Agree completely. I understand and agree with those that are angry, but I don't understand how anyone would be surprised. This is really who Obama is. The far left and far right had equal fantasies that he was really liberal, but without basing that on data -- whoops. That's why the "socialist" and "most liberal senator" shouts were so friggin' absurd, reeking of desperate opposition. (By the way, speaking of gay rights, the movie Milk is pretty damned good. I hope a bunch of people see it. I got to see it at the Castro theatre, a block from Milk's camera store, and it was awesome. But yeah, the mood in the neighborhood is funny. It's kind of like "how glad are we exactly about Obama?")
Agreed. he's won the election and doesn't have to pander. He's following through on his campaign promises. He's inviting people who disagree with him to be part of where he's headed. You are also right about the other pastor that will be speaking. He's a strong supporter of same sex marriage. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/warren_speech If you want to criticize Obama for picking Rick Warren based on Warren's gay marriage stand, then shouldn't Obama also get credit for picking Joseph Lowery? Did Bush ever pick pastors who openly supported same sex marriage to speak in an official capacity at either of his inaugurations? It's a step forward on that front no matter what. I will say that I disagree with Warren's position on gay marriage. Also while being against same sex marriage may not mean someone is a homophobe, it does mean that they support a bigoted policy in our country. I don't think most of are qualified to diagnose the root cause and definitively state that it's a phobia. But we should all be able to see that it is bigotry.
I don't think the far left had any fantasies about Obama. They saw/see him politically as a relatively conventional Democrat. Liberalish mainstream Democrats projected somewhat unrealistic expectations on Obama. And of course the far right just live in their own warped reality filled with commie, muslim, radical black boogie men.
I think my biggest issue with the pick is, to echo Glenn Greenwald, the expectation that Democrats have to bend over backwards to not get blasted for appearing too "partisan," while the same expectation doesn't apply to Republicans. Was there any furor over Bush's choice for his invocation speaker?
I don't think the goal of the Democrats is to, or should be, to act like the Republicans. But regardless, it's the *left* that's complaining about it. If there was no furor over Bush's choice, that's the left's fault for b****ing about Obama but not Bush. If your biggest issue with the pick is that the left is complaining now but not then, it seems your issue is with the left, not Obama's pick, no?
I'm torn between applauding Obama for his gestures of reconciliation and questioning Obama for what he really stands for. My degree of trust for the President-elect varies from time to time. I do like that he isn't being simplistically petty by striving to be the anti-Bush, just as Dubya strived to be nothing like Clinton nor his father.
I read something that talked about a division between Democrats who politically active in the mid to late 1960's and those who came after. It argued that people who had political viewpoints developed in the 1960’s are defined almost as much by what they are fighting against as by what they are. If you go back and look at the cultural stuff from that decade, even when it isn’t openly hostile to the ‘other side’ it draws clear lines of division. Either you are with the older generation or you aren’t, etc. The article goes on to argue that Obama is the first major politician to come of age after that period, and so wasn’t directly influenced by it. The article argues that because of this, he will do many things that try to break down the barriers between ‘both sides’. The article goes on to argue that this will seem fundamentally improper to people of the 1960’s since their worldview is shaped by those clear boundaries of 'My Generation' vs. 'The Man'. This is true also among conservatives, who are so often obsessed with being against 'sixties radicalism', etc. I’m not sure whether I entirely buy it, but it does seem interesting, and the responses to this thread don’t disprove it.
FB, I'm going to reply to you with the bolded parts being "a, b, & c." a) In my opinion, Barack picking Warren is pandering to the Evangelical Right, so you can say we definitely see that differently. b) Regarding Reverend Lowery, if having Reverend Lowery means having to have Mr. Warren, pick someone "less controversial" than Mr. Lowery. c) Agree here. Warren is a bigot. If being a so-called "moderate evangelical minister" means forbiding gay men and women from being members of your church, then to hell with him, with all due respect, because that is the policy of Warren's church. Barack picking him for such a prominent place on this historic occasion, for all practical purposes, is akin to saying Warren doing that is "OK." I think that is wrong and a big mistake on his part. If Warren came out and said he was changing that policy and had decided his comparisons of gay folks with pedophiles and the like was wrong, I could buy the "inclusion" aspect of Obama's begining to his presidency. Without Warren doing that, I can't see it as anything other than a huge mistake on Barack's part. That's my take on it.
Ottomaton, that's a fun theory, and I can imagine who might have inspired that ( ), but I don't entirely buy it, either.
Obama might be trying avoid drawing a line in a new culture war. Some would consider that appeasing by punting the problem of bigotry to the next liberal president. Others will consider it deft by allowing the gradual cultural shift towards accepting homosexuality without the government interfering and without drawing fierce opposition that influences future generations.
Here's the article I believe you're referring to. There is definitely a different mentality between the two groups. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama It's also worth noting the author's reaction to Rick Warren. If you read his blog, Andrew Sullivan is a gay conservative that supports Obama who had a hugely emotional and discouraging reaction to Prop 8 failing. Here's him, on Warren: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/taking-yes-for.html Taking Yes for an Answer Dish readers will know my own conflicted feelings about the selection of Rick Warren for the Inaugural Invocation. But feelings must at some point cede to reason. And I sense an understandable but, the more I think about it, misjudged response on the part of my fellow gays and lesbians. In our hurt, we may be pushing away from a real opportunity to engage and win hearts and minds. Here's Glenn Greenwald: Reasonable arguments can certainly be advanced in defense of the virtues of Obama's post-partisan theory of politics. But it's simply unreasonable to depict any of it as new. It's exactly what Democrats have been clinging to, desperately and mostly with futility, for two decades at least. I disagree. I think Obama is different. I think the earnestness and sincerity of his campaign, and its generational force, have given us a chance for something new, and I fear that in responding too viscerally to the Warren choice, we may be throwing something very valuable away far too prematurely. There is no question that gays and lesbians have made enormous strides in explaining who we are in the last couple of decades. There is equally no question that Obama has substantively committed his administration to more gay inclusion and gay equality than any president in history. We absolutely do need to be vigilant on this. But we should also understand Obama's attempt to bridge some gaps in America that the Clintons, with their boomer baggage and Dick Morris cynicism, couldn't and didn't. This is what matters. Do gays and lesbians want to be a part of this - or sit fuming on the sidelines at symbolic slights? I know the arguments against this, and if Obama delivers nothing on gay equality, the critics will have every reason to complain loudly, as they should. But I'm not going there yet. And the truth is: if we cannot engage a Rick Warren on the question of our equality, we may secure a narrow and bitter victory in some states (just as the Christianists won a narrow and bitter victory in California in November). But we will not win the bigger argument and our victories will lack the moral legitimacy they deserve. The greatest distortion of our politics in this respect is the notion that gays are in some way opposed to faith and in some way that our cause is a function solely of the left. Neither is true. Gay people contribute disproportionately to the religious and spiritual life of this country and we seek no attack on free religion freely expressed and celebrated. I find the idea of silencing my opponents abhorrent. Many gays voted for McCain. I believe in family, which is why I have tried my whole life to integrate my sexual orientation with my own family and finally two summers ago, to become a full part of it as a married man. I love my church, however much pain it still inflicts on itself and others. And I am not alone in this, as I have discovered these past two decades. If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian. And if I cannot engage him, then I am not worthy of being called a writer. And if we cannot work with Obama to bridge these divides, none of us will be worthy of the great moral cause that this civil rights movement truly is. The bitterness endures; the hurt doesn't go away; the pain is real. But that is when we need to engage the most, to overcome our feelings to engage in the larger project, to understand that not all our opponents are driven by hate, even though that may be how their words impact us. To turn away from such dialogue is to fail ourselves, to fail our gay brothers and sisters in red state America, and to miss the possibility of the Obama moment. It can be hard to take yes for an answer. But yes is what Obama is saying. And we should not let our pride or our pain get in the way. The traditional (and baby-boomer) position to politics is to fight and not give an inch in anything. As a result, relatively few big issues ever get dealt with, and when they do, it's always with a 51/49 majority. The Obama method is to engage people who disagree, find areas of agreement, and use that to open more doors. It still amazes me that people are surprised by this.
But Warren isn't part of the evangelical right. He's about as mainstream evangelical as you can get. Here's where you and Obama are coming from different places, and where the baby-boomer thing that Sullivan talks about applies. To you, "inclusiveness" means Warren has to agree with you. If not, it's wrong to include him. That's the exact opposite approach Obama takes. For him, he includes you regardless of your views, hoping that over time, your views will change by being involved with the other side.
Unlike the decider who was suppose to be a uniter, Obama will rule from the center and try to include the vast majority of Americans as people he will serve, not just the liberal democrats.
but his views on homosexuality sure are. comparing homosexuality to incest, pedophilia, and beastiality is about as far to the right with regards to the issue as one can go. that said... i have turned a little bit on this issue. i would like to believe that the above quote turns out to be prophetic and since i'm typically a glass half-full type of guy, i'm willing to give obama the benefit of the doubt with his selection of warren.
Absolutely - but his views on poverty, for example, are very much in the evangelical left. He donates 90% of his income to the church, and he focuses his church's efforts on mostly left issues like poverty and AIDS rather than right issues like gay rights or abortion. So he's got a mix of left and right views of Christianity, putting him basically right down the middle as a whole. If you're wanting a respected name across Christianity that has the ability to lessen the right's focus on gay rights and abortion, you couldn't really pick a stronger name than Warren. It's not like he's in a policy-making position where he actually can have an impact on gay rights - he's just giving an invocation. The purpose, from Obama's perspective, is to use him to reach out to people with differing views and get more people willing to listen.
i hear ya major. i just think that it was a poor pick considering what happened with prop 8 out in california and the fact that warren was outspoken against it. i think had that not happened, there wouldn't be nearly as big a hoopla surrounding the choice.
Major, the man will not let openly gay folks become members of his church. That's what Rachel Maddow said on her show (CNN) and I have no reason not to believe her. If that is "mainstream evangelical," then to hell with him/them, no pun intended. Frankly, that surprised me. I'm not religious at all, but I assumed a "moderate" evangelical like Warren is described as being would have gay members of his church. Many in the gay community are very religious and it seems bizarre to me that they would be turned away at the door. The comparisons Warren has made attaching being gay with pedophilia, and so on, are equally hard for me to fathom. I just don't see that as "mainstream," but perhaps this is all over my head. If so, thank goodness! I want no part of him, his bigotry, or his church. With all due respect, Major, I could care less if Warren agrees with me on anything. Both of us are Americans and free to believe or not believe in whatever god or gods there might be flying around. And I'm all for "reaching out" to all political sides of this country. I would just prefer having religion during this historic occasion being a tad less devisive, from any point of view. I still think we are seeing more pandering than "inclusion" on the part of Obama on this issue, but I'd be happy to be wrong. We'll see.
I don't know how mainstream it it is, but that's kind of bad. at the same time, I wonder how many church's have this policy, I bet its a lot more than we realize. should have picked joel osteen (even though he's really not a preacher)
pgabriel, when Maddow said that on her show, I was really blown away. I'm old enough to remember blatant bigotry towards Blacks and I just don't see the difference here. That's why I would like Warren to issue some kind of statement saying that policy has changed. I'm being "accused" of thinking... To you, "inclusiveness" means Warren has to agree with you. If not, it's wrong to include him. (Major)... and while it may be a "fun" theory, in my opinion, having Warren, as "moderate" as he's been described as being not withstanding, would be similar to LBJ asking George Wallace to have a role in his own inaugural. I look at discrimination against the gay community as being similar to what Blacks have struggled against for so very long. Lots of differences, sure, but not as many as some might imagine, IMO. I just wish Barack hadn't made this decision. I consider it a mistake. Again, I hope I'm proven wrong.
To clarify, I wasn't meaning to accuse you of anything here. It was just quoting the statement that you made: If Warren came out and said he was changing that policy and had decided his comparisons of gay folks with pedophiles and the like was wrong, I could buy the "inclusion" aspect of Obama's begining to his presidency. Without Warren doing that, I can't see it as anything other than a huge mistake on Barack's part. For you, Warren's views do matter in regards to whether he should be included or not. Nothing wrong with that, but that's opposite of the Obama philosophy. His thing is that you can disagree, but as long as you're willing to listen and discuss and accept that others disagree with you, he's willing to include you. This goes beyond any particular issue for him. It's similar to his whole "I'm willing to sit down with leaders we hate with no preconditions" thing. People like the Iranian Pres believe in things totally against everything we stand for - for example, the destruction of Israel. But Obama is willing to sit down with him *despite his views* - because that's what he believes is the best way towards implementing change. This goes back to the boomer thing that Sullivan was talking about. It may not be split at boomers vs. non-boomers, but there are definitely two different philosophies towards dealing with those kinds of issues. One is to stand up and reject and fight against anything you disagree with - this is the idea of not including Warren because of his views on one subject, even if you agree with him on everything else. It's the "don't give an inch, or "they"'ll take a mile" philosophy. You see this a lot in the two sides of the abortion debate, for example. The other view is to engage the other side, regardless of what their views are. The only requirement is that the other side is willing to also engage you. From there, you try to find areas of agreement. You'll still disagree on those other things, but a lot of good can come out of dealing with the issues you do agree on. Instead of rejecting the entirety of Warren because of one specific view, you try to use the strengths he brings and minimize the weaknesses. At the end of the day, you get more out of him than if you just rejected him entirely. This is also similar to the the idea of employee empowerment and the like where you try to involve people and better use their strengths - very much a post-boomer style of doing business. Whether it works or not is still to be seen - we haven't had a President in recent history that truly comes from this approach. It may be a total disaster, but it's always been the Obama philosophy. It's why everyone who tries to put him in a box of being a crazy liberal based on his voting or a socialist based on a specific policy or whatever has it completely wrong. He's a moderate, but not in his policy positions, but how he approaches politics - it leads to moderate-left results at the end of the day.
