I see your point of view, too, Logan, and it is frustrating. It's hard to take the high road!

But I think the country IS genuinely ready for some bi-partisanship. Right now, it REALLY sucks, as Bush is sneaking in a lot of last minute nastiness, and the Republicans are being mulish.

I hope that will change once the new administration takes over. If it doesn't you can say "I told you so", and do a victory dance and I won't say "boo". I might giggle at the dance, though...

Yeah, I see what you're saying. We'll have to see what happens on that end. If there isn't a shared responsibility at least Obama can say he tried then, you know? Then I agree with you...twist the arms as respectfully as you can:)

I don't think all of Obama's voters would consider bipartisanship to be working against them. Does anyone know of any stats of Obama voters and where they stand on things like gay marriage or working with Republicans or the like? That data might be interesting.

I'm not arguing that Obama's way of doing things is going to be significantly different from the way that Clinton did things. I'm just saying that overtures of peace and transpartisan working relationships tend to be very one sided, with the Dem in power working against the very voters that put him there in favor of some mythical notion of bipartisanship. Give and take is great, as long as it's balanced on both sides. I have yet to see any sign that the Repugs are in any way interested in putting aside their Culture wars in favor of helping form a more perfect union. We compromise and we compromise and we compromise but all we ever get is spat on and vilified. There has to be a third approach, a winking smile with a twisted arm if you will, to getting things done.

But, like Greenwald said, all of this is just conjecture until January 20.

I also think what other people have said about Obama being inaccurately portrayed as on the left on all issues is true. Use education as an example...many of his positions (e.g. his support of public charter schools) are not in line with the traditional democratic stances in the field. He really is trying to break new ground, from what I can tell.

He's got his vision and he's trying to figure out the best way to turn it into reality. That's not going to be easy...I imagine mixed methods, if you will, be his path. Sometimes he'll push and sometimes he'll collaborate.

I hear you, Logan, but I must admit I'm a bit sick of the "it didn't work with Clinton..." or "we tried that already and it didn't work" rhetoric. Obama's not following the same exact recipe with the same exact people. I mean, really, then, there are a ton of issues he shouldn't address at all, if the fact that someone else tried to address them and failed is the standard.

Clinton and Obama are different people, of course. That Salon article seems to proceed with the idea that Obama is going to do exactly what Clinton did. I don't think that's the plan.

I'm also curious as to what the people criticizing Obama's refusal to villify anyone who disagrees with him suggest he do. Give them the double-finger and sit in his office, playing Tetris?

Jackie "the Librarian" wrote: "But maybe Obama's idea is that by choosing Warren, Warren and others like him will be more willing to listen to Obama later, and come to some sort of compromise on these issues?..."

Jackie, that seems to be the conventional wisdom at this point- that Obama is trying to woo the Christian right into his camp. The only problem is that this is not "new" politics at all, Clinton did the exact same thing when he first took office and it did little to dissuade the right from spending the next eight years viciously attacking him for any perceived irregularities (Whitewater, blow jobs, Vince Foster, Hillary's med plan). You can't hand someone an olive branch when all they want to do is shove it down your throat.

Glenn Greenwald explains it far better than I can:

"...wasn't this transpartisan mentality exactly the strategic premise that drove the Bill Clinton presidency, exactly what Dick Morris' triangulation tactics were designed to achieve? Clinton spent the entire decade extending cultural fig leafs to the Right, from V-chips to school uniforms...

...In 1996, Clinton signed into law the single most pernicious piece of anti-gay federal legislation ever passed -- the Defense of Marriage Act -- with overwhelming Democratic support in the Congress. Scorning the "Far Left," especially on social issues, was a Clinton favorite. He is the inventor, after all, of the Sister Souljah technique. Bill Clinton was the ultimate non-ideological pragmatist. He was driven by the overriding desire to win over his opponents.

What did all of those post-partisan, cultural outreach efforts generate? Hatred so undiluted that it led to endless investigations, accusations whose ugliness was boundless, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and ultimate impeachment over a sex scandal. Bill Clinton was anything but a cultural or partisan warrior. He was the opposite. And that was what he had to show for it...

When have Democrats not been eager to accommodate the Right, to sacrifice their ideological beliefs and partisan goals in pursuit of post-partisan harmony, to jettison the "Left" in order to attract the Mythical, Glorious Center? When haven't they done exactly that? Isn't that everything they've been doing for two decades now, what has defined the Party at its core? In what conceivable way is this new, and why does anyone expect that it will generate different results now?"

Well, then, we seem to have a myriad of viewpoints here. Yay us.

All I ask is that Obama, at some point in the inauguration, moonwalk across the platform. I'll be watching, Mr. President-Elect.

You seem to have tapped into my dreams of how American politics should really work, Cyril.

I think that Obama secretly plans, while this guy is giving the invocation, to kick him off the stage while screaming, "THIS IS AMERICAAAAAA!"

I just re-watched The Times of Harvey Milk last night, and "slap in the face" is the absolutely appropriate phrase for Obama's choice. There are evangelical preachers out there who support gay rights. If he wanted to make a statement about inclusion he could've gotten one of them to do the invocation so evangelical bigots could see that there are other interpretations of their religions than the hateful, fear-based ones spread by Warren and his ilk. I agree with David. I have no desire to excuse someone's bigotry because, "Oooh, it's their religious belief, so we have to respect that." If your religious belief tells you to infringe upon my human rights, fuck you and your religious belief. And the most appalling thing about all the appeasement talk is that people DIE for being gay. This isn't just some silly little matter of people's feelings being hurt.

Okay, no arguments that Warren is terrible. And I wish Obama had picked someone centrist instead.

But maybe Obama's idea is that by choosing Warren, Warren and others like him will be more willing to listen to Obama later, and come to some sort of compromise on these issues?

The country is still divided very much on gay marriage, sadly, so even federal recognition of civil unions would be a step forward.

Hey...after making that comment, i headed over to my favorite news source, the nation.com figuring i'd find a solid critique, and of course i did. Here's an article from the site. This guy is a lot worse than their even letting on.

What's the Matter With Rick Warren?
By Sarah Posner
December 17, 2008

Now it has officially gone too far: Democrats, in their zeal to appear friendly to evangelical voters, have chosen celebrity preacher and best-selling author Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration.

There was no doubt that Obama, like every president before him, would pick a Christian minister to perform this sacred duty. But Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Warren has done a masterful job at marketing himself as a "new" kind of evangelical with a "broader agenda" than just fighting abortion rights and gay marriage. He dispatches members of his congregation to Africa to perform AIDS relief and has positioned himself as a great crusader for bringing his "purpose-driven" pabulum to the world.

Faith in Public Life, a nonprofit cultivated by the Center for American Progress, was so wowed by Warren that it co-sponsored a presidential forum in August at Warren's Saddleback Church. There, his "broader agenda" included asking Obama whether he believed that life began at conception (which Warren believes, he says, based on the Bible, not science) and to ruminate on the nature of evil. (As for Pastor Rick, he believes the Bible dictates that the US government "punish evildoers," as in Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Beneath the sheep's clothing lurks a culture warrior wolf. After the Saddleback forum, he told the Wall Street Journal that the only difference between him and James Dobson was that of "tone." After insisting that his agenda was "broad," and holding himself out as an impartial arbiter of the forum, he declared that voting for a "Holocaust denier" (i.e., someone who is pro-choice) is a "deal-breaker" for many evangelicals. Obama was pressured to talk about "abortion reduction," but Warren likens such rhetoric likening it to Schindler's List: an attempt to save some lives but not end a "holocaust."

In the world of the "broader agenda" evangelicals, when liberals advocate for gay marriage, they're stoking the culture wars; when a "broader agenda" evangelical crusades against it, he's merely upholding biblical standards. In that tradition, Warren in October implored his followers to vote for Proposition 8 because "there are about 2 percent of Americans are homosexual, gay, lesbian people. We should not let 2 percent of the population...change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years." Warren called opposition to gay marriage a "humanitarian issue" because "God created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation."

Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."

Warren protests that he's not a homophobe; it's just that two dudes marrying, in his mind, is indistinguishable from an adult marrying a child, a brother marrying his sister, or polygamy. He thinks his AIDS relief efforts represent an elevated form of Christianity over those non-evangelical do-gooders whom he compares to "Marxists" because they're more interested in good works than salvation. The rejection of the "social justice" gospel in favor of the salvation-focused evangelicalism that has come to dominate the definition of "Christian" lies at the heart of the religious right agenda to marginalize liberalism and harness its political power.

Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful. Obama's religious outreach was intended, supposedly, to make religious voters more comfortable with him and feel included in the Democratic Party. But that outreach now has come at the expense of other people's comfort and inclusion, at an event meant to mark a turning point away from divisive politics.

About Sarah Posner
Sarah Posner writes "The FundamentaList," a weekly roundup of news from the religious right, for The American Prospect Online and is the author God's Profits (PoliPoint).

I'm with David. I've been trying to think of an analogy that would make this easier to critique. The best one i've come up with so far is: Would it be acceptable to have a minister at the inauguration preside who had said that Jews are second class citizens? Saying gays can't marry means they don't deserve equal rights and are second class citizens. Just plug another minority into the gay slot, and it's suddenly not acceptable. Gay repression is just not as jarring because it's more commonplace. Seriously, try to imagine this guy promoted prejudice against another racial or religious group, would it bother you then?

I have many gay friends and one particular couple who got married right here in Chicago. Of course, it's not legal. And should Paul be in the hospital dying some day, Dan might not be permitted to see him. That makes me angry.

There is a big difference between sitting down with Republicans, fascists and dictators to negotiate with them...and inviting them to be a symbolic figurehead at your inauguration. There are plenty of pro-gay churches, several around here in Chicago. There is a split in the Episcopalian community between churches that accept gays and those that don't. He could easily have found one if he wanted to.

But i'm not surprised. Obama is a politician. He's not Ghandi. I am angry, but not extremely only because i'm not shocked. Although i voted for Obama, i never thought he was a real progressive.

I like pre-meal prayer with hand holding, as long as I don't have to say amen or wash my hands before touching the palms of others. I also blatantly peek.

Nice one, Sarah. :P

Thoze are perfick tad.

Great idea Larry! How about these...



Nice one, Sarah, I didn't even catch that...

There sunglasses!












Well, you asked where.

The trick, tad, is to where wear sunglasses.

Ugh. I always get creeped out by pre-meal prayers. I'm all for holding hands, I would go so far as to say that there isn't enough hand-holding any more, but not right before we eat. Can't we hold hands before bed or something?

I always open my eyes and peek at everyone during the compulsary pre-meal prayer. What's funny is that I always catch at least one of the religious people doing the same thing.

I like Coldplay, but I hate holding hands and praying before a meal. It always feels so artificial. It's not like I usually hold hands with them...

Secular works for me.
Some women I was with made me hold hands and pray with them at dinner the other night. Awkward!!!

Sorry, I like Coldplay. But I would like to add that I really dislike Notre Dame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rq1cN3j5...

I'd just like to add here that I, too, hate Coldplay.

Yes, exactly. Keep it secular.

mmmm: I agree. Keep it secular.

First of all, Obama would be hard pressed to find ANY high profile minister (and they always are high profile) who didn't oppose gay marriage.

I agree with Sarah here. There aren't a lot of ministers who support gay marriage, which is why I would do away with invocations and benedictions at the inauguration altogether. Keep it secular.

And we both hate Coldplay. There's that, too. Coldplay hatred bridges social divides.

I think touchdown Jesus is giving you the finger right now.

Reformer or radical, we can share our hatred of Notre Dame...there's common ground for all.

Yep. They should fire him. And eliminate the football program altogether. But again -- I'm not a reformer.

Good. How 'bout those Colts? And what do you think? Should the Fightin' Irish fire their coach?

:)

I disagree. Strongly. But let's leave it at that and do each other's hair...

I don't think this is an issue of appeasement at all, sir. You seem to want to define the situation much differently than I see it. This isn't warm, fuzzy bipartisanship or placating bigotry, either. It's Obama moving forward with the idea that he's also the President of the many Christians who might disagree with some of his social views. That doesn't mean he's selling out; it means he's moving forward. Remember, 1) the gay rights issue isn't the only issue facing this country right now, 2) a whole lot of people didn't vote for Obama, and he's their president, too, and 3) in order to fulfill his vision, he's going to need to build support and alliances outside of his traditional support. The most unproductive thing he could do is give the finger to anyone who disagrees with him.

It's the easiest thing (and the most convenient) for people to portray themselves as noble heroes who are unwilling to work with moderates with other viewpoints. An unwillingness to come to the table is a weakness, not a strength. I imagine the abortion protester would describe himself as a radical just before he set off the bomb in the clinic, you know? In fact, I think the radical approach is the least effective and in many ways the laziest here; it's also the easy way out. Building consensus and making the hard choices of when to push and when to listen is real leadership.

edit: I would also add there are times when a "fight your government and burn it down" may be the only path, but I don't think this is one of them. Smarter people than me can have that discussion.

I'll stock the van with your favorite colors, sir...

P.S. I put a New Order link on my profile! That should appease conservatives like you! ; 0

I wouldn't be surprised if not long ago anti-civil rights pastors did preside over inaugurations. Oh, I'm quite sure they did, but I'm speaking in the realms of "shoulds" here.

I'll readily admit I'm "all or nothing" when it comes to social issues -- but as I said, "nothing" in this case isn't an option. I'm not for appeasement when it comes to denying people their essential rights, and I'm not for placating bigotry, even in the interest of warm, fuzzy bipartisan togetherness or symbolism. I think it's just a fundamental difference of orientation between you and me, RA. You're more a reformist, and I'm more of a radical; as such, you're much more in touch with prevailing American opinion. Arriving as I am via a sort of Nietzschean route, I don't give a rat's ass about American opinion. Civil liberties, unlike many other issues, shouldn't be subject to referenda and the whim of the drooling masses.

But nevertheless I'd use your blue glitter hair spray any day, fascist. ; )

I think you're doing the "all or nothing" thing again, David. I think Obama can both A) piss people off, and B) build consensus at the same time. I wouldn't be surprised if not long ago anti-civil rights pastors did preside over inaugurations.

Yesterday I heard Obama speak well about why he chose Warren...about how he wanted all different points of views at his inauguration to represent the myriad of viewpoints in America, etc. I believe in the power of symbols, and I think this may be an important one. In other words, the symbol here may be I may disagree with this man, but I believe this person is not inherently evil and although we disagree in one area we are still at the same table, in the same country. And, at the same time, Obama can continue to push for gay rights.

I think wise long-term change in these scenarios has to include both "build consensus" and "take huge risks to piss people off" elements. It's lazy to think one or the other is enough.

Somewhat predictably, I disagree with this "common ground" business. Personally I'm not interested in making common ground with my enemies when it comes to discrimination and bigotry. Sure, there are some areas where olive branches should be extended, but when it comes to issues of social justice, not so much...

This is an extreme example, admittedly, but how far should common ground extend? What if we imagine the inauguration in the not-too-distant past and imagine the preacher taking pro-slavery, anti-civil rights, or anti-women's suffrage positions... Would we now be impressed by the president's attempts to find common ground or disappointed because he was unable to take a strong stand on issues that matter?

In the end, no, the choice of preacher will not have a profound effect on gay rights one way or the other, but it will do absolutely nothing to convince social conservatives that Obama is a palatable choice and also nothing for liberals who are seeking a symbol of change. Lose-lose, in my opinion.

Furthermore, I'm not interested in convincing social conservatives of anything. If they were on board, I would know that something is very, very wrong. Americans are addicted, I think, to tradition and moderation -- which, in the case of government stability, is a good thing, but in the case of social progress is just another example of good old fashioned ignorance and cowardice. I guess this is why I've always identified myself as more radical than liberal; fundamental rights and equality should be demanded -- taken -- not begged for.

So what, we haven't had a glorious inauguration since the Reagan days?

I think this is a really bad move on Obama's part. Remember the terrible invocation at Dubya's inauguration? And how about that disastrous invocation at Clinton's? People were complaining about that minister for years!

Yeah, but Sarah, you're not the reader to whom I'm referring, from what I can tell. Instead of describing it as the perfect book that has all the answers to your problems, you seem to have read it rationally and reasonably. So if you want me to mock you, I will, but it's not required. So ask nicely if you want me to mock you, and maybe I'll pencil you in:)

I've read Paradise Lost, though.

If people find a little hope in it, I don't see anything wrong with that. I guess you might as well mock me, because I've read it and gone through the 40 Days of Purpose, and I've read The Purpose-Driven Church and gone through the 40 Days of Community. I also have a great deal of admiration and respect for Rick Warren.

Well, Sarah, I don't think you have to read a book cover to cover to know it's not for you. Would that be fair to say, Ms. "don't read Paradise Lost"? I didn't say that people who read this book "need" to be mocked, as if it's required, but I have encountered some people who seem to believe, with a cultish zealotry, that this book has all the answers. And I find that mockworthy. You don't have to be on board with it. I forgive you. Mr. Warren said that falls underneath one of the God-ordained purposes.:)

First of all, Obama would be hard pressed to find ANY high profile minister (and they always are high profile) who didn't oppose gay marriage.

Second, I agree that people who think Obama will usher in the age of gay marrige equality are deluding themselves. He's already stated that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman but supports civil unions. 70% of black voters voted yes on Prop 8, and yet they also overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

Third, I don't know why people who've read Warren's book need to be "mocked," RA. Have you read it? If not, how would you know it's mock-worthy?

I'm not feeling very outraged about this. Seems like he is making an effort towards unity. I agree with Magnet - its 10 minutes of next January! We've endured wackier before. I like that he's at least being original here.

I think too many people believed McPalin's rhetoric about Obama being so extremely "liberal." If one actually looked at his record and read his writing one would see he is really very centrist -- which many of us feel is needed at this time. Extremism doesn't get things done anymore, from either side of things.

Why'd he choose Warren? I don't get it. I don't really know anything about this Warren guy other than what it says in the article, but from what I read there, I know that I disagree with him on at least two points.

I agree with you, Anthony, that we can't ignore conservatives because "we won." But I'm wondering where that particular line is drawn. Because on one hand, it's the inauguration invocation, so Obama should find somebody truly liberal and accepting of all people since, ya know, Obama=Change and all.
However, on the other hand, it's just an inauguration invocation. Its not his cabinet. So who cares? 10 minutes and this Warren guy will be gone.

I'm more into The Porpoise Driven Life.


Dolphins can teach us a lot!

(I was a huge Flipper homer when I was a kid--until I found out he choked to death on a corncob).

OK, but what does Jesus have to do w/ it?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/o...

This is an interesting issue, but I'm with Obama on this one. I agree with this:

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, "This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history."

I may not agree with Warren on everything, and I may mock people who read his book, but I don't get the people who take that "We won! Let's completely ignore conservatives...fuck them" stance. There's a sense of vengeance, a "let's get those conservative bastards" lingering after the election, and I don't like it.

I applaud Obama for respecting and including people with whom he might not automatically agree on everything...he seems to be looking for common ground rather than what divides people. That takes class and foresight, and I can't see how it can hurt America.