So let's give him a position as a spiritual leader because he does recognize poverty is an issue?

    I know, the more I think about it (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    the more ridiculous it gets. I'm not a religious person, but surely there are ministers who better represent the ideal of human aspirations.

    I (and all other gays) have had 8 years (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by ericinatl on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:41:56 PM EST
    of being told we are inferior by the President and his administration.  In fact, the Republicans built an entire cottage industry in demonizing us.  It is extremely disappointing that in the inauguration ceremony of an incoming supposedly progressive President, we again are pushed to the back of the bus and told that the viewpoints of those who do not believe we have the right to love and marry deserve to be heard.  Who are we to close the flaps to the big tent of America to those that hate us?

    This President(-elect) is very good at the use of shame to quell dissent.  It's unfortunate that he chooses to use it on those who have spent their lives being shamed by society.

    and don't forget women, (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    who have come to expect and hope they may retain autonomy over their own bodies.

    And don't forget recreational drug users.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    Yes, I know we aren't born this way like gays and women, but our inalienable rights are violated all the same.

    And they don't lock you up for being gay or having an abortion...yet.

    Still I say its a good thing that many views will be represented...maybe, just maybe...we can find some common ground on our most divisive issues.


    Funny. In your last (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:19:12 PM EST
    post you were saying you were just being a devil's advocate.  But now you believe Obama did a good thing.

    Perhaps you might want to lay off the recreational drugs the next time you start posting, so you get your story straight.


    Easy killer.... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    I'm saying allowing a variety of viewpoints to be represented in general is a good thing, you betcha.  A very healthy thing.  As opposed to the Bush admin., which allowed only one lock-step view to be represented.

    I was playing devils advocate as to why Obama invited Warren specifically.

    Lay off the dope and get it straight:)


    I suppose kdog (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sfguy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM EST
    it's ok then to have someone racist amongst his advisors as well.. after all, that's another view point.

    Rev. Wright was accused of racism... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    I have no problem with Obama and Wright talking.

    I don't want Warren setting policy any more than you do, I just don't have a problem with inviting him over for tea or attending the inauguration.  It's the only way you'll change his mind.

    You do want to change his mind right...isn't that the goal?


    then you should be happy and have no objections to (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sfguy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    someone from KKK being an "active" participant in the inaugration...i suppose its ok to give a platform to people who say blacks are inferior human beings.

    You've stated this point in very (none / 0) (#153)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:01:38 AM EST
    stark terms. But your point is not easy to dispute.

    One could extend the KKK analogy and suggest that the inauguration also provide a platform for anti-semites. With Rick Warren playing offense against women and the LGBTQ community, Obama would only need another couple of goons to rail against immigrants, the elderly, and the poor. Are we leaving anybody out here? Don't want to be anything less than totally inclusive of all reactionary points of view.


    Foxhole Atheist, to put it in a more mild way, (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:11:32 AM EST
    someone brought up that it's as if JFK in his attempt to bring about a new era and pull us all together in a common understanding, he decided to give the prime speaking slot, in his inauguration, to George Wallace.

     Or to David Dukes.  Roland Martin might understand this better than he did the feelings of the gay community, while shouting as he did during the CNN session with Hillary Rosen, how Obama was just trying to reach across to people who didn't vote FOR him or for Democratic party values.


    I am finding all of this (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:23:17 AM EST
    so damn depressing. Every other day there's some new poke in the eye to one or another progressive position or marginalized group.

    There's an element of foreboding to all of this. I'm imagining that Obama will shape up to be the most conservative Democratic POTUS I've ever seen in my lifetime (which only goes back to Kennedy). I've begun to think that's been the plan all along, from the early primaries onward.


    Triangulation... (none / 0) (#180)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:49:29 PM EST
    ...the new champ?

    He can attend the inauguration, of course (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:01:31 AM EST
    That went without saying.  That's where inclusiveness is apropros.

      To have him be THE spiritual leader who prays to God FOR us on that symbolic day, out of all the humane church leaders there must be, is not apropros for inaugurating a new era.



    Oh wait, so now you're (none / 0) (#88)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    not playing devil's advocate anymore.  You can't even keep your story straight in the same thread.  Sheesh.

    The gears in my head are moving... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    I've got an open mind, trying to figure this out.  If you're out to play gotcha, fine...ya got me.  I came into these threads thinking one thing, I may leave thinking another...thats why I'm here.

    But you're not convincing me that forbidding Obama from associating with Warren will achieve the goal of equal rights for all.  Right now many Americans, if not a majority, are against gay marriage.  How do you propose we change their minds?

    It's a tall task, no doubt...the first step is finding common ground with the evangelical crowd, maybe by discussing our interpretations of the Bill of Rights.  At least thats the way I lean right now...change my mind if you think I'm wrong, or ask Jeralyn to ban me from TL like you're asking Obama to ban Warren from the inauguration.  Those are your options.


    Sorry, I don't buy your (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:42:59 PM EST
    good faith on this.  I think you just change your argument to suit the comment you are replying to in order to cause trouble.

    This is evidenced by you again turning it back to a made up issue of Obama "associating" with Warren instead of asking him to take a coveted highly coveted public role in a presidential inauguration.  It's simply not good faith to mix up these two concepts.  Like Obama, I think you know better.


    Fair enough... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    I don't think I could convince otherwise over the internet dk...maybe face to face over a drink, but not like this.  I'm not that eloquent.  

    I guess I am trying to debate a larger issue, you're right...how are we gonna get equal rights for all?  Olive branches or cold shoulders?

    You're all probably right, this is a calculated political manuever to steal evangelical votes from Republicans.  But what if it wasn't?  Imagine how cool it would be if it led to some dialogue instead of demonization, led to a great compromise that spead throughout the land...the government recognizes no marriage, only civil unions.  And couples can call it whatever they or their community/church want.  Problem freakin' solved, let freedom ring...


    Not ready to make nice with Warren or Obama (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:32:17 AM EST
    I don't think it would be the least bit "cool" to break bread with Rick Warren and subject myself to his particular brand of soft-sell homophobia.  

    Evangelicals have dominated social discourse since the Reagan/Bush era; especially on issues of sexual orientation and reproductive freedom. What exactly might Warren tell us that we haven't already heard, in more hateful form, during the past 25 years? Would he tell us of his grand work with Aids in Africa, and assure us that his ministry reviles us slightly less than some other evangelical groups?

    Every day of our lives we tolerate massive amounts of homophobic crap from people in our neighborhoods, people in our workplace, and yahoos on late-night TV. Consider it a "compromise" that we get up and get through the day without going totally postal on Warren and his ilk.


    Frankly, Obama is not going to change (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by hairspray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:50:39 PM EST
    the minds of the social conservatives by including their leaders into our tent. Anti-choice people will never allow abortion no matter how many blessings they are allowed to say.  What might change their willingness to compromise is to have their material well being changed dramatically.  Being poor fuels anger.  Improved economic times helps to reduce the anger and despair of so many of the people Thomas Frank wrote about in "What's the matter with Kansas."

    Or their unmarried teenagers (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:53:05 PM EST
    get pregnant.

    I completely disagree (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:23:42 PM EST
    We should not confuse "hearing other views" with giving a platform to bigotry.  

    I am not for silencing people; sunshine is the best disinfectant. But to give a platform of this type suggests that these bigoted views are acceptable.  They should not be.


    I guess I don't... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:34:15 PM EST
    look to a politician or a president to tell me which views are acceptable or not.

    I hear the view by talking to the person with the view or hearing what they have to say, and then make a decision if it is acceptable to me or not.


    I hear you (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    but many people do look to our "leaders" to, well, lead, and to demonstrate by their words and example what is acceptable and what is not.

    I hear you too... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    though I'd rather our "leaders" bring about some positive change...namely equal rights for all.  Forget appearances...how do we make that happen?

    I think the way most likely to suceed is communication, not putting up a barbed wire fence...I could be wrong.  


    kdog, the communication that might help (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:15:27 AM EST
    bring about what you say you want, is not what is communicated by choosing someone who is AGAINST 'equal rights for all' as the person who does the entreaty to God on our behalf for the inauguration of what Gwen Ifill calls The Age of Obama.



    A little historical retrospective... (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    It's only been in about the last thirty years that gays haven't been locked up for their sexuality, and that women haven't DIED after undergoing abortions in secret rooms.

    Need I mention the Planned Parenthood clinics that have been bombed by right-wing zealots?

    Need I mention the gays who are still getting beaten up and murdered?

    Please, Kdog. I know you didn't intend for your comment to be offensive. But ... it was.


    kdog more or less doesn't believe (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    that it's possible for words to be offensive.

    Words alone no, (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    words in context yes.

    Sorry if I offended...I'm well aware women used to risk their lives to get an abortion, still do sometimes...and that sodomy laws are still on the books, and were used to jail homosexuals in the past.

    I should have specified in the present.


    You can call us "gay people" (none / 0) (#102)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    or "gays and Lesbians," or (more inclusive but unwieldy) LGBTQ persons.

    I'm happy to call you a "recreational drug user" rather than some more offensive term, or indeed, anything you prefer to be called.


    You can call me a... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:25:26 PM EST
    dirtbag Joe, as long as its in the right context:)

    I thank you all...you had the gears working harder today than most.  Nothing like pondering the big questions like "how to best attempt to change closed minds?" while slinging valves.


    burned down?

    That was terrible! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:40:04 PM EST
    Did they catch the arsonist yet?  Sick people.

    Arson is a very serious crime, (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    and, with a loss of life, a homicide. Despicable. Neither the perpetrator(s) nor the motivation have been identified.  An FBI investigation is well underway, I understand.   Sorry, but do not quite get the question's relationship to the subject at hand...

    Probably not terribly on-point, (none / 0) (#121)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:03:05 PM EST
    but the question came to mind when you talked of PP facilities being bombed by RW zealots. I assume it was some similarly zealotus types who torched the church.

    Not my comment you responded to, (none / 0) (#133)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:45:16 PM EST
    but it may be wise not to assume who, or the motivation of, the perpetrators at this point. I know of case where a place of worship was torched, and, upon investigation, it was found that the cleric was responsible hoping to gain insurance money for renovations.  He had time for spiritual reawakening under custodial care.

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:39:22 PM EST
    fwiw, the church had just undergone an extensive restoration.

    By his definition a "wide range of (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    views" needs to include an anti-Semite and a member of the KKK.

    I suppose it's ok to be "a little bit racist" now.  I'll stop being offended when I hear a racist joke -- I'll simply consider it another view.  (And that is snark.)

    You know, it might be "another point of view" that someone with the middle name Hussein -- a Muslim?! -- should not be president.  (That was some really bad snark, but this is now disgusted I am by Obama.)

    The State of Denial (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    I would expect the inaugural ceremonies to focus on the positive visions for the country. How is this accomplished by featuring and hate mongering bigot?

    8 years of Bush has given Obama more than enough material to have a bang up speech. Whether he or his people believe it, the  Democrat's put him in the White House, not the Rick Warren's or McConnell's of the country. The country wants and needs strong decisive leadership, not someone who weighs every decision by the vote.


    The tag line (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    Shouldn't President-Elect Obama be showcasing Democratic viewpoints and values as an indication to the country and world of the change he's going to bring from the last 8 years?

    If only Obama were actually a committed Democrat. His "post-partisanship" was billed as the CHANGE, and apparently, the rest of us who wanted something different (like real, live change) have been told to go scr*w ourselves once again. And it will keep happening over the next four years.

    Obama to Dems: Get over it.

    Gonna be a long 8 years. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST

    Cheer up (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    If this is a harbinger of things to come, then it might only be four years.

    Four (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jen on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    A long four years.

    If I had the time (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    I'd watch the inauguration to see if the message was really one of "One Big Happy Country" by showcasing people who work towards improving the country for everybody regardless, or just giving time to certain key constituencies.

    What does "Unity" really mean?  Is it preaching tolerance or just playing the journalistic game of giving "equal time" to opposing points of view, regardless of their validity?

    Arguably, yes and no (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Spamlet on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:56:57 PM EST
    Shouldn't President-Elect Obama be showcasing Democratic viewpoints and values as an indication to the country and world of the change he's going to bring from the last 8 years?

    My first answer to this question is "Yes, of course." But another answer would be that Obama, as president, will be serving all the American people, so it's not a bad idea, as a general rule, for him to make common cause where he can in a responsible way and avoid demonstrations of gratuitous partisanship.

    That said, I'm gay and did not support Obama in the primaries, nor did I vote for him (or anyone else) for president. I've been generally pleased with his actions since the election, but his choice of Rick Warren is offensive and shows once again a persistent tone-deafness on Obama's part regarding GLBT and women's concerns.

    He could put forth his vision (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:33:25 PM EST
    of what he thinks America should be.

    Not sure why he picked Warren.  Looks like pure pandering to me, which is very Obama.


    Yes, echoing militarytracy... (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    I think women and gays need to unite because they are just not fully supported by democrats. I said a few weeks ago here that there is strong coalition made up of republicans and some male democrats that continue to deny sexism and to enable sexism. We all saw the strange commonality between the right-wing and the lefty blogs regarding women's issues during the primary. Just look at the Favreau incident - the wingnuts thought it was hilarious and most lefty men on the blogs thought it was hilarious.

    And there's also a strong coalition made up of republicans and some religious/conservative democrats enabling homophobia and anti-gay-rights.

    We should work together because the rest of them ain't gonna help us.


    I've been reading about this (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by kmblue on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:02:53 PM EST
    in various media all day.  I'm disgusted, and I suspect Obama doesn't get it and will not back down.

    What I particularly dislike are the writings defending Obama's choice, saying he must have a secret plan to reach out to evangelicals or something (like they're reachable).

    Even worse:  "Trust Obama, or begone!"

    Um, he does get it. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:27:01 PM EST
    What I don't get (none / 0) (#160)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:28:08 AM EST
    is Obama's 'rationale' for this -- that Warren had allowed him to speak before his own audience in a primetime politically-focused Q&A so that audience would know where he stood on some issues during a political campaign.  

      What kind of analogy is that??   That was the first time I worried about Obama's thinking.

      Warren could not get better PR and it was just a Q&A,
    not a symbolic lead (spiritual) spot in the inauguration of a new Age during which "We will change the world!"

      Not quite the change we can "believe in"...

     (The 'believe IN' always caused me discomfort, but
        Axelrod knew the phrase had worked before.)

    Nevertheless, I have, overall, liked his thoughtful choices for his cabinet.  So, this took away from that.


    Andrys, what cabinet choices (none / 0) (#162)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:39:45 AM EST
    do you like in particular? I'm good with the SoS, but others creep me out: i.e. the intelligence and education choices are regressive, imo. And the impending Afghanistan "surge"? QUAGMIRE writ large.

    Foxhole Atheist: cabinet choices liked? (none / 0) (#186)
    by andrys on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:11:59 AM EST
    Afghanistan surge is what he campaigned on, and it was a focus I didn't like - just moving the forces to Afghanistan.

    I like, mainly, that he's chosen people with both brains and experience, and even 'street' experience.  I tend to prefer moderate choices because the passion-filled, one-sided types, with whatever-God on their side, tend to get us into trouble.

      Because of the fragile economy and the horrendous possibility of a total failure of that, it's important to  reassure the rest of the world too that we have knowledgeable, experienced people in place whose first actions aren't likely to be wild change without considering fallout from actions not fully thought out.

      And he's done all this with no waste of time, to have them in place as soon as possible.

    The ones I like, more than others (those unnamed are mostly ok and I've agreed with his reasons for taking a more cautious approach for now -- but I disagree with the influence of Brennan and I worry about the Energy choices being ones whose ideas are in line with those that got us into the current fix).

    SOS, of course: Clinton

    Housing: Shaun Donovan - Excellent background

    Energy: Steven Chu - very capable and solution-oriented, the head of a place affiliated with where I worked.

    Labor: Hilda Solis - very pro-labor, for working families and with an excellent background

    Homeland Security: Napolitano (smart, able, experienced but I don't know what on earth is the best thing to do about any of the border stuff).

    Health: Daschle, since he was interested enough to write a book about it but it won't be as aggressive in approach, from what I've seen as HRC's.

    UN Ambassador - Susan Rice, though she seems pretty taciturn

    Commerce: Richardson - experienced  :-)

    Veterans Affairs: Eric Shinseki  (just for his battles with Rumsfeld)

    You're tracking with the appointments (none / 0) (#189)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    better than I am at this point and I'm in agreement with what I do know of what you're saying. I appreciate your perspective as always.

    Especially Clinton, Solis, Shinseki, and Napolitano (I lived in AZ for 15 years). Perhaps she can put the focus back on FEMA becoming an effective entity again, dealing with domestic 'natural' disasters - of which there will be plenty more. If the US chooses to employ diplomatic solutions in the Middle East, I think we can chill out about the whole terrorist threat hysteria.

    Or maybe the whole MIC (military industrial complex) is so entrenched that it will demand a a continuation of the Global War on Terror; to justify its own existence and ensure its own well being.  If that proves to be the case, and defense spending continues to bloat, I don't see how we can have the domestic prosperity of the Bill Clinton Presidency, which amazingly didn't invent a bogey man substitute for the USSR/Cold War. Gotta love that kind of Rhodes scholar.


    I imagine that Obama (none / 0) (#191)
    by andrys on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:15:47 AM EST
    will be just as cautious in starting unnecessary wars as he is in taking stands.

      So, that's an upside, if true.  

      If the MIC is that dominant a force, then it doesn't matter which person is President.  The odd thing about wars is that they tend to leads to jobs and lots of money to be made, some of it traded for work.  This admin was so inept it lost much more than it made, except for the friends of the admin who got the nods for the money.  

      I agree with you that it's all pretty depressing, and even Clinton found reason to drop bombs and missed military targets (he was accused of wagging the dog in one of those).  But nothing at all on the scale of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove.

      Obama made two encouraging appointments yesterday for science advisors.  Very aggressive about global warming solutions.


    This is going in an unexpected direction... (none / 0) (#192)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:33:51 PM EST
    You seem to agree with the MIC argument that war is always "good for the economy". Insofar as that was ever true, it has ceased to be so.

    The war profiteering that went on during the Bush Administration wasn't a result of ineptitude as you suggest. Profits mushroomed, precisely because the Bush/Cheney cabal was profoundly expert at misappropriating tax dollars to line the CEO pockets of deadbeat corporate entities like Blackwater and Halliburton, who maximized profits by intentionally failing to deliver the high level goods and services they had been contracted to supply.

    Likewise, the MIC worked similarly well under Reagan: with the Pentagon's $600 a pop toilet seats; the fleet of Stealth Bombers, which cost a half billion a pop, and totally mal-funtioned in the field; and the fantasmagoric, incalculably expensive, technically impossible Star Wars missile defense shield, which is once again under consideration - by Obama.  

    During the Reagan/Bush years and the Bush/Cheney years, the MIC didn't malfunction, it functioned quite smoothly, and rapaciously, as Dwight D. Eisenhower forewarned in 1961. He had originally called it the "military-industrial-congressional-complex", to describe a situation, like the foregoing, where Congress has become a willing instrument, and de facto extension, of the MIC.

    *You're correct, the worst of these abuses were curtailed during the Clinton years. Now the question is: does Obama have what it takes to put the genie back in the bottle in 2009, as Bill Clinton did in 1992? From where I sit, the MIC genie is ginormous now, and it has entirely swallowed the bottle formerly known as Congress. Only a profoundly radicalized, informed, and mobilized electorate has the power to turn this monstrosity right side out again.

    It's the MIC that needs to be small enough "to drown in a bathtub", otherwise it will continue to supplant all other public interests as it has done for the past 40 years.  


    It's not that I agree with the idea of war as (none / 0) (#193)
    by andrys on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:13:01 AM EST
    helpful to the economy!  Only that it sometimes has been and that's been a calculation involved in going to war, and it's hardly a good reason to have a war, but I mentioned it because of something you said.

    By ineptness, I meant they left a broken country, there is No useable Oil for the U.S.  I don't think they meant to leave us in so much VISIBLE debt.

      Remember when McCain went in front of a rally and said something like, "Never again will we send our young to war for oil."  
      That caused a stir for one day, the press preferring more gossipy stuff.

      Yes, what you describe, we used to call the Trilateral Commission, and they're ALL members of it, in one way or another, it seems.  

      I like your "and it has entirely swallowed the bottle formerly known as Congress."  

      Is it our imagination that we ever had a Congress not in the pockets of the moneychangers?  


    Whoops, the leaders of it (none / 0) (#194)
    by andrys on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:16:21 AM EST
    were called The Trilateral Commission (as I remember it - memory failing as it does).  

    Andrys, I've got a stalker who (none / 0) (#197)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 06:04:40 PM EST
    persists in combing through my comments. This person, has indicated that he goes to the trouble of "googling" whatever subject I'm riffing on and then comes back to say I'm "wrong".

    I'm confident that you (Andrys) can, and will, check the veracity of comments for yourself. I don't mind being wrong, but I do mind being stalked by this guy. Cheers.  


    Well, I watched almost all of it live (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by andrys on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 12:51:57 AM EST
    The hearings were very dramatic, to say the least.

    While it's true that the House Judiciary Committee filed articles of impeachment, the reason Nixon resigned was because he and everyone around him were sure, after those tapes were released, he would be impeached and removed if he didn't resign.

      Same dynamic, same result!  And he was the first U.S. President who ever had to resign, from what I remember.

      John Dean's book was a riveting read and I was amazed how much small detail he noticed and remembered from every meeting.



    That must have been fantastic... (none / 0) (#200)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 02:41:23 AM EST
    Andrys, I wasn't in a position to read or watch the Nixon hearings at the time they occurred. So, I was under the mistaken impression that it was an actual vote to impeach, rather than the inevitability of an impending vote to impeach, that compelled Nixon to resign. I know, I've repeated this error in other contexts where people were, evidently, too polite to correct me; or they were similarly muddled about the facts or didn't think it worthy of clarification.  

    You've quite eloquently summarized the events - and obviously, without any intent to embarrass or ridicule. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and generosity of spirit. You set a good example. Something to aspire to, with the understanding that I won't do nearly as well.


    lol (none / 0) (#199)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    Don't flatter yourself.    

    Most people who have read a newspaper once or twice in their lives know that congress did not impeach Nixon, he resigned because impeachment was inevitable.

    Considering all blathering and pontificating, this gaffe is very revealing, about sums it up.


    You ask a good question... (none / 0) (#195)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:05:04 PM EST
    Have we:
    ever had a Congress not in the pockets of the moneychangers?

    If you are asking whether Congress has ever acted ethically in the general public interest, rather than in the interest of the moneyed class, the answer is yes: when Congress voted to impeach a bona fide criminal Republican President (Nixon) with support from Republican members of Congress.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#196)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    Congress never voted to impeach Nixon. The furthest they got was that the House Judiciary committee approved the measure.

    No one is happy here (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    The left is mad at Obama, and the right is mad at Warren.  Who wins???

    Who gives a $h*t what the right thinks? (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    The better question is: who's hurt more? I think the answer is pretty clear.

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by CST on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    I just meant even if the point was to win over the right, it's not working...

    But maybe that came out wrong


    I got your point (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:53:12 PM EST
    because I've been thinking the same thing.

    And if Obama had any intention of advancing gay rights or choice rights, if he does, the evangelicals will positively lynch Warren.  So either Obama has no intention of spending any political capital to advance either cause and having Warren is a dog-whistle to convey that fact, or he's incredibly politically stupid or Warren is.  I don't think these guys are either of them stupid.


    yeah - somehow I think the right (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:44:56 PM EST
    will forgive Warren for giving an invocation at a historical inauguration with record-breaking ratings.

    The MSM (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:09:55 PM EST

    nobody (none / 0) (#27)
    by Nasarius on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    It was just plain stupid, even as a purely political decision. Even the media isn't covering it as a warm fuzzy unity pony story, they're predictably covering the controversy.

    Sometimes Obama just seems to enjoy poking liberals in the eye.


    of the left is mad at Obama. I don't think AAs are mad, nor is the heterocentric Whole Foods Nation, nor is most of the so-called left blogosphere, and I don't believe the Latino community has taken a stand against this. Obama did the math before he selected Warren.

    Imo, most Obama supporters aren't angry about this, so Obama wins, for better or worse. I say worse.


    Do I detect a bit of buyer's remorse? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Saul on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    IMO Obama wants to be too many things to too many people.  He wanted to be like JFK, and copied him in many ways.  A senator going to the white house, going to Berlin and trying to give a similar JFK speech, emulating MLK in many of his oratories, thinking he is like Lincoln using his enemies or opposite party people in his cabinet, thinking he is like FDR comparing the financial  crisis situation of today with his new deal mentality. I personally do not trust Obama yet.  I wait to see what the situation looks like after one year.  We should know by then who he really is.  Did he deliver or was he just all hat and no cattle.

    This is what so many of us were afraid of - (5.00 / 15) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    that Obama would not fight for what have long been considered Democratic values; there is nothing in his history that suggested he has ever fought for anything he believed in, and there is nothing in his actions during the campaign that did anything to show he had changed.  He's an observer, someone who sees himself as a conciliator - and after eight years of The Uniter, we needed someone who was not afraid to be on the front lines, fighting to get this country on the right side, on the right track.

    As Democrats, I think we are all committed to listening and discussing and considering, but speaking for myself, it isn't an exercise I engage in to persuade myself that maybe those on the other side are right - it's an exercise I engage in - taking all the twists and turns - in the hope that others will be persuaded that we are, in fact, right.

    I get the uncomfortable feeling from Obama that he isn't always sure where he wants to come down on a particular issue - or if he wants to commit to a position at all.  It's like he thinks there is some place, in all issues, where all sides can agree, and he is committed to finding that place, even if in doing so he is abandoning what should be core values and beliefs, and even if it means that, in the end, no one is really happy with the result.

    Some things ARE worth fighting for, ARE worth drawing a line in the sand over, but Obama is going to have to be dragged off the above-it-all platform from which he observes the messier aspects of democracy and forced to actually BE a leader.  I have little confidence that he has that in him - it's just not where he is comfortable.

    And between the media, which shows little sign of applying any pressure or scrutiny, and the Congress, which looks prepared to give him whatever he wants - which may include a lot of "compromise" with Republicans regardless of the strength of the Democratic majority - I am getting a very sick feeling that many of the things we really care about, and which need serious attention, are going to be addressed in ways that we are going to find a whole lot less than satisfactory.

    Anne! (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    so happy to see you are back.  I have missed your thoughtful comments.

    Thanks, DC - (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:01:28 PM EST
    appreciate your kind words!

    Ditto! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:00:05 PM EST
    Yay - Anne's back.

    I wish we could also get Kathy and MOBlue and all the rest back....


    I find it interesting (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:51:51 PM EST
    that so many of the prodigal sons and daughters who stalked off in a huff from here two months ago have mysteriously returned today.

    Just an observation.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:40:08 PM EST
    I don't know if they stalked off in a huff or were banned or were bullied out of here by antagonizers or what. I'm just glad some of them are back.

    Honestly, if they'd been banned (none / 0) (#143)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:50:52 PM EST
    they wouldn't be able to comment now. I remember quite a bit of tantrum throwing at the time.

    But whatever.  


    Not true (none / 0) (#146)
    by starsandstripes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:31:25 PM EST
    I was banned at an earlier time (under another moniker). I couldn't post then, but apparently I could post about a month ago - or some time after the election. It seems that once there was no more opportunity to dissuade people from voting for the dem candidate, the ban was lifted.

    TRUE. A t least a few of us (none / 0) (#164)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:54:43 AM EST
    were loudly banned from threads or had our posts deleted, the nadir being the statement that Free Republic might be a better place for us and not to "try" that (statement) here.  At least my objection to that dismissal of what I'd actually said was kept and not deleted.

     Advocacy IS the focus here, and some of us made decisions to just respect that rather than having "stalked away" as you put it.  But I've come to know how you really must be careful not to say the 'wrong' things where group-think and group-talk are geared toward what is agreed is an important end, even among people who consider themselves liberal.  I think it will always be this way with groups.

     Since then, a few of us, once the main-end had been achieved, came back, less unwelcome as before, and have posted mostly positive postings about the post-election events (when we felt that way, as I have, until now) while also acknowledging that Obama will face some tough days for various reasons including that he was not really much vetted by an adoring press fearful he would not be elected, and so he will suffer from some overly raised expectations and some surprises.

      But, after W, he should still be a big relief, overall, unless he continues to make choices like the Warren one.
    I sure hope not.

     I worry he doesn't understand how it affects those who are being vehemently denied rights that others expect, by people led by the person he is choosing for that lead spiritual spot in the upcoming symbolic ceremony.


    I wonder if TL is (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:28:51 AM EST
    the best fit for some of us. I generally appreciate the editorial content of Jeralyn, BTD, and Tchris.

    However, I don't feel welcome here most of the time, what with the constant heckling, misogynist flare-ups, lack of respect for LGBTI issues, and p*ss-poor writing from some of the more territorial commenters.

    I often can't tell if I am talking to a 12 year old or a thoroughly brain-addled adult. I see upwards of 30-40-50 comments by the some of these same people day after day.

    I've started spending more time at Shakesville and find their editorial stance more radical, ribald, and more in keeping with my own politics and sensibility. We'll see.

    Maybe just leave this to the bully boyz and the gals who love them.


    Actually, observation says (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    some came back before today.

    Doc, Practically Lactating is back too. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:00:57 AM EST
    I really missed her/him.

    Excellent. (none / 0) (#181)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:12:07 PM EST
    Believe in? (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    There's the problem in a nut shell!

    "nothing in his history that suggested he has ever fought for anything he believed in",

    I can't think of a single Democratic value that Obama has shown any passion for during the entire primary season. Hilary was health care. Edward's was poverty. Obama's was................


    ....himself. (5.00 / 10) (#71)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    Feel free to prove me wrong.

    Obama's was................ ? (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM EST

    I often think that this was never about the good he could do for the country, but about a grand-scale social and psychological experiment to see whether a well-orchestrated campaign and a massive money-raising operation could get a pre-selected, relatively unknown, not terribly experienced and "blank slate" candidate elected to the White House and named Time's Person of the Year.

    Vaguely reminiscent of a movie I might have seen; wouldn't surprise me if he got an Oscar nomination.


    That experiments already been run (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:22:20 PM EST
    a few times. Including the times they've put up (and continue to put up), "names" for NY Senatorial seats.

    It was never primarily about what was good for the state; as anyone who lives here discerned a long time ago.


    yes to Saul and Anne (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by noholib on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:34:59 PM EST
    In my view, there were only two issues that Obama showed real commitment to:
    1. early opposition to the war in Iraq (though his votes on funding once he got to the Senate did not follow through on that);
    2. progress toward greater justice and equality on matters of race.

    I agree that he wants very much to be liked (all politicians want to be liked, yet I sense it to a different degree in him)and he likes to be perceived as above the fray.

    If he puts these qualities/needs to use reviving the economy, and redirecting energy policy, and rebuilding this country's infrastructure, and rebuilding American alliances around the world - with the help of SoS HRC - then it will be to the good.  His cool head and deeply analytical mind could serve the country very well in these difficult times.

    But I share your misgivings. And for example, I'm not at all hopeful about universal health care - given the cautious instincts of both BHO and Tom Daschle.


    Maybe I missed something, but (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Spamlet on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:33:33 PM EST
    when did Obama actually advocate "progress toward greater justice and equality on matters of race"? Where is the "commitment" you cite?

    If I missed Obama's demonstration of commitment, whatever it is or was, so did the writers at Black Agenda Report, who have been consistent in their criticism of African Americans for supporting Obama and asking him for nothing in return.

    Personally, I don't count Obama's much touted speech on "race" as evidence of commitment to "progress toward greater justice and equality on matters of race." That was a CYA operation, pure and simple.

    So, again, did I (and BAR) miss something?


    You nailed it Spamlet (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:04:36 AM EST
    Obama has made no promises, that I know of, to strive for the rights of his most ardent supporters - the African American community. That sets him FAR apart from Jesse Jackson the elder, MLK, Malcolm X and every other civil rights leader whose shoulders Obama stands on, without paying due respect.

    Obama doesn't even bother to pay lip service to AA issues. The prevailing assumption being that, as a black man, he will just naturally look out for the interests of his own community. Let's see how that works out. Starting with New Orleans, let's say.


    I actually have (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Spamlet on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM EST
    a little more faith in him than you seem to have, and that's cool. I was just asking the previous commenter to clarify. All I could see was Obama working overtime NOT to be "the black candidate." That doesn't exactly square with an articulated commitment to progress on racial issues.

    I believe Obama can accomplish the job/mission (none / 0) (#190)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:45:21 AM EST
    I'm just not sure that the mission is going to sit well with me.

    As, I said in comment #159, the Obama campaign/candidacy may have had an internal mandate for him to actually govern as a more conservative POTUS than we've seen in modern times. Again, it's not like he made any specific hard-line promises to govern as a progressive.

    Insofar as he did make specific promises on an issue, like torture, during the campaign - he's walked it back since becoming President-Elect.

    Obama's Invesco Field victory speech didn't mention women among the list of people in Obama's big tent America. However, he did mention "gays and straights", and we end up with Rick Warren leading us in prayer at the inauguration; with a 'gay marching band' supplying entertainment.

    I'd rather have a LGBTQI leader in a speaking role, with Rick Warren on kazoo.


    Exactly what I said (none / 0) (#138)
    by starsandstripes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    about the "GREATEST SPEECH ON RACE EVAH" - That was a CYA operation, pure and simple.

    I was called jaded and cynical.


    Democratic Viewpoints are not palatable, though (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Exeter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    It takes work to make them palatable. You've got to actually make Democratic arguments and mainstream Dems -- including Obama -- are more comfortable talking in center right, claptrapese.

    Here's what I'm getting: (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    Obama:  "I'm going to do whatever I want.  If you don't like it, it's because you don't realize what a secret genius I am."

    Tell me then Obama

    Have we gained anything from your stupid Harry & Louise mailers and golden mean healthcare ad?

    Have we gained anything from your willingness to take up RW talking points on Social Security?

    Are we going to gain something from Rick Warren being at your inauguration?

    Republicans forget everything and oppose us as soon as we try to make changes on the economy and healthcare and social issues.  They do not care.

    Where's the proof that this little idea works?  Obama won by campaigning as a Democrat - and now we're laying on the Unity shtick.  

    Except that he didn't (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:10:32 PM EST
    campaign as a Democrat.  Many of his mailers didn't  have the word "Democrat" or "Democratic Party" anywhere on them.

    Right. It was The Movement (none / 0) (#165)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:05:39 AM EST
    That was key, early on.   And it worked, by a hair.  And now I think he is showing (except for Warren) that he can get some good things done.

      But the lack of passion about anything and only an anti-war speech made to an anti-war rally! and not-recorded but later simulated for a TV ad makes me worry.  Still, he is putting together a team of super capable and experienced types, though people worry about 'status quo' -- true for Defense and Intelligence and we can hope that will improve.  

      At a time when the economy can fail altogether, abruptly, due to one wrong move, he does need to assure the rest of the world that he is not going to turn things upside down, and that Defense is still paramount because there are people bent on destruction (we won't argue why they are).  Continuity is important right now.


    I am not down with that defense priority... (none / 0) (#169)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:34:24 AM EST
    Gawd, since the post-war period what nation has been, and continues to be, more hell-bent on militaristic "destruction" than the US?

    I don't see why we can't turn around the (none / 0) (#187)
    by andrys on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:23:34 AM EST
    aggressive bad stuff pulled by Bush and Idiots and not do that while also remembering we need a strong defense.

      A reading of world history makes that too clear.  The aggressors will always be among us (and we've been one of them in a virulent way) and we need to be prepared for that too.


    You know (5.00 / 8) (#54)
    by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:38:33 PM EST
    it's kind of striking, when you think about it, that there's been such an outsized reaction to something that is a purely symbolic gesture at the end of the day.  I mean, no legislation is being passed, no rights are being taken away, it's just a guy offering a prayer that I'm guessing won't touch upon GLBT issues at all.

    But I don't feel troubled by the reaction at all.  I don't feel, as I sometimes do, that people are blowing this all out of proportion.  In fact it all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    One point that this highlights is that Obama hasn't built up a whole lot of political capital with certain constituency groups, GLBT voters being one of them.  He's made some gestures, sure, but he's still relatively new to the scene and generally it's a long process to develop trust to the point where people know, hey I may not end up doing 100% of what you want me to do, but you know I'm fundamentally on your side.  It's an intangible thing that you don't acquire just by checking off the right boxes on a candidate questionnaire, it takes hard work to build those relationships.

    Hopefully this controversy serves as a reminder to Obama that he needs to get to work sooner rather than later on doing the sort of things that serve to build trust.  I don't think Warren is going to be a dealbreaker, that kind of talk is for down the road.  But it's not going to be enough just to say "hey, I'm totally a supporter of gay equality."  That much I'm pretty certain of.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    Plus (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:49:08 PM EST
    Obama's relationship with the gay community has always been kind of abstracted.  When I Google Image "Obama gay pride" I get pictures of Hillary Clinton marching in gay pride parades.  None of him.

    Again, I go back to the April Advocate interview.  I just find Obama to be very defensive and weird in it.  It's becoming clearer that when he says "broader audiences" he means evangelical Christians.  If he doesn't appreciate the tension between Christians and gays, and show some love for the group that is actually loyal to his platform, then he is going to be continually suspect.  March in a parade, pass the right laws, show some affection (esp. as for a lot of people there's still some "ick" factor with relating to the gay community - being visibly involved in gay life is important).  Don't tell me that you're more concerned about "general readership" and "broader audiences."


    Having a lot of trouble (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    even imagining Obama marching in a gay pride parade...

    Or gay bar hopping with Rendell ;) (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    Sorry to (none / 0) (#141)
    by JThomas on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:35:00 PM EST
    burst your imagination, but Obama was in the Chicago Pride Parade several times.

    I did a quick google (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by pukemoana on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:26:49 PM EST
    to find that Obama attended his first pride parade (Chicago) in 2004, and received a fair bit of derision from queers for avoiding the same parade in 2008.  I'd be interested in hearing you specify the 'several' times since the cynical part of me suspects pride flew out the door as the decision to run for president solidified.  Somewhere along the way he goes from an interest in the queer community in 2004 (what is this Stonewall you speak of?) to campaigning with Donnie McClurkin and avoiding Gavin Newsome by 07/08

    Can he fast-track the relationship building? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    By the time he builds the trust and the relationships, he will be at least done with his first term as POTUS.

    Well, he appoint a gay or lesbian (none / 0) (#182)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    pastor to his cabinet...or at least to run the WH Office of Faith=based Initiatives.

    The LGBT communuty isn't Obama's only problem (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:55:05 PM EST
    He has a problem with a number of other demographic groups, including: the elderly, lower income voters, and women.

    Since becoming President-Elect, many of his actions, and inactions, indicate that he has no intention of addressing the issues of this vast constituency.

    Regarding Rick Warren in particular, I'd like to hear some other folks make some noise in support of the LGBT community. Right now I get the impression the MSM would like to frame this as an issue which only affects, and offends, one demographic.


    By 'other folks' I take it you mean (none / 0) (#183)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:25:19 PM EST
    organizations, groups. leaders with clout...not individuals like me who will always speak up.

    Cliches such as (none / 0) (#188)
    by andrys on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:25:53 AM EST
    ...such as "Action speaks louder than words" exist with strength because they're so vividly true.

    We Aren't Anti-Semetic Americans Or (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    Pro-Semetic Americans.  We're Americans.  I'd love to see Obama make that defense when he invites a neo-nazi to speak at some upcoming White House forum.  

    Why he thinks it's o.k. to basically make that same argument about homophobes and thinks he can get away with it is really beyond me.  He deserves to be booed resoundingly at his inauguration.  Or the GLBT folks in the crowd should stage a giant kiss-in.

    Or somebody should throw a shoe.

    For a preacher, (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:42:24 PM EST
    getting the nod for the invocation at the inaugural of the president is quite a plum, elevating that reverend in the eyes of his counterparts--in this case, homophobic bigots who have a pulpit from which to propagate their hateful polemics. Rather than offering a spiritual bouquet that celebrates this historic occasion, Warren has been cynically invited with the prospects of peeling off some Evangelical right wing support.  The insensitivity of the choice of Warren, a visible supporter of Proposition 8, in light of the piercing sting ironically sustained by the large turnout for Mr. Obama in California, undermines confidence in the new president's prospects as a peacemaker.

    What Warren gets (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:17:49 PM EST
    Rick Warren is angling to be our new Billy Graham, you know, America's preacher. Giving the invocation at the inauguration serves to enhance that image for Warren.

    It's a win-win for both Warren and Obama in the pander to the right sweepstakes.


    Why is it a win (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by BernieO on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    to pander to a small minority of Americans? If you look at polls a strong majority supports choice and are not homophobic. It is media spin that we are a center-right country when in fact we are center-left in spite of the powerful right wing propaganda machine that has dominated our political discourse since Reagan. It is just that the right is much more vocal so them seem like a larger proportion of our society than they really are.
    We forget just how much things have changed in recent years. When I was a child, divorce was a huge stigma and racism was blatant. That is no longer true. A majority even supports civil unions. The younger generation will have no problem legalizing gay marriage.
    It is time to stop pandering to the right.

    Damn. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by coigue on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST

    Oh My Gosh (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:59:43 PM EST
    THIS is what I was banging my drum against all through the primaries.  Obama is about as gay friendly as Anita Bryant.

    I am SO glad I voted my conscious and wrote in Hillary's name.  Chelsea and Rob Reiner came to all the gay bars in Dallas and ASKED us for our vote.

    Obama wouldn't even take his picture with Gavin Newsome.  He's a big homophobe.  No excuses or pandering would ever change my mind.  Gays who voted Obama might as well declare themselves Log Cabin Republicans:  placating themselves to an ideal, or in this case, a person, who could give two sh**s about them.

    For right now (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by OldCity on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    it's a state issue, not a Federal issue.  Obama has said, and forcefully, that discrimination based upn preference is wrong.

    I'm not gonna defend Warren, nor the choice to have him.  But at the same time, there's a bit of forgetfulness over what Obama is on the record as saying.

    He's also said he doesn't agree with gay marriage.  That said though, I must state that I don't agree with civil marriage, period.  Civil unions for all...if you want to get married, go to church, or temple, or wherever.  But everyone should get the SAME rights in a licensed civil union.  Marriage, so obviously a cultural and religious thing, should be relegated to religious arenas.  


    So you're "not gonna defend Warren" (none / 0) (#110)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    but you say all of this other. . .stuff?

    This isn't helpful.


    It is also a moral affirmation of (none / 0) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
    the reasonableness of the Reverend and his beliefs and acceptability of his political actions.  It is not enought for the president of the United States to say in the next breath, I honor him with this singular opportunity to pray on all our behalfs on this historic day---but just know that I do not agree with him.

    Rick Warren is not your "friend" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Amiss on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:27:19 PM EST
    Mr. President elect.
    It's a free country.  But if President Johnson had asked a preacher who had just recently told all his minions to get out and fight against the Civil Rights Act to give the invocation at his inaugural in 1964, I guess we'd a' thought he was nuts.  What's more, we'd think he wasn't too serious in his support for civil rights.


    Very well said, how indeed would we have thought of Johnson?

    Warren claims it's a humanitarian issue?! (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:25:44 PM EST

    Nazi Pig with Lipstick (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by AnthonyLook on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:59:10 PM EST
    If this was the Nazi era and I was of Jewish descent and a president elect chose a vocal anti Jewish Nazi sympathizer to participate in his inaguration; how should I feel. Obama's lack of sensitivity and outright pandering with overtures to conservative extremists only says to the gay community that Obama tolerates their claims of equating gay men and women with pedofiles and gay marriage rights as a slippery slope to beastiality. Quiet desperation, stunned into a rage of betrayal is how the gay community finds itself. First Obama's betrayal on FISA, then his Pelosi/Reid like capitulation to Lieberman coupled with his continuation of obvious right of center choices for his cabinet and the choice of this bigot homophobe to participate in his inaguration; only demonstrates what many in the gay community feared all along, Obama is showing his true Christian Black Homophobe roots.
    This president is not a friend of the gay community. His selection of Rick Warren is tantamount to condoning racism.

    This One (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:50:45 AM EST
    Of all the preachers, in all the churches he has to pick this one.

    Yup (4.33 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:38:03 PM EST
    I was looking for a champion for my issues in the White House, and the evidence suggests that Obama just won't be one.

    It's mightily depressing.

    And here is an example of how important (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    it is to have a champion (or at least a "do no harm") president:

    Remember the percentage of African Americans who voted against marriage equality in California?   How much change of mind does anyone expect in that community if the first African American thinks it's a valid "point of view" that gays deserve second class citizenship?

    I know it's partly gay persons' responsibility to educate African Americans, who disproportionately think we are inferior citizens.  But it is not going to be easy without help from African American leaders like Obama.


    I was really hoping for his help with that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    but he doesn't seem to think it's worth the effort. At least we can count of John Lewis.

    I've made a decision that I can't believe. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:06:55 PM EST
    If we do not see a major piece of gay rights legislation pass during the next 4 years, I will work against Obama next election.  Hell, I might even become one of those Greens I despise.

    This "respect all points of view" crap had better translate into some progress.

    Repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" would be enough.  But I'm betting I'll vote Green, or Pink, or Yellow, but not Democratic next time.


    Tug of War (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by blogtopus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:31:52 PM EST
    The viewpoints are playing tug of war with our country; many believe in progress, but in trying to be 'fair', Obama is letting voices that pull us back be heard.

    Its not a game. He can't be this naive.


    I'll probably vote for (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    whatever token opposition is on the primary ballot. But I'd actually have to think that the Republican would be better in order to vote for him (her?) in November. There's no way I'm giving Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee any help.

    The right wing of the Republican party (none / 0) (#29)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    commands respect and fear because they will bolt if they do not get basic respect.  And the Republican moderates know it (of course this was all much more relevant in the 80s when there were moderates).  

    Why did George H. W. Bush flip his longtime pro-choice position?

    I submit we ought to consider the same tactic.  How much do we have to lose?


    Some people already tried that in 2000 (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:19:17 PM EST
    I think the essential difference is that, while we have something to lose from a Republican Presidency, the far right has nothing to lose from a Democratic Presidency.

    Would John McCain have picked one of ours to play some major role in  his inauguration? Did W ever do anything like that?

    For us, it could get much worse. I think that's the bottom line.


    Personally, I think just relying on (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    the results of 2000 isn't a very strong argument.  Sure, lessons can be learned and comparisons drawn, but times change and parties change.  Obama, sadly, is no Al Gore.  Depending on how much Obama hurts the Democratic brand, some tough love may end up being in order.  We'll see.

    Many people correctly predicted (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    that W would be bad, really bad. And people who nevertheless voted for Nader facilitated his ability to inflict damage.

    Never again.


    Well, W will never (none / 0) (#43)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    run again (thankfully).  So your wish is already granted on that point.

    I really don't see how much worse it (none / 0) (#33)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    could get.  I don't.

    What piece of federal legislation could Republicans get passed that would hurt us?


    Let me put it to you this way (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    Where would you rather live: New Jersey or Alabama? Why? It's not just the people, it's the laws, and the people who enforce them.

    I think the power of the Jusice Department alone makes it worth it. Remember the Meese Report?


    Well, I've lived in Mississippi, (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    and I've lived in New York.  How about that comparison?

    The primary, practical difference is cultural, not a matter of laws.  


    It's not just the laws, it's the people (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:30:17 PM EST
    who enforce them.

    If my choice is going to be between John Ashcroft and Eric Holder, I'm going to choose Holder every single time.


    Check Andrew Sullivan today. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    I can't believe I'm recommending him, but he makes something close to the point I am too busy to make, re gay people relying on only one political party.  

    And, I've set the bar pretty low:

    If they can't at least spend enough clout or "capital" to repeal don't ask don't tell in the next four years, then the Democratic Party is not the party for gay people to be in.

    Sad thing is, I now wonder whether Obama cares enough to make it a legislative priority.


    Sorry, no Sully for me (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:41:02 PM EST
    His political instincts are useless anyway. We rely on one political party because we have to.

    How successful has Christie Todd Whitman been at changing the Republican party on choice or the environment?  She hasn't, and the bottom line is that it's NOT her party too.


    We rely on one political party (none / 0) (#60)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:43:28 PM EST
    because we are too afraid not to.  Perhaps we should not live in such fear.

    Perhaps we might earn some respect and actual clout if we tell the Democratic coalition to go f*** themselves.


    And go where? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    Sit it out? Well, that's a half vote for the other party.

    Sadly, American politics is essentially a zero sum game.


    True. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:48:23 PM EST
    My attitude is that sometimes, sadly, tough love is the approach to take.  Now, I don't say that without knowing the risks, and the risks are huge (see, e.g., Bush, George W.).  

    But, just because there are risks doesn't mean the option shouldn't ever be considered, in my opinion.  Fortunately, we don't have to decide that until the next presidential election cycle, though.


    I could get on board (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:52:15 PM EST
    if I thought it stood any chance at all of working.

    But I think the evidence suggests that it's much more likely to set us back.


    There is a breaking point, Andgarden, (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    How much Sistah Souljah do we have to take?

    Unless you're proposing some kind (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    of revolutionary movement, I don't know exactly what it is you want to do.

    I think one lesson to take from all of this is that the political process alone isn't going to get us what we want.


    Women and gays must unite now (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    As soon as possible!  And we have to start seriously seriously f-ing pushing for an equal rights amendment that serves all human beings!!!!!

    Women are pretty much our best straight (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:44:01 PM EST
    allies and best friends in our personal lives. :-)

    are they? (none / 0) (#127)
    by mudlark on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:22:12 PM EST
    Are you speaking for lesbians too here? Cause it seems that there's an awful lot of misogyny among some gay men toward us lesbians, who seem to be invisible most of the time.

    When I said that women are our best (none / 0) (#129)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    straight allies, I meant the "our" to include LGBTQ people.

    I have encountered the same hostility from lesbians.  But I don't take anecdotal evidence and jump to the conclusion that gay men and lesbians are not allies.  They are.


    My neighbor is a gay woman (none / 0) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:41:42 AM EST
    and she can talk with my husband just fine and in fact prefers to talk to him, but whenever she looks at me she almost visibly cringes.  I have never done a thing to her.  I've barely spoken two words to her in the three or four years we have been in such proximity.  At first I chalked it up to her discriminating against me due to my sexual orientation.  Giving it some deeper thought right now and what if I look like the childhood kid who stole something of hers?  What if my laugh is an imitation of her nasty Aunts?  I sort of feel silly right now suddenly noticing how quickly I made an assumption.

    Totally with you on that (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ericinatl on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:16:33 PM EST
    Women and gays need to unite- your concerns are our concerns.  Time to take it to the (straight) man.

    I'm not a revolutionary. All I'm saying is that (none / 0) (#73)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    I may be four years away from leaving the Democratic Party.

    I think if we left the Democratic coalition in large enough numbers to tip an election, Progressives might stop treating us like second-class minorities.

    We would never, ever be having this conversation if Warren were anti-Semetic.  That, in itself, is a measure of our relative worth and respect in the coalition.

    I'm saying this:  If we get NO legislative progress in the next four years, with Dems controlling Congress and the White House, perhaps we will have more power if we take away our support.


    I still think we're going to get (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    something out of this. ENDA is coming in some form or another.

    And that would be enough for me, to (none / 0) (#78)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    offset Obama's lack of respect for us, and indeed the tokenism we must endure from many progressives.

    But I think repeal of DADT is more likely.


    Well, both would be good (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:05:18 PM EST
    but the difference with ENDA is that there are a lot more members of Congress on the record in favor of it. It has the votes to pass now, and Obama will sign it.

    I think ENDA is more likely to encounter (none / 0) (#81)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    a filibuster from Senators at the behest of business interests, and they'd be more likely to sit back on DADT.  My impression is based on a conversation with a friend of mine at the National Association of Manufacturers.

    Yes, I know evil people.


    I don't think it's going to have trouble (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    in the Senate. I except almost every Senate Democrat to vote for it, and Specter, Snowe, and Collins likely will as well.

    Franken would help, of course. . .


    Well I have not counted, and this (none / 0) (#92)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    conversation happened almost 2 years ago.  But I was left with the impression that the Chamber of Commerce, NAM, et al would tell Blue Dogs and moderate Republicans that ENDA is unacceptable.

    No Improvement (none / 0) (#97)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:34:10 PM EST
    Possibly. But what I read from Obama was that he would repeal DADT and put it back in the hands of the military. That isn't exactly progress.

    Well, that would be change we need. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:42:07 PM EST
    Right?  Let me say this:  DADT repeal and equality in the military is what is required.

    Not like the Republican party (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by BernieO on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    would be better for gays.
    What I don't get is why liberals tolerate abuse. They stand by while Dems get trashed in the media(Gore, Clinton, Kerry). Republicans fight back and - big surprise! - the media is afraid to trash them and the people they elect wouldn't dare diss them the way Obama is doing. There are plenty of ministers he could have chosen that would not have insulted evangelicals but would have been acceptable to liberals. Instead he gives the privilege to an anti-choice, anti-gay preacher just because he "talks pretty". Obama needs to pay a price for this or this kind of thing will continue. Imagine a Republican picking a Unitarian minister for his inauguration!

    I will be attending the inaugural, (none / 0) (#116)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:44:54 PM EST
    and I demand that Warren served me DOUGHNUTS.

    Don't forget the (none / 0) (#155)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:54:09 AM EST

    His generosity is great.


    Well, people didn't see how Bush was (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sallywally on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:15:30 PM EST
    any worse than Gore That was a hell of a lack of imagination.

    If you don't think it could be worse under another Repub, you need to prime your imagination - and your research into their positions, goals, etc.

    It could be unspeakably worse. Read a little history .... back into the 1800s. Read about people dying so there could be a weekend for workers. That's where they really want to take us.

    They said no one knew terrorists might fly planes into buildings - even though many had threatened it.

    And none of us really imagined they would make it this bad, but they did. Don't sell them short on how Darwinian it can get out there.


    Frankly, that part (none / 0) (#11)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    of it all I expect from pretty much any politician.  It's the more pernicious effect I fear his actions will have on the Democratic party, and the country as a whole, I worry about much more.

    Obama now regards all progressives (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    in the same way he regarded women in the General Election. It boils down to this mentality: there's no need to go out on a limb and actually do anything on their behalf. They'll still vote for me (in 2012 as in '08), they have nowhere else to go.

    Obama got by on the assumption that a purportedly "cool", purportedly "young", African American man was bound to end up governing in a more progressive direction than any of the other Democratic candidates.

    In a manner of speaking, it was all about appearances, particularly his face. In December, 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote a seminal article selling Obama's face as an immesurably good thing; along with his generational status as a "post-Vietnam" era, post-babyboomer candidate, despite the inconvenient fact that he is actually a babyboomer.

    What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan.

    The Obama candidacy was a victory of branding over substance. Increasingly, it now appears this will also be true of his Presidency


    Sheesh (2.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Maise7 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    All this over Rick Warren? I find it funny. I realize he hasn't said the nicest things about gays, but pick your battles. Yes, democrats want their polices to move foward, but there's nothing wrong with Obama reaching across the isle. Besides, why is this any surprise...they are friends. I just think a lot of people are overreacting.

    Bleh (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:23:29 PM EST
    Jeralyn requires us to be nice in the comments. Oh well.

    You find it "funny"?! (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    Reaching across the isle (sic), (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 04:32:13 PM EST
    refers generally, to working with Republican members of Congress, to achieve a legislative goal. Politics is, of course, the art of compromise so as to gain votes for passage. However, reaching into a polemic pulpit in the service of political gamesmanship is a horse of different color. And, it may be funny in the wacky sense, but surely not in a humrous vein.              

    He's not putting Warren in his administration... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Maise7 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST
    it's an invocation for crying out loud. Then he has some Rev., who is the opposite of Warren, do the benediction.

    And yes, it is funny hearing the backlash of Obama supporters. They are being as retarded as the Sean Hannity's of the world complaining about every little thing Obama does.

    Is Obama supposed to ignore the 47% of Americans that didn't vote for him?


    "All this against [a racist] ?" (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:16:05 AM EST
    "...I realize he hasn't said the nicest things about Blacks, but pick your battles."

      Until you have respect for the group which apparently we should not make a big deal over - if rights were taken away from them recently in a much discussed state vote - you won't understand the strong feeling of some about that.

      You will 'tolerate' it - not a battle to to be picked.
    He's just reaching across the aisle as JFK might have with George Wallace or David Dukes if he'd invited them to speak at his inauguration.

     Sometimes it IS about taking a stand, because it's a very basic thing, if one is a Democrat, that is.

      The thing is, I don't think Obama does understand because I think that to him it really is a matter of just viewpoint, one as valid as another.  But we have prisons because there are rights of others we must respect and not all viewpoints are 'equal' (it's not even possible and a strange idea).


    Very on point, that's the good stuff Andrys (none / 0) (#170)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:40:07 AM EST
    I don't see it as a issue... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Maise7 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    and I am all for the same rights for gays as I do. And I understand they are friends. So, I'm not sure why this is a big surprise to anyone.

    Aren't you (or the ones who question all this) using the same 'guilt by association' that the republicans have used against Obama regarding Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Rezko?


    Hardly. Obama ran away from (none / 0) (#184)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:34:05 PM EST
    and minimized his associations with Rezko, Wright, Ayers.  He didn't invite them to his inauguration and give them the microphone on an international platform with worldwide PR.

    Are you really blind to the difference?


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#1)
    by talesoftwokitties on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    Couldn't agree more.

    Amazingly (none / 0) (#142)
    by JThomas on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    Obama's presidency is considered a failure more than a month before he takes the oath.
    Why not save the outrage for something that Obama does that actually will affect people's lives?

    Like nominate a Bork for SCOTUS?

    If he does that, then I agree, go nuts.
    Until he takes the office,why not wait and see?


    It's a matter of setting the Tone (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by andrys on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:03:15 AM EST
    What does Obama stand for?  This is not a mere policy meeting, which should be inclusive of all varying viewpoints.

      It's an inaugural, with all that this means.  What are we inaugurating?  Spiritual leadership and representation (to talk to God on behalf of the rest of us) by one who considers gay marriage as on the same level as that by a pedophile and a child or between a brother and a sister?  

      It's meant to be symbolic.  Change.  Wasn't that the word?
    A good majority of people wanted a New Order, clearly.  

      Nothing like beginning the New Age of Change by choosing, out of all the church leaders with human smarts rather than marketing pizazz, a person who feels he had to encourage the elimination of rights to marry between people he deems 'sinners' or 'deviant.'  Add that Warren is anti-choice and that means he's against rights of a woman to decide, and he is against stem-cell research and teaching of evolution.  

      It's all so regressive.  Why choose Warren to auger in a new era?  He's not choosing to include, he's choosing to have Warren speak for us To the Divine (if Obama is genuine about his religious feelings rather than politically pragmatic).



    Yes (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dave B on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    I am with you 100% on this.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:10:55 PM EST
    Wonder what Rev Rick will say about the music:

    President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden have officially invited the Lesbian and Gay Band Association to march in the Inaugural Parade. One of the association's web sites reports that the group will also march in September as part of the homosexual "Southern Decadence" festival infamous for its public lewd acts.


    "I am honored to invite these talented groups and individuals to participate in the Inaugural Parade," said President-elect Obama.  "These organizations embody the best of our nation's history, diversity and commitment to service. Vice President-elect Biden and I are proud to have them join us in the parade."

    And this bit is odd, don't ask don't tell?

    Organizations wishing to participate in the parade reportedly submitted an application to the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee, which assisted the Presidential Inaugural Committee in reviewing applications. Experienced military musicians evaluated the presentation skills of marching bands, musical acts, and drill teams.

    catholic news agency

    Why do we need an "invocation" (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
    of any kind, anyway? And how far back does this ritual/ceremonial hokum go?

    I thought the original idea was a country founded on enlightened democratic principals, not a precurser to Triumph of the Will spectacles for the enthralled masses.

    Though of course, its another field day/feeding frenzy for the media.


    Not only no invocation (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    but no lavish, "gala" (no slight intended) inauguration either. It's all pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain time and a chance for more weasal contractors to raid the hen house -- yet again. As if that hasnt been going on enough in the last 8 years.

    Hear, hear get your freak on with (none / 0) (#171)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:43:36 AM EST
    god in the privacy of homes and churches. Get it the hell out of the public square. Even "god bless America" makes me cringe - I mean, what would god have to be thinking?

    Just wanted to add that I don't think (none / 0) (#174)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:14:44 AM EST
    god much cared for the Papal Inquisitions, let alone the Bush/Cheney torture regime. Which will continue for the foreseeable future under an Obama Administration - in the interest of continuity we can count on.

    WSWS on Obama and Rick Warren (none / 0) (#161)
    by Andreas on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:37:05 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    Obama and his entourage are clever politicians, but too clever by half. They calculate that they can move as far to the right as they like, because the official American "left" has nowhere else to go and, in any case, no stomach for opposing such a trajectory.

    It's perfectly true that the Nation editorial board, officials of People for the American Way and many well-heeled gay rights advocates will never break from the Democratic Party. In the end, these elements will rationalize and explain away every reactionary measure taken by the Obama administration--they are bound to the Democrats by class interest, defenders all of the profit system.

    The mass of the American people, however, is another matter. They have no interest in sticking with the Democrats. Seeing Obama for what he is, a venal and dishonest representative of the American financial and corporate elite, will be an essential political experience and open up the floodgates.

    Obama, in a `slap in the face,' invites right-wing evangelist to the inauguration
    By David Walsh, 19 December 2008

    Finally, another Socialist at TL (none / 0) (#172)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:50:47 AM EST
    That makes about a half dozen of us. Thanks for the hot link.

    I can't read em all... (none / 0) (#178)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:25 PM EST
    Lipstick Pigs and other Racists (none / 0) (#185)
    by AnthonyLook on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:47:14 PM EST
    President Elect Obama is an enemy of the gay community. Black Americans are not friends of the gay community. It is gutterly understood that right wing fundi White Christians are truely enemies of the gay community; but, political correctness, especially this past election year, gave the gay community pause in uttering the fact of the inherent Christian based gay racism in the Black community. Not some, not few, not here and there; but, most Black Americans are gay racists. Black Americans must be viewed for the enemy that they are of the gay community along side with their Christian White counterparts. The gay community must work to impede Black political interests and rights insofar as that is what Black Americans are doing unto gay interests. THEY ARE ALSO THE ENEMY.
    Just as the gay community would do no less to obstruct the interests and rights of any conservative republican white or otherwise; the gay community must direct the same vigor to obstruct, and impede any political gains of the Black community. They have no qualms about doing as much to the gay community. The gay community must rise above the political correctness of aligning itself to a fellow Democratic Party faction and recognize Black America is as much an enemy as is as the Conservative right wing American. Let's work to vote against any and all Black American political interests at every level; be it school board or the office of the presidency. Work as hard as possible to minimize their hateful bigotted gay racist influence.
    There is no difference between a Black homophobe and a Conservative one.
    Ask yourself would have Hillary Clinton invited such a vile gay racist to her inaguration. Obama not only threw the gay community under the bus; he condoned gay racist speech.
    I regret voting for this man.