The Rick Warren Choice: Offensive, Foolish, or Just Uninspired?

From TIME’s Amy Sullivan:

Liberals are furious with Obama for asking mega-church pastor and evangelical Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his Inauguration. Conservatives are furious with Warren for accepting the invitation (just as they savaged him two years ago when he invited Obama to speak at his annual HIV/AIDS conference). But amid all the shouting about how “controversial” the selection is and what a “slap in the face” it represents to various Democratic constituencies, no one has mentioned what a, well, boring choice Warren is.

(Yes, sharp-eyed readers will notice TIME selected Warren as one of our People Who Mattered for 2008. I thought that was rather uninspired as well.)

The Obama folks needed to pick two religious leaders for the Inaugural Ceremony — one to give the invocation and the other the benediction. They had already decided they wanted one to be an African-American preacher and the other a white Evangelical. Why an Evangelical, given that Evangelicals didn’t exactly surge over to the Democratic side on Election Day? One guess is that maybe Obama meant it when he said in his victory speech (and again in this morning’s press conference): “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

The main problem is that Warren, while a Big Deal in the religion world, has lately been much more interested in being a Big Deal than in actually trying to lead a new Evangelical movement. If Obama wanted a truly interesting and visionary white Evangelical, he had better choices (although not all of them would have passed a pro-gay marriage litmus test): Bill Hybels or Tony Campolo or Joel Hunter or Brian McLaren or Leith Anderson.

Any one of them would also have the added value of not being someone who recently called for the assassination of the president of Iran or who isn’t confused about whether laws allowing gay marriage would place restrictions on what religious leaders can say from the pulpit. Nor do they have Warren’s distinction of first embracing Obama and then kicking him after the Saddleback Forum when it seemed like the Democrats’ fortunes were fading.

Still, to the vast majority of Americans — including the tens of millions who have bought his books — Warren is the most prominent Evangelical not named “Graham.” Four years ago, Democrats didn’t even know who he was. When Terry McAuliffe was introduced to Warren in the summer of 2004, they shook hands and McAuliffe said, “Nice to meet you, Rick. And what do you do?” It won’t hurt Obama’s efforts to show he can reach beyond the universe of Democratic voters to include such a major Evangelical figure in his Inauguration ceremony.

Obama’s selection of Warren also has to be viewed in tandem with his other pick: Joseph Lowery. The founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference is nothing if not a gutsy choice. He’s a rare African-American minister who has been outspoken in his support of gay marriage. And Lowery is about as feisty as you can get this side of Jeremiah Wright. Two years ago, he spoke before Obama at a church in Selma with a fantastic riff on what “good crazy” is. Watch Obama’s face, particularly at the beginning of the clip, while Lowery talks about preaching in Father Flager’s church and praying for Louis Farrakhan. That’s the kind of stuff that enrages conservatives just as much as Warren’s recent comments enrage liberals. You can very clearly see Obama thinking, “This dude could get me in trouble.”  They may both get him in some trouble, but only one was an inspired choice.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • Jim, Foolish Literalist

    he Obama folks needed to pick two religious leaders for the Inaugural Ceremony — one to give the invocation and the other the benediction

    “needed” is something of an overstatement…. How ’bout James McPherson or Joyce Appleby or even David McCullogh or Joseph Ellis reminding us what the Constitution means?

  • queencersei

    Another mountain being made about a molehill.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Sigh……
    .
    Offensive and Foolish.
    Just because ‘low attention voters’ might be unaware of the more vile things Mr Warren has said doesn’t mean that they don’t matter. It hasn’t escaped my notice that the Saddleback Church is pretty opulent for a place that celebrates the life of someone who said “Sell everything you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow me.”

    Obama’s choice was utterly boneheaded and tone-deaf and I hope its not too late for him to change his mind.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    I posted this below, but, I think it’s important:
    Obama knows the pundits will never accept him unless we hate him, so, we’re cynically doing our part to prop him up.

    Grrr…. Pffft!

    The problem is, he’s not nearly as good at it. In actual fact, most of what got us PO’d is not what Rush Limbaugh said, but what his enablers did to catapult Limbaugh’s bile into the mainstream and legitimize it. Without the MSM, Limbaugh’s just a blowhard preaching to the masses. Katie Couric always gives him a seat at the table.

    What is frustrating, and a miscalculation on Obama’s part, is a huge part of the anger that propelled him to office was a result of being mocked, marginalized and ridiculed for years, and being proven to be the least wrong of all the millionaire pundits who can never seem to lose credibility or be held accountable, no matter how wrong they prove to be.

    So, Presidents come, and President’s go, power switches from one party to the other, but the one constant is that DC caters to right wing wack-os and mocks anyone left of center with an actual track record of prescience.

    I had hoped Obama would usher in a new era of non-conservative politics by restoring pride in his party, as Reagan did, and by demanding real, good-faith offers of friendship, rather than a Lieberman like catering to people who want anyone who’s not them eradicated from the Earth.

    Like with Iran, you can sit down with the leaders, but don’t let yourself get played for a fool. “Tough” diplomacy, that demands verification and collateral for offers made, and doesn’t give away the store, but is willing to cut a deal if they move our way, too.

    Joel Osteen is an evangelist whom liberals can embrace because he emphasizes who to love rather than who to hate. Obama, instead, has decided to give a great honor and platform to someone who wants him wiped from the Earth. What is Warren willing to do to demonstrate his good faith? Does Warren even WANT to be friends? Or after his prayer, is he going to just use his burst of popularity to undermine everything Obama does?

    Negotiation and compromise is fine as long as both sides give something, and I’ll take the first earnest hand of friendship offered. The GOP hasn’t made a good faith effort to reach across the aisle since 1992.

    We’re just hoping Obama isn’t another fool. I’m not sure I can take four years of Obama kowtowing to people who seek only his failure and humiliation, as the MSM demands Obama give more to get along.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    What is smart about the choice, is Obama has now had a right wing freak to point to any time anyone brings up Rev. Wright. He’ll let anyone rant.

    I believe in listening to all INTELLECTUALLY HONEST points of view, and giving all EARNEST people their say. What I don’t believe in is continuing to legitimize the mad ravings of cynical hacks who’s only purpose is to muddy issues, and derail discussion to prevent any progress from being made under someone else’s watch.

    We just want a Democrat who’s smart enough not to get played for a fool by people who only shake your hand to stick a knife in your back.

  • Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Amy- As Time’s resident god-botherer, do you believe the Great White Bearded Sky Daddy would smite us is we didn’t pay him homage during our civil ceremonies? Or do you believe benign neglect of Constitutional principle is simply good politics and good manners?

  • davemc321

    Here’s what Obama says (based on Steve Benen’s transcription of his press conference):
    .
    “What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

    Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialog, I think, is a part of what my campaign’s been all about, that we’re never going to agree on every single issue. But what we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery — who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues — is also speaking.
    .
    “During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented — and that how it should be, because that’s what America’s about, that’s a part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated. So, that’s the spirit in which we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration, and that’s hopefully going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration.”

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    By the way, pro-gay marriage isn’t the litmus test.
    Non-hateful and non-dishonest and non-demonstrably unChristian are probably easier hurdles.

  • Cliff

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……

  • kathy

    Just another example of Obama doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
    .
    I disagree with Rick Warren about a great many things, but I think my disagreement is totally irrelevant. I hope to God the left is not going to turn into the same purity-demanding cabal that the right has.
    .
    I cannot imagine what purpose it serves to be criticizing Obama’s choices of ministers to give the invocation or benediction. Besides, Warren invited Obama to Saddleback for the AIDS forum over strenuous objections from the right because of Obama’s stance on choice, and Warren didn’t back down. This seems to me a fitting demonstration that people who disagree acutely can find common ground. We badly need to move forward finding common ground.

  • queencersei

    Well said Kathy.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    Kathy – I wasn’t aware that Warren invited Obama. That changes things quite a bit.

    Still, I think it’s important for supporters of Obama to criticize the choice anyway to raise his esteem among the mainstream journalists. You’re screwing everything up.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    This seems to me a fitting demonstration that people who disagree acutely can find common ground?

    Do you suppose they said things like that about slavery?
    How ’bout segregated schools? When people are being denied their fundemental rights and are unequal under the law, there aren’t ‘two sides’ to consider. There is only justice or injustice.

  • http://nicewhitelady.blogspot.com/ joyomama

    What Kathy said. This is what a “uniter” actually looks like. And you can take that from a liberal, equal-opportunity agnostic (I’m not sure about any of ‘em.).
    .
    And for everyone who needs to chill out and get into a more holiday-ish mood, here’s a treat from Amtrak, my favorite government orphan.

    make a snowflake

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    Warren can come into the tent, if Obama lets the Dirty F&#$ing Hippies in, too.

  • newfloridian

    Another well said Kathy!

    The point that must be remembered is that dialogue evn among those who disagree must continue to be held, it is the foundation of a free and democratic society. When the flamethrowers on either the left or right try to quelch or ignore the points of the other side we do a great dis-service to this democracy.

  • Matt

    Like it or not, Warren has become a mainstream religious figure. Not for his evangelical tendencies or oppo to gay rights, but for his bland bestsellers and attempts to maintain his vanilla and mainstream image. Obama was trying to appease some religious types while maintaining a moderate exterior.

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • lynnanne

    I agree with Kathy. Obama is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. This is what he’s about – bringing all people to the table; this is what he’s been saying since at least 2004. Maybe it’s pollyannaish, maybe it’s frustrating, but it’s him.

    As to there is only ‘justice’ or ‘injustice’; I guess, then, those who have views that are “unjust” must be cast out, disinvited, not included at the election ceremony? I (personally) am a firm believer in gay marriage (and feel the tide will turn on this soon). (So I’m allowed to go; that’s great.) Polls, however, indicate that significant portions of Americans feel otherwise. Are they all to be disinvited from the inauguration; told not to watch on TV? Wouldn’t it be better to include them, rather than demonizing them, and TRY TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS?

    Heck, it seems to be that maybe we’ll have to disinvite Mr. Obama himself (as I recall he is opposed to gay marriage — although against constitutional bans), VP-elect Biden (against gay marriage), and Senator Clinton (against gay marriage), and former President Clinton (defense of marriage act, no less), and, well, probably 90% of people in Wash. who have ever run for public office (in all their weak-kneed wussiness) — they will all have to be disinvited, too. Surely it is not only Mr. Warren who will be singled out for exclusion based on his views of gay marriage, right?

    It will be an interesting inauguration.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    I’m just not sure if this is like sitting down with Iran, or we’ve just elected another Lieberman.

    For Obama to succeed, he needs to recognize why Lieberman never could.

    Reaching across the aisle is nothing new for Democrats. Pissing off hippies is nothing new for Democrats. Figuring out how pundits and conservatives manipulate those tendencies to tolerance and getting along for four more years of Democratic sucking up and capitulation, and getting nothing but mockery in return? Is this another four years of triangulating the same hippies who propelled him to power because they wanted a spot at the table? Or are we finally part of the national discourse? Because we’ve earned that. Obama not only needs to let Warren in the tent, but to give the marginalized Krugmans, bloggers and the likes a seat as well.

    No matter who’s in power, it seems, the main concern is placating unplacatable blowhards who see anything short of our scalps as an affront to God.

    Can Warren meet someone he disagrees with halfway? If Kathy’s correct, yes. If he’s like all the other evangelicals, diplomacy is only used for jujitsu.

  • lynnanne

    I believe the dirty $##*($&@*($ hippies are welcome. By the time they get to D.C., may they be 1/2 a million strong.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    O is desensitizing us. There will bed a Pass/Fail Rorschach Test at the end. If your anger remains, you will be harvested for fuel.

  • kathy

    So glad so many of you see it this way.
    .
    meme – this is a contemporaneous account of Warren taking heat for inviting Obama, but I noticed the Wapo brought it up again today too.
    .
    http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1369496.php

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Uhmmm did yall see this?
    .

    Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    Personally, I think evangelicals are scum. That said, I don’t have a problem w/ it so much. However, my friend’s son is gay and he and his friends aren’t taking it well at all. Right now, they’re in ‘looking for a fight’ mode, and if Obama doesn’t come through for them w/ policy in the future, they will turn on him big time. We’ll see, but as for dialog w/ people we disagree with, well, I don’t see Obama inviting David Duke. Also, I should note, there seems to be a growing racism in the gay community that seems to have been borne from Prop 8…not good.

  • rose83

    Amy, this is the best post you’ve written here.

    Jim, obviously the “needed” comment was referring to political, not constitutional, realities. There’s no reason to try to misinterpret things, although at least your handle is not false advertising!

    Kathy, I think the problem with Warren in particular – as Amy points out – is that he’s not the best conservative evangelical Obama could have chosen. Advocating the assassination of world leaders on cable TV is just stupid. His comments on gay marriage were also ridiculous – there are many other people who managed to support prop. 8 without saying anything quite as extreme or illogical.

    As for the larger issue of just how inclusive the tent should be, I’m undecided. I am convinced that in 50 years opponents of gay marriage will seem as abhorrent as segregationists seem now. That said, I think everyone is eager to move beyond culture wars and polarization. Obama won a mandate to do just that. I guess including homophobic evangelicals in the inauguration ceremony is a gray area.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    Kathy,
    That link, added to the fact that conservatives find it treasonous for Warren to have accepted the invite, shows me this was the right call, and a genuine effort to find common ground. Both are taking heat – though, ours is born of mistrust from being played for suckers. It looks like Warren, however, is earnest in wanting discourse to occur, and I’m for that.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    Remember though, that every time Obama reaches out to the right, he loses a little more leeway on the left. He’ll have to calibrate that carefully. Love turns to hate rather quickly when there’s a sense of betrayal involved.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    One thing people aren’t pointing out is that Obama also has a pro gay marriage former civil rights leader black pastor who is good friends with Father Pfleger in Rev Joe Lowery giving the benediction. It is what it is man. Most people aren’t face painters like us who follow this stuff to the nth degree. They are just one of the over 20 million people who own a copy of “Purpose Driven Life” and have admiration for Rick Warren. And that includes a lot of people who believe in gay marriage and are pro choice. Trust me my family is FULL of those kinds of folks. And they aren’t stupid or uneducated, they just don’t give a sh!t about politics as much as we do.

  • Jim, Foolish Literalist

    sg: It is pretty bewildering that Warren’s presence is being treated like a Supreme Court appointment, but Lowery is, to borrow a phrase, the invisible man in all this.
    **
    “face painters”; heh

  • atsegga

    The Borgen Project has informative statistics on addressing global poverty.

    $30 billion ends world hunger
    $550 billion is the US Defense budget

    This organization has the ability, resources, and policy-makers to suppress the threat of global poverty by enacting legislation here in the US, which is tied to the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals. Please support organizations such as The Borgen Project so that we may rid the world of poverty.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    oh noes, not the Borgen project again.
    .
    pagination but no spam filter. go figure

  • kathy

    Rose – I understand about not being sure how inclusive the tent should be, but I’m pretty sure Obama is not undecided about that. And as a Christian I’m pretty sure Jesus is not undecided about that, and that Obama is willing to act from his understanding of what his faith demands of him.
    .
    There was a time a couple of years ago that I couldn’t wait to get rid of the Republicans so I could do to them what they’d done to us. And then when I realized that wasn’t Obama’s intention I had to think about whether I could give up that fantasy. It’s always a dilemma for those of us who want to be inclusive – how do you include those who want to exclude others? But I think it’s important to start by finding areas of commonality and seeing if we can build on them. Think of the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa. Think of the consequences of George Bush’s “my way or the highway,” “if you’re not with us you’re against us” point of view. I don’t want us to be like that as a nation any longer, and so I can’t be like that as a person, either. It has seemed to me as I’ve thought about this over the last year or so, that my own maturing as a person has been about trying to bring more people into my own tent, of trying to enlarge the number of people I can include in “us,” and reduce the number of people I see as “them.”

  • kathy

    meme- I think this also sends a message to a whole lot of people who might not otherwise think so, that Obama intends to be their president too (what sg said).
    .
    I can’t wait to hear what he has to say in his inaugural to bring this all together. I’d heard he was thinking of talking about his economic package, and I’d much rather he keep his inaugural speech as a philosophical marker about the way he intends to govern, and his vision of the world he wants us to help make.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Jim FL
    .
    I will probably get flamed for this but I would also like to point out that while Warren’s rhetoric on gay marriage is indefensible he does support civil unions, just as President Elect Obama does
    .
    Now excuse me whilst I duck.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    Remember though, that every time Obama reaches out to the right, he loses a little more leeway on the left. He’ll have to calibrate that carefully. Love turns to hate rather quickly when there’s a sense of betrayal involved.

    I don’t think it’s betrayal to reach out. I think it’s liberal. When you do it for sixteen years, and the people you reach out to kick you in the nuts, it becomes stupid. But if Warren actually believes he can live in the same country as others, great!

    I’ll only feel betrayed if in all this inclusion, liberals continue to be the DC punching bag for the punditocracy, and all politics continues to revolve around not angering conservatives who are angry over the fact that they aren’t the only people in the country. The right not to be a Republican is non-negotiable, and they’ll just have to get over that. It’s a non-starter, in my opinion. It looks like Warren actually thinks non-evangelicals are people, too. That’s my only requirement, really.

  • rose83

    Rose – I understand about not being sure how inclusive the tent should be, but I’m pretty sure Obama is not undecided about that. And as a Christian I’m pretty sure Jesus is not undecided about that, and that Obama is willing to act from his understanding of what his faith demands of him.

    If you go to LGBT community blogs, the tent doesn’t seem that inclusive right now. That’s the dilemma: if you include prejudice, you make things more uncomfortable for people who are targeted with prejudice. If someone who opposed interracial marriage were at the inauguration ceremony, I’m sure Obama and I would feel left out.

    Expanding the tent in the name of inclusiveness can lead to more exclusion.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Imma put this in political terms
    .
    Gay is the new black. Meaning black folks historically have been taken for granted by the Democratic party because I mean where else were they going to go? But the same can now be said for the LGBT movement. I suppose they could stay home on election day but would they really have considered voting for McCain? Now I am not saying Obama is taking them for granted because personally I don’t believe he is. But if they keep acting like they can dictate who does what for Barack Obama as many of them have today with their hyperactive “its a slap in the face” rhetoric he might soon start doing it. Obama made no secret of his admiration of Rick Warren during the campaign and long before election day. Its not his fault if folks weren’t paying attention. It is what it is.

  • kathy

    Rose – well the question is whether it’s possible to include people without including everything they believe. As sg point out, most of us have to make that distinction in our family all the time.
    .
    I think Obama’s willing to feel left out in order to sit down with people he disagrees with. As he said in his election night speech, he’s particularly going to listen to those he disagrees with. I think he means it.
    .
    I also think we shouldn’t underestimate Obama’s political acumen. The issue is how he’s going to govern, not who he’s going to invite to give the invocation. I’m disappointed in Tom Vilsac as Ag secretary, for example, but I don’t think I should assume that Obama’s policies will be what Vilsac’s would have been. As someone has pointed out, his Ag secretary and his energy secretary don’t see eye to eye on ethanol.
    .
    I know I’m just also feeling fried from all the litmus testing “real parts of America” crap from the Republicans. I’d just as soon not see it coming from my side too.

  • rose83

    One thing people aren’t pointing out is that Obama also has a pro gay marriage former civil rights leader black pastor who is good friends with Father Pfleger in Rev Joe Lowery giving the benediction. It is what it is man.

    To be fair, Sullivan talked about that in her post. (Although of course Pfleger is not inclusive; Apparently he’s never heard of sexism) Lowery is a great choice for many reasons. This is also a good time to remember Obama’s insistence that the African-American community reject homophobia. That was classy and high risk; I believe that was when HRC was leading among African-Americans in primary polls, and telling people to reject prejudice is unfortunately not the easiest way to win their votes. It’s an indication of Obama’s good will on LGBT rights.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    rose83
    .
    The Father Pfleger comment was not an endorsement, it was put in to show that Obama took a risk also by inviting Rev Lowery to do the benediction because I will bet you that Hannity will be calling the guy another extremist tonight because of the association with Pfleger.

  • nibblybits

    Let me add my voice to the calm and thoughtful who see what Obama’s about. He is laying the groundwork to build support among the moderates, or at least show them that he’s not the enemy. When Obama starts to push his progressive agenda, we are all going to appreciate his foresight in inviting as many people over to our side as will come. Invite them, and maybe some of them accept.
    .
    Reading the hysterics over on HuffPost makes me frustrated about the knee-jerk reactions of the left rank and file. They are ready to light the torches and grab the pitchforks, even though over and over again during the primaries and the general, Obama proved that he knew what he was doing every time he was questioned. Why can’t they pick their fights? Why can’t they see the political capital this gesture wins for the small price of a one-time prayer at a one-time ceremony?

  • kathy

    sg, rose, et al: Don’t know if you’ve seen Obama’s response to the criticism – several sources:

    Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to “come together,” even when there’s disagreement on social issues. “That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about,” he said.

    Obama also said he’s known to be a “fierce advocate for equality” for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

    Obama also said that he will continue to advocate for equality, and the choice is seen as a way for Obama to reach out to evangelical Christians during his presidency. Obama has said that he opposes same-sex marriage, but he says he favors civil unionsand he did not support Proposition 8.

  • kathy

    Nibbly – not only that, since Obama’s only doing what he promised he’d do during the campaign, it makes me wonder if any of these guys were listening to him.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    oh and rose83, when I said nobody was talking about Lowery I was referring to commentors here and elsewhere on the net who are mad about Warren doing the invocation.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    “We shall do best to think of life …as a process of disillusionment: since this is, clearly enough, what everything that happens to us is calculated to produce.”
    -Schopenhauer

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla
  • bitterpill8

    Back across the Pond (once my home base) there is an expression: “too clever by half”. I want Pres elect Obama to succeed but I am concerned that he wants to be all things to all people.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    I know Obama is going to be the President of the followers of a failed ideology that Obama has been given a huge mandate to change. But as someone who voted for him, at some point, he’s going to have to show he’s my President, too.

    We voted for change, and obsessing over winning over partisans who have not intention of doing anything but throwing up roadblocks is not change, it’s a continuation of Lieberman politics that has just been rebuked.

    The only political reason to keep throwing bones is to demonstrate that, like all the other dupes in the Democratic Party before him, he is willing to compromise and work with the GOP, so that people can see how disingenuous the Republicans are when they thwart every effort at progress in the next four years. If, by some miracle, they work with us for the country, all the better, but there’s no empirical evidence that suggests the next four years will be any different than the last sixteen. The GOP is putting Party over preventing a depression in the auto bailout, and the press is back to their scandal-mongering mode of the Clinton years, after ignoring all the real scandals of the Bush Administration – and Obama isn’t even in office yet.

    Remember, the GOP had already eviscerated Clinton over gays in the military before he was sworn in, ending his honeymoon period before he took office, as they are doing now.

    So in terms of positioning, it’s fine, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the right is going to do anything but insure Obama’s failure.

  • nibblybits

    kathy: Exactly. And it also shows how myopic many on the left are. The Republicans took an intransigent position on immigration and managed to push Latinos solidly into the Democratic tent. Do we want to do the same with these moderate Christianists? Are we going to be intolerant of those who disagree with us and push them into Republican arms instead of trying to find common ground?
    .
    There are some who are against homosexuality out of ignorance and some out of hate. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to educate the ignorant and persuade them to our views rather than vilify them so they don’t listen at all?

  • middlegirl

    Some good posts here, I am looking at you Kathy.

    Yesterday, I was very upset about this development and yes, there was hate in my heart for Rev Warren. Is my hate more justified because of Warren’s objectionable views? In my personal soul searching, the answer is no. This does not mean that we don’t speak out vigourously about all inequities, including gay rights but maybe, just maybe, a softened, more forgiving enviorment is the way to forge reconciliation. It’s worth trying, because God knows, nothing else has worked.

    Great piece from Lee Stanahan over at Huffpo for those of you who are willing to look at the reconcilliation angle of this pick. I totally get it if some are not.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/embrace-what-you-have-in_b_151976.html – 14 hours ago

  • shepherdwong

    Offensive and foolish and, possibly, uninspired as well. Even in the best case, he’s making this choice on the principle of non-partisan unity and that is offensive because the principle of not rewarding bigotry trumps being accommodating to political rivals.
    .
    It’s foolish because Evangelicals who don’t already support Obama won’t likely change their minds because of such a choice (see “[c]onservatives are furious with Warren for accepting the invitation…”). If anything, they’re likely to see it as a sign of weakness and opportunity.
    .
    I’ll leave others to determine the lack of inspiration but I think Ms Sullivan make the case well.

  • nibblybits

    memekiller says:
    “but there’s no empirical evidence that suggests the next four years will be any different than the last sixteen.”
    Yes, there is. Obama’s appointments. Some of them are amazingly good.
    .
    “The GOP is putting Party over preventing a depression in the auto bailout”
    Perhaps, but the Dems got what they wanted, which is for the bailout to come out of TARP and on Bush’s watch. As well as making the Southern Repubs look like craven shysters.
    .
    “Remember, the GOP had already eviscerated Clinton over gays in the military before he was sworn in, ending his honeymoon period before he took office”
    Clinton never reached out to the other side, never laid the groundwork to get input from his opponents, so he sowed the seeds of his own defeat. That defeat crippled his early years, including killing health care. This Warren gesture is exactly what Clinton didn’t do, which is why Obama has a better chance of succeeding.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    memekiller
    .
    You are looking at this as Obama trying to win over elected GOP operatives and face painters. Thats not who he is trying to reach. Its the everyday ordinary folks who just vote republican probably because they always have or they like the idea of low taxes solving everything but really are just average ordinary people who aren’t even really all that in to politics. Its also about the independent moderates who aren’t sold on either party. Like I said before, it wasnt just republicans buying those 20 million copys of “Purpose Driven Life”. The honest to God truth is that there are a helluva lot MORE Christian Leaders who share the same policy stances as Warren (minus the over the top rhetoric) than those that do not. But either way he probably has the biggest following of anyone on either side of the fence. There is more to this decision than Obama trying to pander to the right.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    “Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to educate the ignorant and persuade them to our views rather than vilify them so they don’t listen at all?”
    .
    Fixed it:
    Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to educate the WILLFULLY ignorant and persuade them to our views rather than vilify them so they don’t listen at all?
    .
    Answer: You can’t educate people who take pride in ignorance. The more you try, the more they dig in. FOX News wouldn’t exist if this wasn’t the case.
    .
    Again, let me congratulate Death for taking Paul Weyrich, albeit decades too late. Good show.

  • nibblybits

    shepardwong says:
    “It’s foolish because Evangelicals who don’t already support Obama won’t likely change their minds because of such a choice (see “[c]onservatives are furious with Warren for accepting the invitation…”). If anything, they’re likely to see it as a sign of weakness and opportunity.”
    I think you are wrong about this, based on recent polls that have Obama’s public approval rating increasing since the election. All the fearmongering of the campaign, with McCain accusing Obama of putting Wright at State and Bill Ayers in Defense, didn’t turn out to be true. Now even those who voted for McCain are approving of Obama’s appointments thus far.
    .
    You don’t have to agree with Warren to know that he speaks to millions who represent the moderate swing votes in this country. We aren’t the majority unless we speak to those people.
    .
    Keep in mind that Obama does not share Warren’s views on homosexuality or equal rights. And Warren is not setting any policy. But later, when Obama is pushing his progressive gay-friendly agenda, the Warren supporters might squawk a little less, giving it a greater chance to actually pass. Isn’t that worth a 2-minute invocation?

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    nibblybits,
    there’s no empirical evidence CONSERVATIVES will behave differently than the last 16 years.

    Secondly, Clinton was a great counter-puncher, but his greatest mistakes were made trying to appease Republicans. Janet Reno kept appointing independent counsels to investigate Clinton, not because there was any real reason to suspect anything, but to show “transparency” and quiet critics. Clinton and Janet Reno, when Whitewater was already underway, renewed the independent prosecutor statute because they thought it was an important check – and to show how transparent they were. If only they had pulled a Bush and shut the thing down rather than worry about appeasing the unappeasable…

    sgwhitenfla,
    I’m sure Obama is aiming up the middle, but Democrats have always aimed up the middle and gotten portrayed as extremist and rudderless. Dems are always shooting for the “center” by triangulating the DFH. Republicans always aim for the base.

    I think right now, you do want the center, but I also think we are at a paradigm shifting moment that will probably be squandered in an effort to constantly prove his conservative credentials at our expense, with no empirical evidence it will be fruitful.

    Reagan won over the middle by being proud of his conservatism, not by constantly shirking the right to suck up to liberals. He said, “Conservatism is right! Liberals have failed!”

    Conservatives have failed, and progressives have been proven right, and we’re still obsessing over earning the love of the Republican base.

    Reaching the center is always defined as marginalizing liberals and kissing up to wingers. That’s they way it’s been for over a decade. It’s not change. It’s more of the same.

  • nibblybits

    cinci says:
    “Fixed it:
    Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to educate the WILLFULLY ignorant and persuade them to our views rather than vilify them so they don’t listen at all?
    .
    Answer: You can’t educate people who take pride in ignorance. The more you try, the more they dig in. FOX News wouldn’t exist if this wasn’t the case.”
    .
    Some may take pride in it; some just really don’t know. Some really do think homosexuality is a choice. Now is it better for the gay-friendly agenda to invite these people into the tent and show them otherwise, show them that gay people are normal in every way; or push them away, call them judgmental names and show them the same intolerance they hold? Vilifying them wins nothing.

  • nibblybits

    memekiller: Janet Reno and the independent counsels came directly from those early defeats, which empowered the Repubs and gave them the boost to take Congress two years in. Imagine if Clinton had not given them that ammunition by working for more consensus in his first 100 days.
    .
    As for CONSERVATIVES, maybe you are correct that they have not changed in 16 years. The imperative, therefore, is to make that group as small and impotent as possible. One of the ways to do that is to appeal to the middle and bring them over to our side, instead of calling them all intolerant bigots and pushing them to the Republicans.

  • dunedweller

    Kathy, This thread is yours. Great points about Obama’s intentions. Personally, I have a HUGE problem with Rick Warren and what he represents, and I’ve made it a personal mission to figure out how people can actually believe, much less praise that crap. But what I’ve found though discussion, and this goes for far right “regressives” as well, is that many of them don’t have a hidden agenda – they truly believe it’s for the betterment of mankind. It sound CRAZY to me and drives me nuts and completely angers me, yet rather than just tell them to F-off, sometimes it’s worth finding a common ground, that allows you to gain respect. Then you can ease in to being a change agent. It’s the ONLY way to be a uniter.

  • rose83

    SG, I didn’t think you were endorsing Pfleger.

    Kathy, it’s not that I disagree with you. I’m just undecided about whether being unhappy about Warren is equivalent to what the right did during the Bush years. I don’t know. Obviously, at one level it’s not since the LGBT community can’t exactly meet Warren half way. Homophobes can change, but the LGBT community can’t. But I see that in general we need to focus more on common ground than differences.

    There are some who are against homosexuality out of ignorance and some out of hate. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to educate the ignorant and persuade them to our views rather than vilify them so they don’t listen at all?

    nibblybits, that’s probably true. But continuing on this theme of tolerance, I understand the anger in the LGBT community. It’s always easier to tolerate prejudice when it’s not directed at you.

  • Friar Tuck

    Offensive, Foolish, AND Uninspired.
    .
    And pairing Warren up with Joseph Lowery is just weird. No clue what Obama thinks he’s accomplishing here.

  • nibblybits

    Dan Savage blamed the loss of the Prop 8 issue on the lack of outreach by the anti organizers. He’s right. Many of the people who voted FOR Obama also voted FOR the ban against gay marriage. Those people included many moderates Christians, including those in the black, Latino and Asian communities. No one in the anti camp went into those churches and tried to educate the parishioners on why they should vote no. So they didn’t.
    .
    We shouldn’t be making the same mistake. Look to these people. Reach out to them. Invite them into the tent. Then make the case why they should change their views. Many of them might be open to an alternative viewpoint.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    memekiller
    .
    I am not talking about shooting for the center, thats still putting it in political terms. I am talking about shooting for the middle where the overwhelming majority of people are. From my personal experience there are just as many fans who identify themselves as Democrats of Rick Warren in the middle as there are fans who identify themselves as Republicans in the middle. In the middle is just average folks who aren’t up in arms about the culture wars. The middle folks just go to work, pay their bills and take care of their kids and vote every 4 years. They don’t follow blogs or political websites and they arent gung ho either way.
    .
    Think about this for a minute, there are a LOT of face painting conservatives who are PISSED right now that Rick Warren accepted the invitation. In their world HE is putting Obama on a pedestal and propping up Obama’s pro choice pro gay rights agenda. But again those are the face painters. Every day folks could give a phuck who Obama is going to have doing the invocation. They want to know what he is going to do AFTER the inauguration not during. I called my sister who actually does follow politics a little and is a computer engineer what she thought about it and she hadn’t even heard about it. The same for a cousin of mine that actually works in the govt.
    .
    My main point is we have to stop seeing all of this out of our own lens all the time. We are actually not representative of the whole country or probably even most of the country. If we were, there would be a helluva lot more commentors on these threads. We have our own little bubble online and we can easily fall into the trap of thinking that because we are informed about something like Warren being a part of the inauguration that most people are also and that they have a similar outrage to ours. Hell the truth is not even all gay folks are upset about the Warren choice because many of them do not care. Just like not all black folks care about civil rights issues, Just like not all women care about women’s rights issues. It is what it is and again I will point out that if Obama can be painted as reaching out to the right with the Warren pick then he has to be given credit for reaching out to the left with Lowery.
    .
    Obama is not Clinton and he isn’t Carter. Now I for one endorse criticizing Obama for decisions he make that affect the country, but the sum total of what will happen because Warren will give the invocation is some people will have their feelings hurt. I know that statement will offend some people but its the honest to God truth. It won’t stop the Supreme Court from overturninng prop 8. It won’t cause Roe V Wade to be struck from the law. A guy will say a prayer and we will have our 44th President. End. Of. Story.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    Nibbly,
    Clinton was not some partisan blowhard. His problem was that he wanted to be loved by everybody. Republicans never saw him as legitimate and worked to take him down before he put his hand on the Bible. Clinton’s problem was that it took him so long to figure out the GOP wasn’t interested in working with him, and would never agree to anything that didn’t work towards his destruction. The reason he was re-elected and Republicans suffered defeats for the next few elections is that the public figured out he was working for us – all of us – and Republicans were just out to take him down and play partisan politics. Clinton left office very popular because he was working for the country.

    That is very much what Obama is doing, here, but Clinton showed he was everyone’s President by trying to pass things that mattered and had a positive effect on people’s lives that was not easy to attack as “partisan.” So far, Obama’s doing it by appointing and bringing conservatives into the fold.

    In the end, Warren is the right decision, I think, but we ought to remember that it is not by governing conservative, but by governing in a way that improves people’s lives that Clinton won his support from the middle, and Obama will, too. Conservatives despised Clinton, no matter how much he yearned for their love, but he got the middle with family and medical leave and eliminating the deficit despite the GOP’s best efforts to make him fail.

    I am merely stating my worry that Obama has not learned from the 90s – or the Bush years – and merely seeks to be loved by the haters. It might not be possible to be loved by them, though his certainly welcome to make the invitation. But they might hate him anyway – and probably will – and we need to be prepared for that, and not put us in a position where Obama gets blamed for “bringing it on himself” by not catering enough to wingers. His centrism should not be measured by how much he begs for their affection, or how successful he is in getting it. It may very well be that, like the last 16 years, they hate him because he’s not a Republican. He never will be a Republican, no matter how much Republican policy he embraces, or neocons he puts in his cabinet.

    So, he needs to do enough of the reaching out to show he made an effort, but not get sidetracked down a dead-end road. It takes two to compromise, but one to fight, Democrats have learned, year after year after year. Obama can’t make them compromise. If they want a fight, there’s nothing he can do to stop them from swinging. But at this point, they have to make some effort.

    In the meantime, figure out how to get an agenda through without the Republicans, if need be, and welcome them on the bandwagon if they want to hop on board, but we can’t count on them to move forward. They only come along if they think the train’s leaving without them.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    dunedweller , you know what else was supposedly for the betterment of mankind? The Holocaust. So was the Inquisition. Monotheism has made the world a worse place, we need a pantheon of new and better gods to worship.

  • shepherdwong

    “Now is it better for the gay-friendly agenda to invite these people into the tent and show them otherwise, show them that gay people are normal in every way; or push them away, call them judgmental names and show them the same intolerance they hold? Vilifying them wins nothing.”
    .
    No one is talking about vilifying anyone. You simply don’t reward bigotry with respect. They don’t deserve it and you send a mixed message to both the bigot and his victim by doing so. And I think that you’re overly optimistic (and betraying a short memory) to think that this gesture will win anyone who isn’t already persuadable by Obama’s current rhetoric and his future policies. I’d certainly like to be proven wrong on this notion, for once.

  • nibblybits

    memekiller: The Repubs may have been gunning for Clinton, but they couldn’t lay a hand on him until he bumbled his agenda right out of the gate, by tackling integration of the military as one of his first issues. Dumb dumb dumb. And tone deaf. Then Hillary f-ed up health care. In both cases, they neglected to not only consult Repubs, but they didn’t even get input from Congressional Dems. They had no allies, so were easy pickings for Newt and the Repubs.
    .
    BTW Clinton did not leave office “very popular”. He left in disgrace backed only by the partisans of the left wing. He was rejected by his own VP (Gore) and rebuked by his running mate (Lieberman). He was able to recover his popularity after leaving office.
    .
    As for Obama wanting to be loved, I think you are dead wrong. Don’t confuse insecurity (which Clinton had to a crippling degree) and building political support (which Obama is aware he needs). Since I disagree with your premise, I don’t really follow the rest of your argument.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!
  • nibblybits

    shepardwong: Calling them bigots IS vilifying them.

  • nibblybits

    cinci: Interesting that both Bush and Ford had approval ratings in the 50s (acc to your links) and yet they lost their elections.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    Nibblybits,
    You claimed Clinton brought on the GOP hatred by not cooperating enough – which, get ready for it, will be the complaint about Obama when the Republicans don’t play post-partisan ball. The reason they won’t play post-partisan ball is that even Obama supporters like yourself actually believe that, and they can dupe the next generation, as well by stomping their feet about how Obama has “forced” them to derail his agenda.

    The things you listed as mistakes were indeed mistakes – healthcare and gays in the military – but were not a result of Clinton being mean to Newt Gingrich and not bringing him into the process. It may be difficult for you to believe this, but, Newt Gingrich was never interested in getting along and working together. His strategy – the strategy continued by Karl Rove – was about divisiveness and riling up the wingers to despise Clinton and believe every wack-o scandal they threw out there. And it works – so well, that Obama supporters will perpetuate the idea that Clinton “brought it on himself”.

    Here’s the truth: no amount of kowtowing, sucking up, or playing kissy-face was ever going to get the GOP to jump on board. Putting gays in the military may have been politically dumb, but wasn’t an example of dissing Republicans – unless you accept that gay rights is a stick in the eye. With healthcare, Hillary miscalculated, thinking she could first create a healthcare plan that worked as policy instead of having it weakened and compromised by having politicians of both parties haggling over it, so she could simply drop a good plan and have them vote up or down. A miscalculation because the haggling, compromising and watering down of good bills is how Congress works. But it wasn’t a stick in the eye of Republicans – she excluded everybody.

    What might be considered a stick in the eye and roadblock to bipartisanship in the 90s was accusing Clinton drug-running and murder, if one wanted to point fingers. But, I guess Clinton “brought that on himself”.

    And when the GOP works up the scandal machine and derails Obama’s agenda, simply because he’s not a Republican, will you say he “brought it on himself”, too? If he has a shaky start, which I fully expect any new President to have, will that then justify the investigations, partisanship and stonewalling that will result? Or is that just what Republicans do?

    We’ll find out.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    nibblybits , GHWB was in the 30′s pre election and only just got above 50 before he left. Ford was at 45 pre election.
    .
    Well, here is a person who is representative of most of the evangelicals I’ve ever met in my life…educate away!
    “If you let them do that, then over time they will have the control. If you don’t stand up and fight for it, it might just disappear! I’m talking about Christianity!”
    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Malkin_Atheists_should_be_treated_like_1218.html
    .
    …and mind you, this is about people saying ‘Happy Holidays’.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Ill tell you what I am outraged about…..Aretha Franklin! When is Patti Labelle gonna get her moment of glory?!

  • nibblybits

    memekiller: That’s why I’m pointing out all the groundwork Obama is laying. His clemency of Lieberman, which was a day after a meeting with McCain and Lindsay Graham. His previous work with Lugar, Hagel, and Cornyn. His savvy in choosing Rahm, Biden, and Daschle. Getting Hillary on his team and placing some of her supporters in the cabinet. Keeping Gates and picking Jim Jones and Shinseki. His outreach to Pelosi and Reid. The coup of Dingell to the more agenda friendly Waxman. His meeting with the state governors. Do you see a pattern? Clinton did none of these things.
    .
    In the past few days, the RNC tried to tie Blago to Obama. Who jumped to his defense? McCain. Then Newt jumped in against the campaign. Not because he’s a fan of Obama, but because he saw it backfiring; polls had come out with the majority of the American public believing Obama had explained enough. Do you see what I’m getting at?
    .
    He is building political capital. He is trying to win over those he can win over. That’s what Warren is about. Reaching out to Warren’s base. Taking them out of the camp of the far right and bringing them into his own. Marginalizing his enemies.

  • Andy from MA

    Amy – I’m a little late to comment here, and I don’t think you’re willing/capable of interacting here. I’ve been a liberal longer than you’ve been employed as a journalist; probably longer than you’ve been alive.
    .
    You lede is an absolute falsehood. Where’s the evidence? Who did you interview? I’m really offended by the way you post and what you purport to be factual. There’s too much projection, and very little reporting going on here.
    .
    Let me do a little projection without any tangible evidence. Why do irritate you me so much? Is that you’re repressed Catholic girl with no tolerance for people with other points of view? Or is it because you do little to establish any credible skills as a journalist?
    .
    I don’t know what they pay you to do, but in my estimation they’re not getting their money’s worth. This is the last time I will comment on any of your so-called contributions in this space. You have nothing to offer that promotes intellectual discourse.
    .
    You should call your parents and tell them you’re never going to amount to much as a journalist.
    .
    You’re a hate mongerer.

  • rose83

    shepardwong: Calling them bigots IS vilifying them.

    So then speaking the truth is the same as vilifying someone? That seems a little extreme. Some people are bigots. It’s vilifying when someone is unfairly characterized as a bigot.

  • shepherdwong

    “shepardwong: Calling them bigots IS vilifying them.”
    .
    No, it’s defining them. But Obama is doing the exact opposite of defining them for what they are. That’s my point.
    .
    But, to be clear, I also don’t believe that this choice was made either on principle or the political calculation that he will win oodles of Evangelical support from it. Like FISA, this is to inoculate him with another audience entirely: the mainstream press. He knows exactly who has the power sink his presidency and they ain’t Warren’s people. But it will be much tougher now for those people to mau mau the press (no one cares what they say otherwise) into calling Obama anything but non-partisan.

  • http://www.mercenaryscookbook.com memekiller

    Nibbly,
    I think we agree. I just like to argue.

  • nibblybits

    rose83 says:
    “shepardwong: Calling them bigots IS vilifying them.

    So then speaking the truth is the same as vilifying someone? That seems a little extreme. Some people are bigots. It’s vilifying when someone is unfairly characterized as a bigot.”
    .
    Bigot is a judgmental label, even if it’s true.
    .
    Would you tell someone to their face they are ugly, even if it’s true? Fat, even if it’s true? Stupid, even if it’s true? Not if you want don’t want to insult them.

  • nibblybits

    memekiller: I’m glad. :-)

  • dunedweller

    Cinci #15: Jim Jones too. But I meant the followers not the leaders. Try convincing one of the followers that abortion is for the betterment of mankind – they would probably compare it to the haulocaust too. Both sides think their view is correct. Obama’s just trying to reach out to whoever might be willing to listen.

  • formerlyjames

    Everything Paul Dirks, who seems to have left the room, said earlier. Although I did labor through all of the comments, he pretty much sums it up in my opinion in #3. This decision by St. Barack is “offensive and foolish…boneheaded and tone deaf”.
    .
    I am not shy in my expressing my revulsion at most religions, especially those that meddle in civil politics and preach division and hatred, but I can at least sit still with religionists who don’t do that. Somebody mentioned Joel Osteen earlier. There are countless religionists who would serve the purpose of a proper prayer at this major event of our secular government. Religious pop star Warren doesn’t fit the bill. Some obscure preacher, priest, or even rabbi actually toiling amongst the common citizens would serve more nobly.
    .
    Finally, spare me the uniting and inclusive sermonizing and all that nonsense. Obama has alienated a major number of his supposed base, the people who got him elected. And for what? To include these clown primitives who will hate him until the day he leave office anyway? Again, to borrow from Paul D., boneheaded, tone deaf, offensive, foolish.

  • dunedweller

    God I suck at spelling! We need spell-check, preview and no pagination. Pleeeeeease! (I meant to add the eee’s that time)

  • shepherdwong

    “Bigot is a judgmental label, even if it’s true. Would you tell someone to their face they are ugly, even if it’s true? Fat, even if it’s true? Stupid, even if it’s true?”
    .
    I believe that what you are saying is that it’s bad thing to be bigoted. I agree. Most of us don’t have a choice about whether we are ugly, fat or stupid (I said most). And none of those things disparage or disenfranchise anyone else.

  • kathy

    middle – I thoroughly agree
    .
    Dune – thanks
    .

  • kathy

    I don’t think Obama’s doing this to woo anybody over to his side, but because he wants to be inclusive and he likes Warren. I also think that he’s not a wobbly Democrat, and will not be pushed around either by the right or by factions in the Democratic party. So I’m hoping he’s just as firm about carrying out his policy promises as he’s shown himself to be in carrying out his intentions to listen to those who disagree with him.

  • formerlyjames

    kathy, that is not inclusive of his supporters in the election. Warren is personable, to be sure, that is why he is a shallow, phoney pop star who draws on traditional liberal causes (poverty, environment) to push his gospel of divisivness (anti pro choice, anti homosexual). Obama grapples with religion. We have heard all about it. Rev. Wright, now his friend Rev. Warren. I find them both destructive, but if I had to choose, I would go with Wright. At least there is some basis for his ourbursts, and he has earned the right to that based on his American experience and his service to that America. But mostly, I emphasize that ours is a secular government. Say a nice prayer to make the religious freaks happy, but don’t allow a hate monger and book salesman the forum at the expense of the base who elected him. Whatever else can be said for Bush, he never neglected his base, which inlcuded Warren.

  • jpinsatx

    Yes I know, Pastor Rick Warren is there to support President Obama, not the other way around. But, why choose someone so divisive? Why pander to those who oppose what Obama stands for? This country needs spiritual inspiration… not a religious slap in the face!

    In the USA, all religious groups have the “Constitutional Right” to determine their own individual belief systems and regulate their members. Evangelical and Fundamentalist religious groups specifically exclude and denounce gay marriage, abortion rights and their supporters. However, many other religious groups do not share the same beliefs and support gay marriage and abortion rights.

    Hmmm… Should government mandate and enforce the belief system of specific religious groups? Should government honor the belief systems of all religious groups?

    Let us hope, this bold move will serve to unite the country on our areas of agreement, such as jobs, education and health care.

  • themaverickformerlyknownasbasilbrush

    Well, Obama already had a Christian minister lined up for the inauguration, so presumably invited Warren to provide an alternative religious viewpoint.

  • timqz1

    To all the people out there asking us to be “reasonable” about all of this: sorry, but I don’t want to be “reasonable”. Kathy, obviously I know nothing about you except what you reveal in your posts, but let’s say you’re married and have children (if you’re not, then apply this to loved ones who are). Let’s also say that a proposition was put on the ballot trying to void your marriage and saying that your relationship with your husband was invalid and sick. Meanwhile you have to hear on TV or read somewhere that some blowhard like Warren equates your relationship to your husband as the same as that of a child molestor. The proposition passes, your marriage is invalidated and you have to hear the Christians crow about what a victory for decency this was. Wouldn’t you feel, oh, I don’t know, maybe a little pissed? And the topper is that Obama is now giving this pious bigot a huge seal of approval by letting him play a major role in the inauguration ceremonies.

    And now we have to listen to all these comments about why can’t we just be “reasonable”, why do we have to be such “purists”, why can’t we just calm down and stop being such dirty, f***king hippies.

    Christ,when it comes down to it, I prefer honest bigotry to all these tsk-tsking appeals to reason. I am infuriated by this. I contributed more money than I could afford to Obama’s campaign because I thought he meant it about his message of change. Now I just see him as another damn politician.

  • mrgiggs

    The Rick Warren Choice:

    Obama is confidently leading by example the kind of vision, humility, and sacrifice needed from everyone in our nation. Decisions like this represent the direction our country needs to move towards – unity among difference through authentic dialogue.

    Well done Obama!

  • andeeroo

    Perhaps it’s inclusive, wise and shrewd.
    Liberals will not get Christians and Jews to throw over the teachings of the Torah or the Bible.

    On the other hand, people of faith will not browbeat or strong arm those seeking same sex marriage into their worldview.

    When two guys from opposite viewpoints decide to bow their heads before the creator of the universe – look out!
    The long knives come out.

    May I invite you to consider my personal “outing?”

    http://andeeroo.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/what-brad-pitt-will-smith-david-beckham-and-me-in-a-pantry-have-in-common/

  • mike144

    Amy Sullivan, author of this bias Article wrote: “…Any one of them would also have the added value of not being someone who recently called for the assassination of the president of Iran”

    Clearly Time’s Sullivan didn’t take the time to actually click on her own link and watch the Hannity and Colmes Interview in which Rick Warren supposedly called for the assassination of Iran’s president. You may remember from that college communications course that words are only about 7% of communication, the other 93% comes from body language. facial expressions and tone of voice / inflection etc. Hannity says to Warren he thinks we should “take out” Iran’s leader and then Warren responds with one word “yes”, as in – I’m listening, or OK etc. Hannity then continues on and Warren follows up with a comment mentioning how Government has the Biblical authority to eliminate evil, but that is not for individuals to decide. He also adds that we must eliminate evil first from the self, then the family, then the community, and so on. Take out doesn’t mean an assassination, take for example how we “took out” Saddam Hussein. I wish Time, would insist Amy Sullivan check her supporting arguments.

  • mike144

    shepardwong says:

    Keep in mind that Obama does not share Warren’s views on homosexuality…

    WRONG – They total agree, BOTH Obama and Warren are opposed to Gay Marriage. Obama said so in the Civil forum with Rick Warren.

  • http://blogs.alternet.org/kelliyeagley/2010/01/23/vintage-uganda-bill-homosexuality-punishable-by-death/ Vintage: Uganda Bill: Homosexuality Punishable By Death « Political Radius

    [...] Anyway, Ssemba has predictably and enthusiastically endorsed the bill, and Warren is catching major heat…again. [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus