I understand your sentiment, but on an occasion as important as this, Mr. Obama could have picked a person less divisive, in my opinion, particularly considering the effort put forth by the gay community to get him elected. Your post illustrates perfectly the political reason Obama did this, which is what I don't like about it (Obama picking Warren, not your post! ). It was a calculated ploy to broaden his appeal among evangelicals. Obviously, it will help do that. It is also taking for granted those who disagree with Mr. Warren.
The other guy he picked (who I know nothing about) might be equally as divisive on the issues to the conservatives who are starting to come around to him. I know the President-elect is mostly playing politics, but it could also be a legitimate show of partisanship and I do hope he is sincere. He's already won the election, did he really have to do this? I think that says a lot about him.
I hope you're right, but I still think he's being too calculating about this. Guess we'll see how it plays out! Found this interesting take on Obama's decision... Obama's Inaugural Mistake By Joe Solmonese Friday, December 19, 2008; A35 It is difficult to comprehend how our president-elect, who has been so spot on in nearly every political move and gesture, could fail to grasp the symbolism of inviting an anti-gay theologian to deliver his inaugural invocation. And the Obama campaign's response to the anger about this decision? Hey, we're also bringing a gay marching band. You know how the gays love a parade. Yes, the Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of the humongous, evangelical Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., has a sound message on poverty. And certainly, in the world of politics, there is a view that Barack Obama owes Warren for bringing him before fellow evangelicals, despite fierce opposition during the heat of the presidential campaign. But here's the other thing about Warren, the author of the bestselling book "The Purpose Driven Life": He was a general in the campaign to pass California's Proposition 8, which dissolved the legal marriage rights of loving, committed same-sex couples. For that reason, inviting Warren to set the tone at the dawn of this new presidency sends a chilling message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. It makes us uncertain about this exciting, young president-elect who has said repeatedly that we are part of his America, too. We understand that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a civil rights icon and a dear friend of LGBT Americans, will close the inauguration ceremony. But would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, "We're opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don't worry"? It is likely that one of two scenarios played out during behind-the-scenes inaugural planning, both of them equally troubling. The first possibility is that it was suggested that Warren is the correct voice to lead the inauguration because his selection would send a message of inclusion to evangelicals. And when someone at the table said, "Gay America will be offended by that choice," the quick answer was, "That's fine, we'll deal with it. We invited the gay marching band." The second possibility is that no one at the table had a clue about Warren's anti-gay views and that the Obama team has been stunned by the broad and loud objections to the choice. That's not encouraging, either. What the Obama team needs to understand is that for many LGBT Americans, this November was bittersweet. We were thrilled with Obama's victory and, in fact, many of us worked the phones, pounded the pavement and wrote checks to make that happen. But the next day, we learned that Proposition 8 passed in California, and our hearts sank. It was the biggest loss our community has faced in decades. One of the biggest reasons for that hurtful outcome was the Rev. Rick Warren, who publicly endorsed Proposition 8 in late October. He told his parishioners and reporters alike that "any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships." But civil marriage rights for same-sex couples had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. More recently, he even compared same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. He may cloak himself in media-friendly happy talk that plays well on television, but he stands steadfastly against any measure of equality for LGBT Americans. President-elect Obama must now, as my mother used to say, put some meat on the bone. We've seen appointment after appointment of talented Americans who come from constituencies that are part of this country and that helped gain his election. Well, we're one of those constituencies who actually worked and voted for Obama, unlike Warren and probably most of his 21,000 parishioners. Yet, we're the ones left waiting for some real evidence of inclusion. So, are we angry about Rick Warren? You bet we are. And including a gay marching band in the inaugural festivities doesn't heal this wound. It only serves to make us question the promises that Barack Obama made in his historic quest to be president. We pray we weren't misled. The writer is president of the Human Rights Campaign. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../12/18/AR2008121802788.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
^-- a little over the top comparing warren to an anti-semite because of his stance on Prop 8 Over half of California, THE MOST LIBERAL STATE IN THE COUNTRY, agreed with warren on that issue.
Seriously, this is ridiculous. Of all the conservative pastors in the United States, You want to paint Rick Warren an anti-Semite homophobe? Agree on the California issue. Its like Mike Huckabee said, You aren't a homophobe just because you think marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Intolerance on one side equals Paranoia on the other side. Lets let those who have a moderate stance work these things out to come to a compromise. Enough with the nutjobs on both sides of the fence.
I hate to use a Basso-ism but this is the change many should've expected. During the primaries I brought this up several times that what Obama's rhetoric couldn't meet the expectations of many of the interest groups that supported him. As I said then it was a mistake to buy that Obama was both going to be a uniter yet also live up to the hopes of many of the liberals who strongly supported him. Given the political and cultural diversity of this country that just wasn't going to be possible. What many said then was that the change Obama was goign to be bring was going to be one of tone and to his credit he has yet in a place like DC just changing the tone isn't going to be enough and if Obama truly was serious about trying to get conservatives on board he would have to compromise with them. Obama has proven to be adept at doing so and having Rick Warren give the invocation is an example of that.
if you have problems with Rick Warren, you really have problems. I dont agree with many of his views, but the guy is an example of what civil discourse should be.
I've pondered if there is such a thing as a guileless politician, at least one who can be successful. You know, one that is truly honest with the voters and has a public agenda that equates to his or her "private" one. A politician like I would imagine Max to be, were he crazy enough to attempt the game. A politician I could admire simply for those reasons, even if I disagreed with much of what he (or her) believed regarding the issues. I don't think they exist, not on the level of a major national political campaign. I never felt that way about Barack Obama, which I made clear here, although I had and have a deep admiration for the man. I always thought him an excellent politician, world class, as it turned out, truly brilliant, full of qualities easy to admire, but a politician, none the less. It bothered me that there were folks that would defend him about anything. Literally anything. He could do no wrong. He was different from everyone who came before him. Not just different because of his race, or his stands politically (or a host of other things), but because he was on another plane when compared to any who came before him. Better. Not a politician, not really, but something else. Lincoln, FDR, and Ghandi, rolled into one. That was the impression I often had here from numerous posts, from numerous supporters. I never felt the same way. Barack Obama was pretty damn fine, as far as I was concerned, and I still think so, but to me, he was always, in his heart, in his soul, that thing damned by so many. A politician. That's what he is. He's proving it now. He's being too clever by half, in my opinion, and I think it is giving some folks a bit of disillusionment. They wonder where some of these decisions of his are coming from. They cast around for excuses, and I don't blame them. It's a bummer to find out that someone you deeply admire has the flaw of being a "political animal." Even worse, that that person can cut things too fine and make abundantly clear, to anyone interested in opening their eyes, that he is playing the political game. The "flaw" of being a deep political player doesn't bother me. It is starting to bother others, however, and as this all plays out, they'll be bothered more. And I've experienced this outside of D&D. Folks saying, "Where did that come from??" For me, it is the decisions that matter. He's made numerous good ones. He's starting to make some that are not so good, in my opinion. And that's OK. Mr. Obama is not, and never has been, perfect. Neither am I, and neither are any of us. It is enough that he is immensely better than the man who came before him. I'll settle for that.
I believe every one of those people criticized him on FISA. You might have known that if you actually read and participated in threads instead of regurgitating right wing nonsense.
He has made perfectly clear where these decisions are coming from. He *likes* Rick Warren. They are personal friends. He's spoken at his church a year or two ago. He participated in the Saddleback Forum. He has said, over and over and over again, that he wants to include people who disagree with him. He's said he's going to try to earn the trust and votes of people who didn't vote for him. That's what people voted for. That's what he clearly said he was. It's what his entire campaign was premised on. Getting politicians to not be beholden to individual special interest groups was a huge part of what he ran on, and the LBGT community is a special interest group, even though it's not always thought of that way. Why are people now surprised that he's actually following through on it? He's not catering to small groups. He's picking the biggest names and the brightest people to surround himself with. They won't all agree with any one person or any one viewpoint, but he makes sure all sides of the spectrum are represented - even if you may not like them. On a side note, Rick Warren is as far away from being divisive as you can get. As someone earlier put it, he is about being able to disagree without being disagreeable - exactly what Obama wants. He doesn't demonize the other side, or blame them for bad things or anything like the other mega-Church pastors do. He is basically the future of moderate Christianity.
I think it's a bad choice, he really should have had Noam Chomsky come by and say a few words. But his advisors probably see it as a conciliatory, big tent kind of gesture. This guy is sort of becoming the Billy Graham of the 21st century. Even if you call the choice a big swing-and-a miss, Obama is still batting about .900 as President-elect. The prayer is not a policy endorsement so lets move on.
Shouldn't you be happy about this since you're a right wing lunny also?If he would have picked rev wright, or father flagger, you still would be b%tching.
I hate that Obama did this. I give him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions -- I think he is doing it from a position of inclusiveness and trying to bring people along on this issue gently. But I hate that he did it, I think it's a mistake and I think it's wrong. And I'm mad about it. But basso bringing this up, after aggressively supporting and defending Bush, Cheney and Rove, the progenitors of all modern efforts to halt or hinder the progress of equal rights for gays in an effort to exploit bigotry for political gain, is hypocritical as hell. And Deckard's paper tiger about people defending Obama no matter what is equally dumb and utterly false. There's not a single person on this board that's never criticized anything Obama did or said.
Unsurprisingly, you pick one line out of my post and reply with something "equally dumb and utterly false." Honestly, Batman, congratulations on the new play. I wish it were having a longer run, so I could catch it in Houston over Christmas, but sometimes you are just shy of being a drama queen. With all due respect. basso, your thread title sucks.
I think during the primaries there was an attitude that Obama could do no wrong but to many of the Obamaniacs credit they did express dissapointment over the FISA vote.
I think it was more an impression among others that believed Obama supporters felt that Obama could do no wrong. I think Obama supporters always supported him, but it was never a blind Obama is always right no matter what kind of support.
