And of course it is absurd that those who are able to recognize that Obama's inauguration might have some symbolic value cannot see that Warren has symbolic value in the context of the inauguration.  

"Generally you are smart. I even paid money to hear you do your schtick. But you are not wise, mon vieux Just smart and glib.

...

Obama is a lot smarter than you or me. He has never had to review theatre or films or edit books. He is the real deal.

Don't sabotage the machine. Be smarter than yourself for once. Put your glib writing on deadline self on the margins. Be smart. Wait. Shoot later when there is something real to shoot about.

about these people is that almost nobody was talking about policy during the primaries

on the contrary, sen. clinton spent most of her time during the primaries doing nothing but discussing policies. she provided a list of her priorities, and detailed plans for each. not so sen. obama.

for her trouble, sen. clinton was constantly smeared by the obama campaign, its supporters and (of course) the media. just how dare she discuss substantive issues, when there's a new saviour to be annointed!

the only "change" i expect to see in the oval office, come jan. 20th, is the name on the desk. anyone serially anticipating some magnitude 8 quake is destined to be severely disappointed.

Many Californians have commented on the poor campaign that the HRC ran.  From what I have read, it is true that the HRC performed little to no outreach in black and latino communities.  I would surmise that they didn't go inland either.  Very bad campaigning was the most important factor in the anti-Prop 8 loss.

As for the question of allies and coalition building, some of that was destroyed immediately following the passage of Prop 8.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/angry-over-antigay-ballot-initiatives-do-something-positive/

I don't believe that I was suggesting that folks should only do one thing.  My last line was specifically contrary to that.

Yup, I feel that this is too much ado about WARREN.  The direction that the various attacks have taken is making this a God vs. Gay argument, which is definitely a losing strategy.  

I mean, being "nice" about it is a method that worked so well for people of color and women, you know?

And, besides, wouldn't it just be extra-super-special if those who want to be treated like everyone else could give all the credit to Obama, and not to their own efforts?

Clearly, for people like Yvonne, the Rick Warren pick was a test to separate those who blindly trust Obama from those who would prefer not to leave their rights in the hands of one person with a spotty record of actually achieving anything; having failed that test, the gay community, in Yvonne's eyes, has no one to blame but themselves if their issues go on the back burner until such time as they have shown that they have learned their lesson.

The only response I have heard for that to date is that well OF COURSE he wouldn't have a racist or anti-semite.  Everyone knows that is just WRONG.

And, that's the problem.  Everyone, or at least every liberal and/or progressive should also just know that Warren's opinion that gays are like pedophiles is WRONG and there should be no place for him if there is no place for a racist or anti-semite.  

But, when itis gays being disparaged, it's no big deal.  We just need to settle down and discuss our differences and see if we can come to common ground.

You left out the part where she takes credit for pro-choice supporters 'not behaving badly' by objecting to Warren's selection, unlike those stupid gay people.

Wonder where she was in the 50s and 60s.

Trying to get ordinary people fired during an economic crisis isn't advocating for civil rights, it's petty thuggery.

No one has to support a movement that is committing crimes in the streets against old people and targeting their opponents' employment during an economic crisis.

But the quoted commentator is right about one thing.  As a Californian, I sure would have appreciated hearing A LOT more about how bad Proposition H8 was BEFORE the election.  Did anyone else see the ridiculous anti-H8 ads that beat around the bush so much you couldn't even tell what the hell they were talking about?

The anti-H8 campaign has to go down in California history as one of the least effective.  The political consultants who ran the anti-H8 campaign acted like retreads from the Angelides/Westly contest.  

The post-H8 campaign, on the other hand, has been pretty good, but it doesn't save marriage rights.  All it provides, right now, is outrage.

The difference between gay rights and civil rights is we're talking about sex and religion and the human speicies defies logic when the words sex and religion is associated with any arguemnt and it's double confusing when both are.

On this issue we have truly mixed church and state.   My church and many others will never sanctify the marriage of two gay people.   You can call that biggoted if you want but you are really asking peole to change their religous beliefs.   If your church believes that marriage can be defined to include same sex couples then great.    But why should my church be forced by the state to accept your beliefs or vice verca?

The state or states have turned a political issue into a religious argument by sanctioning marriage in the first place.   Do I care personally if my state decides to issue licenses to gay people giving them the same rights as me?  Nope.   Do I care if they call that union a marriage like mine?  Personally I don't but I don't feel someone is biggoted if they don't approve.  

So what to do.   Remove religion from the process.  Let the states grant civil unions for all couple, gay or straight and let the states decide the rules.  Then you can call the union whatever you want based on where you choose to perform the ceremony.