Pols Are Pols . . .

and do what they do. Kos remembers this critical point:

Obama wouldn't be out there making perhaps the strongest statement in support of gays and lesbians by a president (though he's still not technically one, I know) if it wasn't for the sturm and drang this choice generated. It is precisely this backlash that has forced Obama to clearly affirm his commitment to equality. And it will be continued pressure that will force him to do the right thing on the issue. If we shut up, he'll take the path of least resistance. And that path of least resistance is kowtowing to the conservative media, the clueless punditocracy, and bigots like Warren.

Emphasis mine. Speaking for me only

< Thursday Evening Open Thread | Wrongful Conviction Roundup >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm the first one to say "pols are pols" (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    but I usually say it when I think someone is romanticizing their choice for office, or expecting the world to change overnight.

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

    If this is solely about pols taking the path of least resistance, and not doing the right thing, then gay rights are sunk.  The evangelicals outnumber and outgun gay people by almost every measure.

    I would have thought (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:20:03 PM EST
    that the "path of least resistance" would have been to choose someone less controversial than Warren.

    I think this is Obama trying to squeeze maximum benefit out of his choices. Problem is, I can't see a way to hurt him politically for making this particular choice.

    Nah, the path of least resistence (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:28:09 PM EST
    is to respond to the squeaky wheel--or the wheel that you think is going to be squeaky. (Which I think is what your second sentence means, yes?)  
    I, personally, am throwing my can of WD-40 in the garbage.

    Me too (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:29:41 AM EST
    You nailed it. This is a smart (none / 0) (#68)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:32:48 PM EST
    calculation by Obama, in a way---and unfortunately.

    Hmm (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    what will be remembered more?  Warren or Obama's vague statement of "advocacy" that really isn't supported in any way by his actions if you are paying an iota of attention (does fierce advocacy include more or less quietly opposing Prop 8?)

    Obama said similar stuff back in April.  Big deal.  

    Thank you for the reminder BTD (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:20:48 PM EST
    I hate it when I feel overwhelmed by the need to get along and that prevents from saying everything that needs to said as often and as loudly as I can :)

    I'd give kos more credit if he had (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    weighed in strongly as part of the sturm and drang earlier. But I'll take the rather weak tea as a step in the right direction.

    A front pager was on it last night, and it (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:31:33 PM EST
    was unequivocal.  Kos is far from my favorite left blogosphere writer; in fact, I don't find him very credible after the smears he advanced in the primary.

    But give him credit.  He is always down-the-line supportive when it comes to gay issues.  He was all over McClurkin (even if his Clinton derangement led him to forget it later).


    BarbinMD spoke up (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by jes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    not kos. And as I recall from the McClukin fiasco, kos waited 3 days to weigh in. That may be all over supportive for you, but I was counting the hours.

    I STRONGLY DISAGREE (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    with John Cole though..."Perspective - We Ain't Got It?"  We have to get really p*ssed, and nonetheless bear, Warren giving the invocation at Obama's presidency to get a paragraph about Obama's fierce advocacy?  

    Been thrown that bone before.

    What a galling title.

    Big Tent Inauguration (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:28:14 PM EST
    He is pandering to LGBT too:
    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

    or is it just that they are a really great group of musicians?

    it's the olympic opening ceremonies (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:29:17 PM EST
    and Warren gets to light the torch.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    The Lesbian and Gay Band Association are the equivalent of Tommie Smith and John Carlos in 1968. Hope they give Warren a apt tribute during their routine.

    You must be joking (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:49:58 PM EST
    Well Yes (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:06:03 PM EST
    Although, in the context of the above comment:

    it's the olympic opening ceremonies and Warren gets to light the torch.

    I was enjoying the analogy and imagining the The Lesbian and Gay Band Association speaking truth to power by taking a moment to pay tribute to Rev Warren with a "lewd" act or two.

    That would be analogous to Tommie Smith and John Carlos speaking truth to power in '68, imo.


    I hope that there is an LGBT protest (5.00 / 10) (#55)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    and a pro-choice protest and more at the start of the inaugural ceremony.  It's merited, and apparently it will take a lot to get through to the incoming administration that this sort of appeasement of appalling people like Warren is unacceptable.

    Yes, that's equivalence. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:34:15 PM EST
    Picking a gay band.

    And, I note you quote the most-homophobic-possible reference to this band, from a right-wing Catholic newsletter.

    Nice.  And very telling.


    Everybody knows that gays do music (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    better than God (snark)

    But according to Squeaky's reference, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:37:08 PM EST
    it's always tied to something lewd.

    According to these folks (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:38:41 PM EST
    gays are always lewd.

    Child rape. . .not so much.


    Well, I always go dance at a guy (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:41:46 PM EST
    gay bar when I feel like just dancing and not having my a$$ grabbed but that's just me.

    Yes (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    I thought the catholic news agency was a nice touch. The military were the ones that chose the band.

    And what is your problem? What is so telling, may I ask.

    Do you think that I am apologizing for Obama or endorsing Rev Rick?

    Hardly. From my point of view the Lesbian and Gay Band Association marching in the inaugural parade is absolutely germane to the fact that Obama picked Warren.


    As a gay man (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by kenosharick on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM EST
    I find your nasty homophobic comments today personally insulting and sickening.

    Sorry You Feel That Way (3.66 / 3) (#160)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:01:32 AM EST
    But, I don't have a homophobic bone in my body. Knock yourself out with your self inflicted outrage, though, if it gets you excited.

    I am happy to oblige.


    If you think quoting that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Joelarama on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    article is a "nice touch" after a moment for consideration, then I really don't think you're worth it.

    Squeaky is well woth it (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    Her comment was very ill considered imo.

    It sure read like apologia (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    I think you probably did mean it as such. What else is the purpose of your comment>

    Hardly (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:56:37 PM EST
    I think Warren is a pig and a horrible choice. I am laughing at the juxtaposition and think it is certainly incongruous to Warrens anti gay stance.

    It certainly sends mixed messages.


    Your comment was ill considered (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    imo. It came off like an apologia to me.

    The reference to pandering ... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by cymro on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:04:23 AM EST
    ... made it obvious that the point was that Obama was a pol being a pol and pandering to both sides. Why was there any need for that to be explained?

    Surely Obama's inclusion of both Warren and the gay band in his inauguration procedings illustrate the validity of the point you were making when you selected the title of this thread?


    OK (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    Rereading it, I can see that the comment did needed more consideration to not appear as if I was a cultist defending Obama.

    Sort of a nonsequitur, although germane.


    This is (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:48:30 PM EST
    a pathetic defense of Obama on Warren.

    No Defense (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    Warren is clearly a horrible pick.

    I knew this was coming (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by sonderweg on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:31:46 PM EST
    Frankly, the astounded supporters of Obama are what is shocking about this situation.  How did they not know this was coming?

    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.

    I'm glad I "voted against my best interests" and cast a vote for Nader after Hillary wasn't the candidate.  I am glad I never supported Obama.  I can't say I feel bad for people that did.  He is simply more of the same in a different package.  

    This Warren issue is predictable (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:43:57 PM EST
    Obama has appeared at Warren's Church....the last time being the debate at Saddleback....

    It is part of the no red-states-or-blue-states idea from the 2004 convention speech.

    I would prefer that Obama cut loose Warren (who has made it very clear he fully intends to wade into the political waters), but Obama continues wooing conservative evangelicals....The marginal gain seems dubious....

    But expect more of this.....Hopefully, don't ask, don't tell gets the axe--while Obama remains "agreeable" with Warren.


    Yes, Obama has consistently been opposed (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:22:54 AM EST
    To gay marriage.  His carefully worded statement today did not mention any change in his attitude about gays and marriage.  He's never done anything for gays, or to stop prop 8.  So, like you, I cannot understand why anyone is shocked by this.  It goes right along with Obama's less-than-progressive cabinet choices.  

    IMO (none / 0) (#84)
    by CDN Ctzn on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:35:58 PM EST
    Nader was certainly NOT the worst choice one could make this past election. I was sitting on the fence until I heard him speak in Portland and realized he was the ONLY candidate addressing issues that the middle class and the poor were facing. I do not regret my decision to support his positions.

    Nader?! (none / 0) (#177)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:46:57 AM EST
    Look, I could see supporting the guy in 2000, when there wasn't any real difference apparent between the canidates to a lot of people, but now after all that's happened, it just arrogance.

    Can't be bothered (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:43:55 PM EST
    with what Kos or any other blogger/ Pundit thinks or writes or says. Caroline Schlossberg gets a Senate seat because of connections and money. Obama chooses an Evangelical to swear him in or something like that. New pictures never before seen of Obama appear. Blago and pay to play stuff. He picks a promoter of Ethanol for the Dept. of Agriculture and a proponent of strip mining for the Dept of Interior. We never really knew this guy did we? We still don't. He was honest. He says he never made any promises other than hope and change. He plans to expand Bush's Faith Based Initiatives. People just projected onto the guy what they wanted to beleive. Now reality hits since we don't have a common enemy like Hillary to kick around. Its all him and the stuff he brings with him. Stay tuned for many more suprises.

    Didn't Kos tell people who were critical (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:45:01 PM EST
    of some of Obama's cabinet picks to shut up no less then 2 weeks ago? What changed?

    He remembered (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    what we said for 5 years.

    He'll forget tomorrow. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:45:57 PM EST
    What Obama says vs. what Obama does (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by ricosuave on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    I guess we can dig deep into the hypothetical counterfactual logic and say that having Warren speak somehow is a good thing.  Or we can just stick with the basic facts and note that Obama chose to highlight an outspoken anti-gay, anti-abortion preacher when he could have chosen someone either less outspoken or less anti-progressive.

    This is a great example of the divide between what Obama does and what Obama says.  Kos is at the top of the list for buying into the hype without letting the "what Obama acutally did" details dull the shine.  I'm sorry, but after having left his website because I was sick of being shouted down by Obama supporters, I fully expect the Kossacks to continue finding uncannily clever reasons why Obama didn't support basic progressive positions instead of working to hold him accountable like Kos says he wants them to.

    You make the same mistake (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    Pols are pols and do what they do.

    LBJ and Nixon were both pols (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ricosuave on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:34:53 PM EST
    But I like one of them and don't like the other.  Go figure.

    (P.S. LBJ is the one I like, not Nixon.)


    I'm thinking Obama's inviting (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:02:25 PM EST
    Pastor Donnie McClurkin to campaign with him was quite significant., as many pointed out here during the primaries.  McClurkin is a "former" homosexual whose ministry is devoted to creating more of same.  

    Quite an indictment (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:02:29 PM EST
    Kos says that Obama will do the wrong thing - take the path of least resistance - unless prodded to do otherwise.

    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.

    Kos and some of the other brethren and sisteren who consider that "they" elected somebody historic and ergo progressive are going to have to be splashed rather strongly with a pail of cold water before they will begin to see that, as Malcolm X said, they've "been took".

    If you think any other pol (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    will do otherwise, then you have not learned the lesson -- pols are pols and do what they do.

    Lessons learned. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:20:08 PM EST
    I have learned the lesson - long ago.
    I was talking about Kos.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:19:27 PM EST
    that it will take while for those who were so invested in promoting the agent of change and hope that it will really take something big for them to admit they backed someone who they didn't now. I truly beleive they hoped to get a seat at the table. Nagonnahappen. It will be kinda fun to see the letdown. Its time they were brought back to reality and got their head outta their a**es, er, sand. How embarrassing for the gay folks. I'm one but I didn't fall for the hopium. Seen and heard it all before. Hope they still have something left from the checks they got campaignin.

    Sorry, BTD, not this time (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:24:13 PM EST
    And furthermore, Kos is wrong on the facts. Bill Clinton was certainly more supportive of the gay rights than Obama. It is no accident that huge majorities of gay Americans are huge fans of the Clintons, and very skeptical of Obama. We know who are allies are.

    Kos' point was different (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:27:44 PM EST
    To wit, no President has ever made such a pro-gay rights statement.

    that seems correct to me.

    Clinton signed DOMA after all.

    Of course, that was 12 years ago.


    I would grade on a curve (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:32:48 PM EST
    The world has changed.

    It's sure hard not to ask "what would Hillary do?" Frankly, I doubt she would have done this.


    yeahh... (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:37:52 PM EST
    she doesn't suffer the same hard-on for social conservatives that Obama does.

    And it's even more of a shame because based on Obama's books you know he most likely doesn't believe the crap Warren does or accept his approach.  

    It's a huge missed opportunity for the religious left as well.


    Per NPR "All Things Considered" (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:02:19 PM EST
    this afternoon, Obama asked Rick Warren to review the chapter in his book on religion--before the book was published.

    Exactly, it was 12 years ago (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by dk on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:38:59 PM EST
    So there is absolutely no comparison. Clinton signed DOMA to avoid a fight over a marriage amendment, and despite what fauxgressives try to say now we all kno that it would have passed. We also know that Clinton was the first to appoint openly gay people to a presidential administration. Further, I remember his simple line that gay people pay their taxes like every other American and deserve the same respect that every other American gets. The importance of those basic statements, in a decade where gay people were in a much more precarious societal position than they are now, is head and shoulders over the garbage Obama is trying to pass off as "fierce support" of gay rights. Heck, Clinton's very first fight was over gays in the military, which he would have won had it not been for the likes of Sam Nunn and Colin Powell.

    I came out right around the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency. To be honest, I pity kids who are trying to come out now in the age of Obama's tolerance of homophobic bigotry. He is most certainly a step bacwards from Bill.


    Just spent some hours with students (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    who are LGBT, and you're correct:  It's a sad time for them.  They didn't see this coming, because they saw only the Second Coming. . . .  

    Btw, your comment takes me back to the hopeful times of the early '90s.  I had more hope then, and about many issues, than I do now -- and look what happened to the hopes then by the end of the '90s.


    It was more optimistic back then... (none / 0) (#79)
    by BigElephant on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:09:55 PM EST
    Unfortunately what Clinton did for gays set the tone for where we're at now.  Since that we've had an increase in gay hate crime, every state that has sought to ban gay marriage has successfully done so, and it is still the case that virtually no major national politicians support gay marriage.

    This is one of those in retrospect where Bill should have put up a much bigger fight and put a stake in the ground for the Democratic party that it would support gays.  That didn't happen.  What we got instead was to lean toward the polls -- and that's still where we're at today.  No better, but also no worse.


    No, that was what Newt & Co. did (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:21:40 PM EST
    to gays. And therefore, to all of us.

    Talk is cheap (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:27:41 AM EST
    Actions speak MUCH louder than his nice little speech.  

    I see that (none / 0) (#70)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    the fact is worth noting.  

    Does that therefore make Obama's inauguration the most contradictory ever?


    Pols are Pols (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:49:05 PM EST
    but I don't think Hillary would have chosen Warren.....that's just a slap to the GLBT community.  But gee, where will they go?  I think the Log Cabin Republicans answer that question.

    It's sh!t like this (none / 0) (#89)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:53:07 PM EST
    that makes the Log Cabin Republicans start to make sense.  At least the Republicans are honest about their "official" stand.  (Although their "private" positions are best left to the imagination.)

    more there than "pols are pols" (5.00 / 9) (#80)
    by pluege on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:19:17 PM EST
    writing Obama's obvious inherent anti-gayism off as just pols are pols ignores his bigotry; something he has repeatedly been caught at since he became a focal point of the national public attention 2 years ago. The widespread ignoring of this defect in the Obama persona is highly suspect.

    Well put. (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    I couldn't figure out just how to say that saying  "pols are pols" is not apt here.  Too easy to say, too easy to dismiss a major failing of a pol.

    That's what I was thinking (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    Is the "unity schtick" back with a vengeance now?  Or does Obama actually like Warren's beliefs.  I really think the latter, JMHO.  It's very much been a message threaded throughout his campaign.

    Bigotry should not be excused as "pols are pols"....it's kind of like the "men are men" defense of Obama's idiot chief speechwriter.


    According to NPR, Warren invited (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:06:06 PM EST
    Obama to speak at an AIDs seminar at Saddleback a few years ago.  Obama hailed the invitation as a gutsy move by Warren, considering his church and Obama differed on many issues.  

    P.S.  This is not an apologia.  Just reporting what I heard on the radio today.


    Ew. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:38 PM EST
    Now I get this vision of Obama and Warren congratulating each other on their "gutsy moves" and how this makes them both look bold and innovative.

    There are plenty of people who are bold and innovative, but they don't head mega churches.  It's not the boldness of your vision, it's the size of your congregation?


    Precisely (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:28:01 PM EST
    It's all about the size of the crowds, and the amount of adulation, for both of them. Ego driven religion and ego driven politics. They are two of a kind. If Obama had not gone into politics maybe he would have started a megachurch.

    Just say it (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by mapleh23 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:43:43 PM EST
    What don't you all just say what everyone is dancing around, and that is Obama is a bigot.

    No, but some of his friends are.... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST
    and I'm sure Obama is all "love the sinner, hate the sin, pass the collection plate".

    He's probably not a bigot (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:15:07 PM EST
    but he sure is an enabler of bigoted attitudes.  I'd say he's indifferent, and at this point, indifference to bigotry is just as bad, if not worse.

    Obama's not a bigot (none / 0) (#98)
    by Spamlet on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:29:44 PM EST
    He's a pol. Quelle surprise.

    Obama should have gotten both Warren and Wright (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Manuel on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:04:35 PM EST
    I don't know what resistance path that would have been but it would hve been interesting.

    Let me get this straight (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    This is Obama's strong statement?

    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.

    If it was no secret that Obama has always been a fierce advocate for gay rights, we would not be having this discussion.  I certainly have not noticed any ferocity in his support of gay rights, or anything else. Fierce is not an adjective I would use to describe him in any situation, and I watched 22 debates with the very devil herself.

    Hey! That's missing all the pauses (4.75 / 4) (#122)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:47:09 PM EST
    and um's as he stuttered through it.

    history repeats (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by diogenes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:05:48 PM EST
    Why does this whole thing remind me of the Clinton don't ask don't tell flap that contributed to derailing his first term early?

    The historical "flaps" (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:32:59 PM EST
    are similar, in that they involve gay rights, but different, in that the first involved expansion of these rights and the second relates to the limitation or constriction of rights.  President Clinton tried, by executive order, to permit gay men and women to serve openly in the military.  The "flap" was that some in congress, lead by Sam Nunn, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Colin Powell, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of staff, publically, and in my view, insubordinately, challenged the new president's efforts. Something close to a coup resulted in codification of inequality into law (DADT). President-elect Obama has invited Reverend Warren to lead the nation in prayer at his inauguration, a man vocal in obstructing rights and quite recently, played a public role in the support of Proposition 8, which enshrined inequality in the state's constitution. The "flap" this time is that some Americans find Mr. Obama's choice of religious leader to be insensitive and a craven disregard for what should be an  ushering in of change and hope by a spiritual messenger who understands and respects all citizens of a large and diverse nation.

    Nice (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:04:56 PM EST
    h/t Pam Spaulding:

    "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."

    A very good friend just e-mailed (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:18:01 PM EST
    me her missives to NYT and Obama on the Warren issue.  She is really, really upset; mega hours campaigning for Obama in several different states.  Very disappointed.

    Obama is not now... (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by pluege on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:58:07 AM EST
    nor ever was the progressive some want him to be. The blinded fans and fact-free boosters are going to be very disappointed in this center-right pol of very limited enlightenment. The solace they can take is that as limited and disappointing as he is and will be, he is light years ahead of the crap troglodytes we've had for 8 years and could have had in the form of mccain.

    And a h/t to Frank (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:20:20 PM EST
    Nice job, Barney. Anything from Pelosi? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:42:29 PM EST
    Still haven't seen or heard anything from Speaker Pelosi. I used to live in her district. So, I know for a fact that LGBT issues are very important to her constituents. When will Nancy speak out?

    It's getting old (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by NealB on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:17:55 PM EST
    I'm 51; gay; and tired of being told I need to.... I was going to say 'bark like a dog' to get respect. But then I thought, even my dog doesn't need to bark like that in my house.

    Might we now conclude, (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by BrassTacks on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:42:58 AM EST
    That Obama was never the closet (pardon the pun) progressive that we had hoped for?  

    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.  

    It seems that his idea of change is a democrat President who acts like a republican.  Great.  Just great.  

    So you thin Obama (2.66 / 3) (#182)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:41 AM EST
    is going to be Bill Clinton in other words? I mean Bill was a "democrat President who acted like a Republican" I hope Obama will be better than that at least, you know not just have his signature legislative accompllishment be throwing his own base under the bus like Clinton did with Welfare reform.

    www.irregulartimes.com says it best - his last 2 (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by suzieg on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:29:37 AM EST
    paragraphs are worthy of reading the whole article:

    "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.

    For Barack Obama, diversity means making special room for bigots, while excluding the people that the bigots discriminate against. Barack Obama's idea of diversity is not diversity at all."

    oops, the title is: Barak Obama is not my (none / 0) (#184)
    by suzieg on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:30:39 AM EST

    Big Business (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 05:17:26 AM EST
    Gay bashing is probably the number one source of income for the Warren's of the world. (Just as the mear mention of any gun laws sets the NRA people into a check writing frenzy).

    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).

    He's pandered to the Evangelicals since the primaries and all it's done is bring him grief. They didn't vote for him in November and they won't support him now.

    Hillary... (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by NealB on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:50:19 PM EST
    ...was a big Warren fan too. Tried to suck his tit just like Obama. Hmmmm.

    And she didn't get the nom (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    A lot of the progressive blogosphere and voters thought she was not progressive enough, while they thought Obama was just fine.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#5)
    by zvs888 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:24:45 PM EST
    I don't get the big deal about Warren; he's not going to be setting any policy or anything like that.  It's more just Obama showing him respect for giving him a chance in 2006 and again a few months ago when he clearly never had to...

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

    She's easily the most pro-labor secretary this country has seen in a long time, which is a very good thing.

    Here's the problem (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:26:55 PM EST
    in order to "show him respect" Obama has to very seriously disrespect (indeed hurt) others.

    Yup (5.00 / 14) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:59:50 PM EST
    IMO, he's too tolerant of intolerance.

    I Fail to See (none / 0) (#12)
    by zvs888 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:31:30 PM EST
    How having Warren give the invocation "hurts" others.  Sure many of his supporters dislike Warren, and I disagree with him on social issues, but I don't understand the firestorm brewing over the choice.

    Obviously, people are entitled to their own opinions about Warren, but I'm not particularly going to care.  Prop 8 was important, but I don't see any connection between Warren participating and his policies being advocated.


    I'll ask you the same question (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:33:49 PM EST
    I ask everyone who "fails to see" the problem. Would you object to a similar appearance by David Duke?

    Sure (none / 0) (#21)
    by zvs888 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    David Duke is a racist, but Warren isn't a bigot.

    Are we really going to throw everyone who supported Prop. 8 under the bus?

    70% of African Americans supported Prop. 8.  95% of them supported Barack Obama.

    Surely we should prevent them from coming to the inauguration too?


    Yes, I'm throwing everyone who supported (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:39:39 PM EST
    prop 8 under the bus..........whaaaaa.  He's said more though than he just supported 8, he spoke about gays exactly like a bigot.  I'm thinking that makes him a bigot.

    Warren is absolutely a bigot (5.00 / 11) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:41:17 PM EST
    I can dig up the quotes if you insist. I personally find it very disrespectful that you care only about certian kinds of bigotry.

    And IMO, prop 8 supporters should be persona non grata on stage.


    If it's the things (1.71 / 7) (#35)
    by zvs888 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:50:54 PM EST
    Comparing it to incest, polygamy, and other relationships; I don't really see a problem with that.

    Human procreation evolved to work as a male with a non-related female with the other relationships being natural variations that are selected against for various reasons.

    In any case I don't have a problem with gays, and I don't have a problem with people who oppose gay marriage.

    Personally, I voted against the gay marriage amendment in Florida.  It passed with 62% support.

    The country just isn't where we are yet.  In a couple decades it will be.  We just have to wait for our parents and their parents to die off so the vote is in our favor.

    Or the courts should do something about it a la Brown v. Board.


    Seems to me (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:51:24 PM EST
    you are a bigot too.

    You don't see a problem with that? (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:52:00 PM EST
    OK, here's the issue: you, yourself, are a bigot.

    So (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by zvs888 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:57:14 PM EST
    Making the statement that evolution selects against being gay among other things which the process selects against makes me a bigot?

    All I'm doing is stating a scientific theory.

    If I had suggested anywhere in my statements that being gay is a choice, then I would be a bigot.  But I'm not stating that; I'm stating that it's a natural condition just as being straight is.


    you don't see a problem (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:59:28 PM EST
    comparing gay relationships to incest??

    Many people in those incestual relationships (none / 0) (#48)
    by zvs888 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:01:49 PM EST
    are not attracted to their siblings by choice...

    It's the result of a biological process that doesn't occur during youth, either due to separation or other reasons.


    is being gay (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:10:28 PM EST
    "the result of a process that doesn't occur"?  Are you some kind of Freudian?

    Do you not see the important MORAL comparison being made by Warren and crew when they do that?


    Nice (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by standingup on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:47:43 PM EST
    but I don't believe Warren was referring to incestuous relationships between siblings in his comparison with gays and lesbians.

    Aside from your attempt to play devil's advocate and apologist, your idea of what is a bigot appears to be out of step too. Here is a simple definition from Websters and a perfect description of Rick Warren:

    a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    You are not stating a scientific theory (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    You are stating a bigoted shibboleth.

    I'm a biologist (none / 0) (#51)
    by zvs888 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:02:59 PM EST
    I could care less what people think is ordained by some higher power.

    Not much of a biologist (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:16:57 PM EST
    based on your comment.

    A biologist who ought to have minored (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:44:51 PM EST
    in English, or at least have gotten a dictionary in college.  You think the term bigot applies only to race?

    See also (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:33:38 PM EST

    A popular position by many Progressives in past.


    Natural vs. Unnatural (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ricosuave on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:22:14 PM EST
    As soon as you entertain the "scientific debate" over whether homosexuality is natural, genetic, against evolution, etc., you are diving into bigoted territory.  Either you believe that gay people deserve equal rights (no matter how or why they are gay) or you believe the government should restrict the rights and activities of gay people.

    You can make all kinds of speculative arguments (which are not, by the way, the same thing as scientific theories) about why having homosexuals in a population would be either positive, negative, or even neutral to that population's long term survival and prosperity.  But the real thing you have to answer is:

    • Do you believe that same-sex couples should be able to get a marriage license from the state, sign it, and have the same rights regarding medical decisions and inheritance as opposite-sex couples?

    • Do you believe that the state should be allowed to deny a marriage license to a couple because one person is white and one person is black?

    • Do you believe that companies and government insititutions should be allowed to fire somebody because that person is gay (or, I guess we should say, is believed to be gay, since there is no objective scientific test for who is gay and who is not)?

    • Do you believe that companies and government insititutions should be allowed to fire somebody because that person is black (or, I guess we should say, is believed to be black, since there is no objective scientific test for who is black and who is not)?

    • Do you believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people, and that natural selection does not favor them, either?

    Sorry for the excessively obvious attempt to shock and equate homophobia with racism, but I just can't resist.  If you can remember back to the 70's and 80's, then think of the change in how we view both gay and black people since then as well as what kind of laws were in place.  Think about how you feel about miscegenation laws, and try to imagine if you will feel that way about current laws banning gay marriage.  Then think about how you feel today about people who fought against racial equality over the last several decades and how you feel today about people who fought for racial equality during that time.  Then decide how you want to feel about yourself and how you want your kids to look at you.  

    Then maybe you will stop trying to defend people's bigoted positions.


    Evoluton selects against religious (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    belief, too, because people who are religious are less connected to and aware of the real world, so their survival rate is less.
    Ooops...did I just make something up? People shouldn't do that, don't you agree?

    Just wait? (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:57:02 PM EST
    When did this last work?  Did MLK,Jr say "Just wait."?  Did the Suffragettes "just wait" all those decades?  Did the slaves "just wait"?

    If what you do is "just wait" then you get more of the same.  I've had plenty already, thank you very much.

    I want,....what is that word?  Oh yeah.



    comments like yours (none / 0) (#119)
    by kenosharick on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:39:44 PM EST
    make me physically ill. I did not expect this crap here. I guess if I do not want to be verbally assaulted I must only mix with other gays.

    hahaha (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by lilburro on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:41:20 PM EST

    "Warren isn't a bigot"

    are you...Mike Huckabee??


    Warren is a bigot (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    Why Not? (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by pluege on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:44:22 PM EST
    Are we really going to throw everyone who supported Prop. 8 under the bus?

    something wrong with outing bigots and enemies of inequality?


    I really find the sort of God (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    that Warren would invoke repulsive.  It is likely that a Kirlian photo of Rick's God would reveal that it has horns.

    Oh No No No No No (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 05:29:20 PM EST
    Nasty bigots don't get equal representation and a seat at GOD's TABLE at the inauguration of a Democratic President of the United States without a base fit and fight!  Get used to it.  If I have anything to say about it or anything to teach and inspire now and in the future that WILL NEVER EVER EVER change.

    You guys are being a tad unfair (none / 0) (#85)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:43:22 PM EST
    to Obama regarding his support for gay rights. I think Warren doing the invocation is terrible and is a step too far in the "post partisan" schtick. I don't like that Obama supports civil unions but not gay marriage, he also could've been more foreful in his support against Prop 8, although doing that would've made an election about the economy into an election about "social issues". an election he would have a hard time winning.

    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.

    I will say again, I'm not defending what he's doing with Rick Warren, I think its complete tonedeafness in an effort on his part to appear more "inclusive". But I still see it as a symbolic decision that has nothing to do with his actual policy proposals, which are unequivocally PRO-gay rights. Many here treat Obama unfairly by always rushing to the worst possible interpretation of his actions. I mean you guys have RIGHTLY called out the media and other segments of the blogosphere regarding the unfair treatment towards the Clintons and their obvious CDS, which to many of you has unfortunately catapulted into a campaign against "their" candidate, with their being the media or other progressives . I was originally an Edwards supporter and am open to criticizing Obama. But when the interpretation of what his Presidency will bring is the same as Bush to many of you, then you's suffering from ODS, gotta say it.

    You make some good points (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    I agree that it was bold of him to speak those words at Ebeneezer, and they were welcome words. I'll go further and say that I felt the same way about his unapologetic defense of abortion rights made during the Saddleback forum - to a hostile audience no less.

    But he's a confusing person, at the very least. He shows this kind of leadership occasionnally, but then he also gives credence to the likes of McClurkin, Warren, and others.


    I agree with your sentiment (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:17:43 PM EST
    and I think what Obama suffers from is total devotion to this "reach across the aisle" message to the point where he has blind spots and does things like making Warren the invocation speaker without realizing his opposition to gay rights and the direct slap it would be to some of his, to use the word of the moment, "fierce" supporters.

    To me though, I believe Obama is a "symbolic" conciliator, and I remember what Richard Epstein, a conservative/liberterian Professor and  a colleague of Obamas at the U of C said of Obama. Epstein, the ideological opposite of Obama, would occasionally debate Obama on issues during faculty get togethers. He said that Obama is a great listener, he will listen to your viewpoint and articulate the rationale behind it better than you can, BUT, despite being a great listener, he's extremely rigid in his philosophy, was basically a down the line liberal and not once did he see Obama change his view on any topic or at least show an openness to changing his positon. He summed up by saying that when Obama talks about more inclusiveness and reaching across the aisle he's sincere, but when asked to name ways of reaching to republicans Obama never made policy concessions he was willing to give republicans so he could achieve "unity." He felt Obama would offer symbolic gestures, like be engaging in speaking about religous issues, and, to Epstein, an extreme fiscal conservative, Obama would talk about agreeing that being budget freindly was important to democrats but the programs he would always mention as "examples" of where there's too much spending were programs where there was no resistance to shutting down within democratic circles and where he would spend zero capital on doing it. Now Epstein meant all this as a criticism, but for me it was music to my ears and probably explains why I'm not thinking we'll get a republican appeaser as President just cause he makes gestures in their direction.


    FISA (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:48:43 PM EST
    was a policy concession.  (And a pandering flip-flop.)  Just for starters. . . .

    Two points; (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:55:23 PM EST
    if a conservative calls Obama "liberal" in his politics, that means nothing to me.
    On the other hand, I see the same rigidity in  Obama, when it comes to moral and social issues.

    Actually, I would challenge the (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by dk on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:26:14 AM EST
    idea that Obama's words at Ebenezer were "bold."  And I do so for two reasons.

    First off, I don't really anything bold, or original, about Obama's words.  They are baseline platitudes.  I mean, come on, is it bravery in this day and age to make a statement that all people deserve to be treated with respect?  And as for the the point about reminding the African American community to honor MLKs legacy by including gay people in the civil rights struggle, isn't this an idea that MLKs own widow pointed out years ago (when it was actually a new thing to say and controversial)?  Coretta was 10 times the hero that Barack could ever hope to be as far as gay rights is concerned.  Read her quotes; beyond the platitudes of "gay brothers and sisters" were comparisons to racisms and other forms of bigotry, and specific advocacy of legal and economic equality for gay people.  

    Secondly, Obama has probably never spoken to a more friendly (to Obama) crowd than the one present at Ebenezer.  I mean, here is the first African American with a serious shot at the White House.  He could have read the phone book and gotten halelujas for hours.  And that is totally understandable.  Here is part of MKLs dream fulfilled standing right in front of them.  Do you really think there was some kind of danger that the crowd was sitting there with notepads detailing pros and cons for voting for Obama?  There was zero risk that Obama's words were going to get the crowd not to support him, despite the fact that, if we take the LA county votes on Prop 8 as a guide, about 70% of African Americans are fine with stripping gay people (including other African Americans, by the way) of their legal rights.  Sure, he avoided abject pandering to homophobia, but that does not translate to bravery.

    So, forgive me if I refrain from pinning a medal of bravery on Obama for that one.


    So much truth in this post (none / 0) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    my eyes are watering.

    Obama is not (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:05:53 PM EST
    unequivocally pro-gay rights.  Or unequivocally pro-women's rights.

    He is equivocal.  His line shifts all the time, and often depending upon the place and time.  And even as far as his line sometimes goes to the left, it is not far enough to be unequivocal.


    On gay rights (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:28:57 PM EST
    Its fair and completely understandable if there are those who believe he isn't unequivocally pro-gay rights.  To many, civil unions and not marriage is not unequivocal support, although I meant it in terms of what to expect from a politician running for President.

    As far as womens rights go, by any conceivable measure, he's as pro-choice as any president we've had. Planned Parenthood didn't just endorse him, they invested in him like he was the solution to all their problems, whether thats true or not. When he was criticized in the primary for votes in the State Senate, all the pro-choice groups that were tied to the bills vehemently defended him. But I think saying that Obama is not unequivocally Pro-choice is basically proving my point on the ODS that many of you have, whether you realize or not.


    Obama advises women (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:35:06 PM EST
    to consult their ministers and spouses on their health issues.  Not their doctors.

    And that's just for starters, with all the things he has said . . . but you don't want to hear them.


    That's actually not accurate (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:06:02 PM EST
    I've heard him say that multiple times and here's an exact quote:

    "What I have said is that women should make the decision in consultation with their priests, or pastor, their doctor, their family members and in consultation with their beliefs,"

    There are two thigns I notice from what he says: first is the inclusion of doctors and second is the "in consultation with their beliefs" comment. The reason why the latter is important is because if you've heard Obama mention this while discussing abortion, it has always been his throwaway line right after explaining how its a very personal decision and should ultimately be the womans. I've known 2 people, one who I'm extremely close with, who have had abortions, and, of the people Obama says you should consult, the Priest is never the first one the average woman, particularly young woman, would  think of. For women who want to reach out to people they know, Its family and friends first, for those who want "guidance" on this issue but don't want to disclose this to people they know, they're actually more likely to go looking for a doctor/physician rather than a priest/pastor Any woman who feels the need to reach out to a priest to get guidance were raised in an environment where that would be done regardless of what Obama would say, and if that's their choice for who to seek guidance from, its their choie.

    Once again, I think this is an example of Obama sounding approachable on this issue from the viewpoint of a Pro-Lifer while in actuality how he's voted, his policy proposals and what he intends to do about doctors who try to use moral reasonsfor not allowing an abortion or even advising as such all send the same message, he's unequivocally pro-choice.


    I hope your assessment of Obama is correct (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by cymro on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:35:06 AM EST
    But I am dubious until I see the evidence. So far, there are more signs of his being a centrist with a desire to please everyone than of him being "a symbolic conciliator" who nonetheless holds fast to his own strong "down the line liberal" positions when challenged.

    Only time will reveal the real Obama.


    You're Catholic, it seems (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:18:38 PM EST
    or raised Catholic?

    PP loves Lieberman too (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:38:38 PM EST
    They have no credibility

    There's more to women's rights than choice (5.00 / 11) (#102)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:41:42 PM EST
    Obama often said "Race, Religion and Region" when referring to discrimination. He had a real problem remembering women existed during the campaign. I don't expect much more while he's in office. Where the hell was he with this latest assault on our rights? SILENT!!!! Not very pro-choice at all I would say. Strong pro-choicers do not stand silently by while the Bush admin is turning BC into abortion and making women's health care harder to get. Especially for poor women.

    Absolutely correct (5.00 / 7) (#106)
    by pluege on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:48:49 PM EST
    Obama is not pro-women in the sense of equality, respect, or understanding the pressing need to right many remaining wrongs.

    WOW (4.00 / 3) (#110)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:10:53 PM EST
    this is exactly the ODS I'm talking about. You guys are actually saying Obama doesn't care about womens rights, women equality and doesn't respect them as he is putting the most woman friendly cabinet IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY. I would say appointing women to positions of power across his cabinet consttitutes respect, lets get real people.

    You do realize, don't you (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:19:11 PM EST
    that the GOP probably has more gay staffers at high levels than the Dems?  Think about that fact combined with the GOP's strongly anti-gay policies.

    I like some of Obama's appointments, but it's entirely possible to make them and still be indifferent to the human rights of the group the individuals belong to. (Remember the phrase "Some of my best friends are..."?)


    You may be correct with the GOP (3.66 / 3) (#118)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    and gay staffers, and you, correctly, make the point that having gay staff members doesn't mean much when "combined with the GOPs strongly anti-gay policies." So the correct correlation could be made of Obama if he was a politician with a strong anti-woman record, instead of a record that most woman advocates consider great. Even if you want to be harsh on Obama on woman's rights by not looking at his voting record but instead looking at certain things he's said that are open to interpretation, it's hard to suddenly make the leap and claim Obama is not pro-womens rights, let along strongly against it.

    Ah yes, "open to interpretation" (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    which is exactly what I'm doing, interpreting his words and record.  And it worries the heck out of me for the sake of my daughter and the rest of her generation, women and men.

    Your mileage varies.  Or, your interpretation does.


    His record?? (none / 0) (#129)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:57:11 PM EST
    You can honestly tell me that you can interpret his RECORD and from that conclude that Obama is anti-woman?? Laughable.

    Yes, I Can! (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:30:48 PM EST
    Or Si, Se Puede! as Dolores Huerta said first, before she was plagiarized.

    He's only put 4 women on his cabinet. Bush (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:19:41 PM EST
    has 4 women on his cabinet. Big damn deal.

    So, I have ODS because I'm p!ssed (5.00 / 11) (#120)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:43:47 PM EST
    Obama has been silent while our rights are being reduced?! If Obama CARED about our rights, he would have SAID SOMETHING! It's not like he didn't have the opportunity and it's not like anybody wasn't listening to him. He should have stood right next to Hillary when she stood up and said this was wrong. And then he should have kept the conversation going. He had lots of opportunities and even a few big crowds . . .

    just sayin'.

    but I guess my ODS is getting in the way of rational thinking . . . .


    Exactly. But then, we're still waiting (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Cream City on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:49:54 PM EST
    for that national conversation on race.

    Maybe the national conversation on gender and gender orientation if coming in the SECOND term.


    Actually, that will have to wait until Caroline (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:53:16 PM EST
    Kennedy's first Presidential term, and I'm not even half kidding.

    Resistance is starting (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:55:42 PM EST
    NYers aren't pushovers  ;)

    Not pushovers, but if Spitzer taught us (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    anything, he taught us that we are kind of gullible.

    lol!~ that was kinda left field though (none / 0) (#148)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:23:30 PM EST
    Well, first he would have to remember gender . . . (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:53:43 PM EST
    NPR today: (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:05:25 PM EST
    But Barack Obama made it clear during the presidential campaign that he disapproved of the rules. The president-elect said an early version of the regulations "raises troubling issues about access to basic health care for women, particularly access to contraceptives."

    While the incoming president can't simply wipe out the rules with the stroke of a pen, there is a relatively abbreviated process for taking them off the books. It's called the Congressional Review Act. And because the Bush administration issued the regulation late in the current president's term, the new Congress will have 75 legislative days to pass a "motion of disapproval." All it takes is a simple majority of votes by the House and Senate, and the motion is not subject to delaying tactics in the Senate.

    Last paragraph above offers some hope for speedy method of getting rid of these rules.


    He made it clear during the campaign? (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:12:35 PM EST
    Funny, I musta missed it. After all, it's not like I was paying attention to this issue or anything . . .

    Thanks for the info on getting rid of it!


    I figured you must have heard (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:39:42 PM EST
    Obama "make it clear" during the campaign, as I totally missed that also, even if it was an earlier version of the new rule.  Funny how that works.  Patty Murray is all over this, fortunately for us.

    I'll have to get on Schumer (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    he needs to step up to the plate now while we get a new senator on board. I know my Rep is on it as she was standing at Hillary's side on this. I'll shoot Murry a TY note  :)

    Let's see: Bilbray is probably (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
    cheering.  Feinstein:  busy planning Inaugural and getting inside info on national security, but maybe.  Boxer:  solid.

    I hope (3.00 / 3) (#135)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:22:32 PM EST
    the "our rights were reduced" line isn't a reference to the primaries, and I hope this is not about how Obama didn't stand up and criticize those who unfairly attacked HRC. To expect that of Obama when they were in a heated campaign where Hillary was equally as culpable is either extreme naivate or lack of objectivity  and I don't think any of you are naive.  I like Hillary Clinton and thought it was disgusting how she was treated by the press, but she was not some victimless candidate that just had bad things happen to her. She was also the individual who volunteered to extrapolate Obama's connection to Wright as a connection to Louis Farakhan in the Philly debate, she was the person who went after Obama on Ayers to create a cloud of suspicion, she was the one who said basically that John Mccain would be a better than Obama, something that's anathema in a democratic primary. When she was approached by the media about basically endorsing Mccain, she didn't back down from her stance. So to expect Obama to speak out on the negative treatment of HRC, let alone drawing conclusions of being anti-women because he didn't, is completely ridiculous.

    Pot, meet kettle (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Spamlet on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:29:27 PM EST
    You're accusing others of a "derangement syndrome"? Sheesh. Sure glad you "like Hillary Clinton . . . but."

    You obviously aren't up on (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:32:39 PM EST
    current events . . . .

    Feminist for Surgeon General (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Fabian on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:59:32 AM EST
    All I ask for is a blatant, unrepentant feminist as Surgeon General.

    If Obama wants to show he cares, that would be an excellent step.


    Obama's support for women's rights (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:18:12 AM EST
    is not unconditional.  Note that he supports a woman's right to choose, but his insistence on including a committee of people with whom he believes a woman should consult with in making her choice says that he's fine with her right to choose, but he'd really like her to do it his way.

    It's what worries me about these new 11th-hour Bush admin rules that will allow health care providers to refuse care and treatment to women on the basis of conscience - it's exactly the kind of thing Obama would want to afford others; I just don't see him believing there is anything wrong with that.

    So, we'll wait and see.  Just seems odd to me that someone who alleges that he has unwavering support for women and women's rights didn't come out in vocal opposition at the time these rules were originally being considered, and he has not, to my knowledge, made any statements declaring he would immediately undertake to overturn them.

    You might not have received the Official Barak Obama Code Book, but on page 8, you will find that "as I have repeatedly said," "my position has always been," and variations on that theme translate to "I never said anything until it was safe to do so."  It can also be found under "mingles safely in the pack until herd direction is ascertained, then runs to the head of the line and pretends he was there all along."


    Hey (1.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:03:43 AM EST
    we all accpet our own hypocrisises, I mean we've already been asked to accept an unrepentatn hawk at State, and then pretend she cares about "human rights."

    When someone has TAUGHT (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:13:45 PM EST
    you not to trust him (do I really need to go through the litany of stuff he's done, race-baiting etc., then the walking back on a whole host of issues from FISA to off-shore driling?) it's hardly any kind of "derangement syndrome" to, um, continue to mistrust them.

    FISA is the only legitimate (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    complaint I had of him, and it was done for political reasons which is not an excuse. As far as the race baiting goes, that is completely subjective and a case can be made for just the opposite, but debating that is pointless since thats not a winnable argument from either side. With regard to oil drilling, he didn't reverse his previous stance, in fact he re=iterated his belief that oil drilling is not good for the environment and is also not a solution for energy independance. HOWEVER, he was willing to make limited concessions exploring oil drilling IF it was what stood in the way of republican support for extensive energy legislation. Even moreso, when asked by reporters, he openly conceded that to reporters.  

    I very strongly doubt (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:37:59 AM EST
    that Obama comes to LGBT issues from a theological perspective. I am absolutely certain that he has considered them as a professor of Constitutional law. Here is the evidence. (PDF)

    I alternate between thinking that he is either a political coward or completely indifferent. I can't decide which is worse. (The final possibility: that he actually agrees with Warren, strikes me as being quite remote, given who Obama is and what his life experiences were).


    I think indifferent is more likely. But I wouldn't (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by tigercourse on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:12:03 AM EST
    discount the possibility that Obama is who he presents himself to be. A fairly religious middle aged man. And fairly religious middle aged men aren't generally huge left wing champions on social issues.

    I think most middle aged men, even (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:18:42 AM EST
    the fairly religious ones, haven't thought about these issues like a constitutional law professor would have. Especially not one who taught about civil rights law.

    So indifference seems rather unlikely to me, because we know he's thought pretty carefully about these issues. And unless you're going to tell me that he's some kind of Scalia clone (the prospect of that gives me chills), I have to conclude that his public positions on these issues do not represent what he really believes. (As  BTD says, pols are pols).


    His grading memo (none / 0) (#156)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:41:25 AM EST
    Maybe I heard this wrong but... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Thanin on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    hasnt the Obama transition team said theyre going to overturn dont ask dont tell and make it so homosexuals can openly serve in the military?

    I know its no gay marriage, but that seems like a pretty good step in the right direction, yeah?

    Actually, Obama has walked back DADT a bit. (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:45:28 PM EST
    Although he had previously stated he would repeal DADT, Obama's new position is that he will refer it to the military to study and recommend.

    Ahh... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Thanin on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:03:04 AM EST
    well, guess we'll see.

    They have (none / 0) (#136)
    by ai002h on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    and they have also unequivocally mentione the repeal of DOMA, which would be huge.

    IBS (none / 0) (#157)
    by jes on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:43:03 AM EST
    has picked up your mantra, are you proud?

    This Warren thing is a good ploy for Obama (none / 0) (#158)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:44:19 AM EST
    What can he really lose? Chris Bowers among others is thinking in a systematic way about what can be done to get some accountability from him on progressive issues and he comes up pretty empty. This is all he really comes up with:

    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.

    What it's time to do is to break out the mockery. He's been notoriously difficult to mock because of his earnestness, but that's what he needs, some epic mockery for these petty progressive betrayals. Teeth gnashing and howls of outrage from the left make him happy because they just burnish his centrist creds. But mockery would make him pay a price. He needs Sarah-Palin-level mockery, MoDo-Gore-level mockery, from all across the blogosphere and allies in the traditional media when he steps out of line on important things. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't like to see a narrative like that start up at all.

    Lambert has been mocking him (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:47:49 AM EST
    for months. Or his followers, at least.

    Really, I don't know how to deal with this. It's very depressing.

    If I were in Washington at the Warren event, I'm pretty sure I'd boo.


    The PUMA mockery (none / 0) (#161)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:02:45 AM EST
    wasn't very effective because mostly it was based on untruths, or "facts" only believed by the PUMA fringe. And mocking supporters as cultists for example is counterproductive - all it does is damage Dems and progressives even when they're supporting him for the right things, by undercutting their credibility indiscriminately.

    But the hypocrisy is real here and is fertile ground for ridicule. It needs the big bloggers to all join in - known supporters. Too bad those opposed through the primaries didn't drop their hostility after Obama was a done deal - their opposition would mean something now instead of nothing.


    My feeling is that Lambert's mockery (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:07:37 AM EST
    was not PUMA-derived. He's just very principled and self-righteous. And he has a wicked sharp wit.  

    I guess that's why I have to disagree with you here. The people who have the credibility to mock him now can't just start mocking him now. Especially not the cultists or near-cultists.


    He's a minor blogger (none / 0) (#168)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:26:08 AM EST
    The big Obama supporters may not have credibility with you, but they're the ones who need to do it. They're already griping. They just need to find an effective approach. They're floundering around, looking for ways to get through the teflon. I think the will is there, just not the right tactics yet.

    The "cultists" are people who just don't realize that politicians, even ones who are basically aligned with their own goals, are first going to look out for their own political skins. That it's a matter of costs vs benefits, and that raising the costs for them to do what you don't want them to do is what it all comes down to. Name-calling doesn't help get that simple point across, helping them see what they don't yet see does.


    Well, I don't really think the big boys (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:31:41 AM EST
    matter a whole lot either. Remember how Obama almost completely bypassed them last year?

    TR Josh Marshall remains kidnapped (I don't even read him anymore), and the dkos FP seems to lack purpose.

    Pols look out for their own interests, but so do big shot bloggers. That's why most political blogging these days is so boring and ineffectual, I think.


    he only "uses" them when convenient (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:11:21 AM EST
    not sure if he ever really listens to them though  ;)

    Well, it may not matter (none / 0) (#173)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:35:45 AM EST
    but on the other hand it's the best shot the blogs have, imo.

    Lambert (none / 0) (#180)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:08:56 AM EST
    basically flipped out after Edwards dropped out, the site basically became unreadable and the people behind it untethered to any logical position other than Obama hatred, the man was a posterchild for ODS.

    I never found Lambert's points to be that (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:19:08 AM EST
    way at all.  I didn't frequent the site but I did read there at times and he comments here at times too.  Lambert never made up points of debate though (he didn't Larry Johnson).  He pointed out factuals that many of us glossed over often in our efforts.  I consider the Lamberts of the world a must have if I want a sincere thorough debate of the issues.

    That's dumb (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:20:35 AM EST
    just because we continued to not jump on the bandwagon shouldn't make us void from the ability to mock and criticize. Don't forget, he did nothing to welcome us. As a matter of fact, he ignored us and went after the far right forming the Mathew (or was it Joshua) movement within his movement. He also pulled the FISA stunt and a few other un-Democratic stunts (both in the primaries and general). And you say we can't mock him now because we didn't give up our principles?

    Pfft (1.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:32:39 AM EST
    Mock all you want. The point is no one's going to take anything you say seriously now. He ignored us after we demanded his birth certificate and whitey tape! WAAAHHH!!!

    Seriously, I don't know who you've been reading (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:37:16 AM EST
    but no one in my reader ever demanded the birth certificate or the "whitey tape."

    For their entertainment value only (none / 0) (#175)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 01:39:51 AM EST
    I assure you...

    I disagree with nycstray quite a bit... (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Thanin on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:11:46 AM EST
    but she/he has never said anything like that and any implication, whether seriously or not, severely undercuts your own credibility.

    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:34:42 AM EST
    The implication made me feel dirty.

    And for the record, it's she  ;)


    Hmm (1.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:36:15 AM EST
    It was nycstray who chose to self-identify as an untruth-telling PUMA, not my doing. My statement was general, to all who so self-identify. So pfft to you too.

    Gee, could it be because it was (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:46:25 AM EST
    your response to my comment?

    Mock all you want. The point is no one's going to take anything you say seriously now. He ignored us after we demanded his birth certificate and whitey tape! WAAAHHH!!!

    Exactly how was I supposed to take that?! Methinks  you are being just a tad dishonest here.


    You (1.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 03:56:04 AM EST
    started off by responding to my comment about why dishonest PUMAs can't be effective at mockery now by saying Yes we can so mock and criticize! How else to take that but as you claiming to be one of those dishonest PUMAs who obsessed over those, um, "issues"?

    I'll accept we may have had a miscommunication. No offense intended to you personally. Glad to hear you're not one of those morons.


    miscommunication (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 04:18:43 AM EST
    not all non-Obama supporters are PUMAS, and even some that are, aren't all the way over to the fringe end. There are plenty that have criticized him and maybe even mocked him, and they should continue, imo :) I think the cultist and the fringe PUMAs are the minority. Prob more cultists exist than fringe, but that could, ahem, change! There's a group in the middle that is more on issues etc. That's where I fall in and what I was trying to respond about. I do criticize him , but was also trying to "wait and see", but that one is harder for me. I'm not alone and I think this element should continue to speak up. I think it's a mistake to think we are all fringe PUMAs or that all PUMAs are fringe. It cuts out a voice, perhaps a very large one  :)

    I do hope it's never proven he doesn't have a BC though. We could end up with Arnie running for pres, lol!~ I don't think I could take it {grin}


    And you can connect me to that?! (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:08:42 AM EST
    get a clue, not everyone who didn't drink the koolaid was part of the fringe that was harping on the BC and tape. You really don't seem to be to informed if you can so quickly throw me in that fringe group and think you have wrapped everything up so nicely. Pfft yourself.

    Well, (none / 0) (#203)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    when mockery is constant and indiscriminate like that it just looks like it's coming from simple animus, not really about the issues, and so it doesn't mean much beyond that he doesn't have a very high opinion of Obama, no matter what. That kind of self-indulgent venting is not what I'm talking about at all. There has to be praise for the good things and criticism/mockery for the bad ones for it to mean anything. There should be some point to it, some goal to be accomplished.

    I thought Barney Frank's comments were very good because he mocks Warren, clearly lays out the case why he shouldn't have been chosen, and includes an implicit threat about future support.