But pols do have to believe something and act on it.

Been thrown that bone before.

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.

catholic news agency

As a lesbian, I knew back in August that Obama was going to cowtow to everyone to get their vote just to throw them under the bus when he was elected.  I was disturbed then at some of his responses in the live HRC forum.  People who supported him shouldn't have been so foolish as to think that he was going to do anything of real substance for the gay community.  Rick Warren is just the tip of the iceberg.  Look how a few weeks ago he said he would hold off on repealing don't ask, don't tell.

What this says about Kos' opinion of Obama is telling. Kos is telling us that Obama is no kind of leader no way no how. But that didn't stop him from supporting Obama with sweat dripping from his euphoric brow.

What I think Kos is still not willing to accept is what I see as something both obvious and inevitable. Obama will not give a sh-t what Kos and the rest of us have to say anymore than Bush did. He is already becoming the new "decider." Enough of his flock will nod and go along - telling themselves that he really has a secret progressive agenda and he really doesn't mean it when he puts cretins like Warren in the glow of the national spotlight.

I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and--well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN FRANK ON PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA CHOOSING RICK WARREN TO GIVE INAUGURATION INVOCATION
"I am very disappointed by President-elect Barack Obama's decision to honor Reverend Rick Warren with a prominent role in his inauguration.  Religious leaders obviously have every right to speak out in opposition to anti-discrimination measures, even in the degrading terms that Rev. Warren has used with regard to same-sex marriage.  But that does not confer upon them the right to a place of honor in the inauguration ceremony of a president whose stated commitment to LGBT rights won him the strong support of the great majority of those who support that cause.

"It is irrelevant that Rev. Warren invited Senator Obama to address his congregation, since he extended an equal invitation to Senator McCain.  Furthermore, the President-Elect has not simply invited Rev. Warren to give a speech as part of a series in which various views are presented.  The selection of a member of the clergy to occupy this uniquely elevated position has always been considered a mark of respect and approval by those who are being inaugurated."

I am still looking for that little, tiny, ray of light, that says he really is a progressive.  Appointing a republican to head up DOT didn't really get it for me.  Then Warren.  Obama's driving a stake right through the heart of progressives.  

"Barack Obama defends his choice of Rick Warren by saying that he wants to have a diverse Inauguration Ceremony. Diverse? Is that why he's following Christian Rick Warren's Christian invocation with a closing religious benediction by another Christian preacher, Reverend Joseph Lowery? If the Inauguration is diverse, where are the non-Christians in the ceremony? Where are the atheists? Where are the gays and lesbians? Hm. They're not in the ceremony.

If Obama truly believes he can convince them to kill their cash cow, he's too dumb to be in the White House! (This is a multi billion dollar industry).

In any case the choice of Hilda Solis is far more important to me than Warren.

That being said, all this does is put Obama right in line with most Democrats, particular one's representing the party on a national stage. But to make him out to be some homophobe and not pro-gay rights is wrong and dishonest. To say he's tepidly supported the repeal of DOMA when anytime he's commented on it he's unequivocally said the whole thing should be repealed, not just bits and parts of it, is also dishonest. Lastly, while he could've done more with AA community regarding Prop 8, to say he hasn't challenged African Americans on their homophobic tendencies, as some have said here, is wrong and completely unfair. I remember clearly when he was at Ebenezer baptist church in January and said  the following in his speech:

"The African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man.... If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."

Those words were poignant because where Obama said them, and when he said them. To say a politically risky critique of the black community and by extension the black church, was a bold and risky step. But doing it at Ebenezer Baptist and to boldly put the gay rights struggle under MLKs "beloved community" tent was risky to the point of being bad politics. What made it riskier was he said this in January, when he didn't have 90% of the black vote, when the Clintons were still a viable option for the black community should he upset them, and with the South Carolina primary looming as the next big contest.

The inauguration is, after all, a gigantic rally designed to accrue political capitol for the incoming President. With this in mind, perhaps the best option is to find some way to cause political trouble for Obama at the inauguration itself. One option I have heard discussed is getting tens of thousands of people to boo Rick Warren when he is speaking to the crowd. The goal of such an action, as I understand it, would be to anger Rick Warren's followers during the inauguration, thus denying Obama a chance to accrue political capital with that group (which is part of what he seeks through this move).

This is unsatisfactory on multiple levels. Should the goal really be to reduce the political capital of an incoming Democratic president seeking to reverse so many years of Republican damage? And it may not be necessary in any case to try to damage his chances with evangelicals, since they don't seem too eager to jump on board the Obama train with Pastor Warren anyway.

No, the goal should be to make him pay a price when he crosses progressives but not to punish him per se for trying to expand the playing field for Democrats, or limit his efforts in that regard. Extending a hand to evangelicals on social issues and saying Let's work together on those we agree on and we'll talk about the rest later is not a bad idea in itself. It's the collateral tactics to that that are the problem.

I think it's time for bloggers to get over their shock and hurt feelings and sense of betrayal as they realize he's going to govern as what he always said he would govern as - a centrist. It's time to get over it. All the moping is shrill and depressing.