Obama On Rick Warren Pick: We Have To Be Able To Agree To Disagree
Obama, at his presser today, defends the decision to choose Rick Warren to deliver the invocation as his inauguration with a restatement of his commitment to gay rights and, more broadly, to the principles of unity that have been a hallmark of his rise to power:
I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and -- well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.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 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 dialogue, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. 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 about a whole host of issues -- is also speaking.
Obama is not so much using the left as a foil here as he is using division and polarization in general as his foil. The question that just won't go away, however, is why campaigning against division and polarization by picking an equally radical choice on the left to give the invocation would be politically unthinkable.
Such a decision would be met not just with screams from the right, but outrage from middle-of-the-road pols and pundits all over the country. But the pick of Warren is only generating outrage from the left, so it doesn't matter, and indeed, it's good for Obama politically, we're told.
To be clear, this state of affairs isn't Obama's fault, obviously. It's just an apparently un-mutable fact of our political life, for reasons that are beyond this blog's pay grade to grapple with.
Late Update: Aravosis wants to know when we're going to be asked to politely agree to disagree with haters of other groups.
Late Late Update: Here's the video:
Evidently it's generating outrage on the right, so that means this decision is A-OK. It's improper to question Obama, Greg.
December 18, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
And apparently, it's improper to question any criticism either. It's a vicious circle of free speech-squashing fascism... or maybe it's just people with different viewpoints having rationally arrived at different opinions... nah, it's definitely the fascism one.
December 18, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to admit that any criticism of anything Obama does produces a flurry of "WOULD YOU PEOPLE JUST SHUT THE HELL UP AND LET HIM GET INAUGURATED ALREADY???!!!!" responses, and has, since he won the nomination.
Any defense of him produces a flurry of "ARE YOU BRAIN-DEAD, NAIVE, OR JUST STUPID TO NOT SEE HIM FOR WHAT HE IS????!!!"
Not much room for discussion.
December 18, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
We should lock the people who say Obama has betrayed gays in a room with the people who say Warren has betrayed pro-lifers and anti-gay marriage activists until the inauguration is over.
They're not going to watch it anyway because of their "outrage" and this will give them a chance to see exactly how much they have in common. They are two sides of the same coin--close-minded bigots masquerading as righteous warriors for the downtrodden and forsaken. Yeah, right.
December 18, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Freerider, I'm with you - let's you and me lock ourselves in a room somewhere until we find a way to rid this country of extremists of every kind.
haha - I'm counting on YOUR kind to get the joke.
December 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly why I supported Hillary in the primary. Obama may end up being a better president than she would have, and I supported him wholeheartedly in the general election. I expect him to be a great president. But I expected crap like this and I hate it.
December 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
LISTEN YOU A__HOLE! A bunch of right wing religious fascists just stole the WEDDING RINGS off over 30,000 legally married Californians and threw them in the garbage and you are SO FUCKING HAPPY TO CALL US CRYBABIES OR WTF! I challenge anyone of you posting your "fair and balanced" view of Rick Warren at the podium to THROW AWAY YOUR WEDDING RING TODAY and tell your partner it is just petty nitpicking!!!!
For crying out loud you people have no idea what you are pissing on in this matter ..... FreeRider you are the WORST!
December 18, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are letting a sophomoric troll get to you. this type of apparatchik comes up with juvenile analogies and a ton of insulting put-down language. the way to deal with trolls is to ignore the insult and try to make your case to the thinking audience. it never pays to engage a troll directly since their goal is not honest debate. what Obama has done is very wrong. he is not only demeaning some of his strongest supporters, he is elevating Warren to a position of authority above the partisan divide. just as his one-sided appointments belie his talk of a team of experts from different political perspectives, so too the choice of Warren belies Obama's promise to ease the culture wars. the gay and lesbian community did not begin these wars; these wars, the hot-button issues, have been adopted by the right wing explicitly to take political advantage of our divisions as a society, inflame hatred towards minorities, and the "other" all the while consolidating political and economic power. Obama should be at a minimum a step up from the right wing. unfortunately the crisis the country is in requires quite a bit more and all the early indications are that Obama is a cynical politician playing the usual Democratic political game. we can all hope for better; but we should anticipate that he is a very cautious and cunning corporate-oriented politician (hopefully I am wrong here but that is my read). even the Obama-chorus here agrees saying "he never indicated he was any good so all of you who want him to be should shut up". You get this theme repeated endlessly from the trolls.
December 18, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We should lock the people who say Obama has betrayed gays in a room with the people who say Warren has betrayed pro-lifers and anti-gay marriage activists"
What a ridiculous statement. Maybe if Warren had just helped to take away your basic rights, you wouldn't be so glib about it. Pro-lifers aren't being forced to have abortions and anti-gay marriage activists aren't being compelled to marry someone of the opposite sex. But millions of gays and lesbians in California did have their rights taken away and cannot marry because of people like Warren. So for you to imply some sort of moral equivalence between people who want their basic human rights and those who want to take them away is degenerate.
The fact is that showcasing Warren at the inaugural is NOT a way to bring Americans together because Warren doesn't believe that all Americans should have the same rights. It merely gives credence to his bigoted and divisive involvement in American politics.
December 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ugly troll returns!
What was it like being on the wrong side of history asshole?
December 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama should have invited someone who has been outspoken against interracial couples getting married. That would REALLY show how willing he is to have his own MOTHER and FATHER given the shit slapping that Rick Warren has done to gay couples who expected that Obama might care that 36,000 Americans just had their wedding ring stolen and thrown in the toilet.
The left-right equivalency thing just doesn't work here. Gay Americans are not trying to strip civil rights from Mormons or any other religion. Reasonable people can disagree, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR WEDDING RINGS OFF AND THROW THEM AWAY! GET IT?!?
December 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What was it like being on the wrong side of history asshole?"
You tell me what it's like you homophobic prick. Bash any other gays lately? Your granddad would be so proud!
December 18, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. We all know you're freeper. it's not like you're foolin anybody, smart guy.
December 18, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
get bent homophobe
December 18, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What was it like being on the wrong side of history asshole?"
lol. to the point. I like it.
December 18, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
“Maybe if Warren had just helped to take away your basic rights, you wouldn’t be so glib about it.”
This assumes that same-sex marriage is a right. There are certain other kinds of marriage that would be considered rights since they involve two consenting individuals, such as incestuous marriages. But we forbid those.
“Pro-lifers aren’t being forced to have abortions …”
I could make the same argument for slavery. “Why should we ban slavery? Abolitionists aren’t forced to own slaves.” This argument and yours both miss the point that abortion and slavery are not about whether the practices interfere with others’ lives. The abortion issue is (and the slavery question was) about whether the practice violates a human right, whether to life or to freedom.
And before you call me a homophobe or anti-choice or whatever, note that I support gays serving openly in the military (I consider proscribing this to be discrimination), I support gays adopting, and I recognize that there are cases in which abortions are necessary. I don't hate homosexuals and I don't hate pro-choicers.
December 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This assumes that same-sex marriage is a right."
"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs," - Hannah Arendt, Dissent, 1959.
December 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright. You didn't reply to my first point about abortion/slavery, so I assume you understood what I was saying.
I understand your point about the right to marry. The problem I have with gay marriage, though, is that it justifies extension of marriage to incestuous couples. I already know that, if gay marriage is legalized (though I disagree with it, I don't really care, since I know it wouldn't affect me), few will approve of incest, but it doesn't mean that brothers and sisters wouldn't be justified in demanding the right to marry. That's the main problem I have with gay marriage; though legalizing it would work on a social level, its legalization isn't justified on a logical level.
December 18, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem I have with gay marriage, though, is that it justifies extension of marriage to incestuous couples."
You know, you are so ignorant there is no hope for you. I'm so sick of the way ignorant, bigoted people try to rationalize their hatred in the most pathetic and irrational ways. If you want to believe that the only thing stopping brothers and sisters from having sex and producing deformed babies is the idea that gays can't get married, you are beyond any reasonable discussion. So continue wallowing in your ignorance and hatred. It suits you.
December 18, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm so sick of the way ignorant, bigoted people try to rationalize their hatred in the most pathetic and irrational ways."
I just said that I'm not a homophobe, and substantiated that claim by expressing my support for gays serving openly in the military, adopting, etc.
"If you want to believe that the only thing stopping brothers and sisters from having sex and producing deformed babies is the idea that gays can't get married, you are beyond any reasonable discussion."
I never said that proscription of gay marriage stops siblings from having sex. I said that allowing gay marriage would justify extending marriage to siblings also, effectively recognizing incestuous relationships as valid. Siblings can have sex, but can't marry. Approval of gay marriage would give justification for allowing them to marry. There's a difference between what I said and what you thought I said.
December 18, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you. No patience with anybody who doesn't understand the genuine perniciousness of anti-gay bigotry.
December 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There plenty of discussion between the exclamantion points and all caps. We put too much stock in those that scream the loudest. This whole episode just makes me hold that much tighter to my series of tubes, I love them so!
December 18, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the response to whiners is often hostile, not because of a knee jerk defense of Obama, but becasue so many of the complaints are uninformed and irrational.
It's pretty sad Sargent sees this issue as too complex or above his pay grade. The logic is fairly straightforward really.
Rick Warren is a hugely influential Evangelical Christian Conservative. Regardless of what Obama does, he will still be anti-abortion, still be anti-gay, and still highly influential with his existing demographics, who will continue to exist regardless of whatever Obama does. Obama is not going to change that by ignoring him.
Evangelicals are also very important allies on environmental issues and other issues, and potentially on poverty and healthcare.
We should always remember, if left to deteriorate further, an environmental catastrophe (rising sea levels, changing weather patters and freak weather, crop failures, species extinction, etc) could kill and impoverish tens or even hundreds of millions due to starvation, land loss, disease, and general environmental Armageddon. Not to mention the permanent loss to the planets biodiversity. Poverty and healthcare are obviously important issues as well.
So yes, it's pretty obvious that Obama should ally with Evangelicals like Warren on issues where millions of lives can potentially be saved.
It was just in the news the other day that Obama plans to overturn Bush policies on "conscience" objections to providing medical care such as birth control, morning after pills, etc. Gay marriage is being decided by referendum on the state level, and Obama's stance has been nuanced but consistent.
So really, what are people complaining about? This is about liking Warren, it's about making an ally of him on specific issues where we can agree and all benefit.
If someone can't understand that, then they're not going to understand a lot of the "adult" decisions Obama makes over the next 8 years.
December 18, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, wow there's a lot of freepers and wingers pretending to be gay activists in this thread. Like I posted the other day, there are a lot of bitter losers out there, wannabe provocateurs and trolls.
They'll only become more unhinged over the next 8 years.
Big waste of time. But what do you expect? They have nothing else to do, that's all they can do is hope to stir shit.
Like this bitter old green skinned guy spouting off on the street the other day, about how Obama was a socialist and such, while chain smoking and hacking his lung out. Even his friend (son?) couldn't stand him. Or this paranoid semi-homeless guy at the cafe talking about how Obama was a complete sellout, along with a lot of crank theories, and his crazy eyes and trembling chin.
It's sad. There's a lot of unhinged people out there.
December 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"wow there's a lot of freepers and wingers pretending to be gay activists in this thread."
You know, there are a lot of so-called progressives who are really McCarthyites in disguise. Just like McCarthy scapegoated and labeled everyone he disagreed with a secret "Communist", there are people on this newsgroup who like to scapegoat and label everyone who disagrees with them a secret "freeper and winger."
Did you ever think that YOU are the ones who belong on the other side? You do everything that they do and your political strategy is exactly the same. Especially when confronted with that dire threat to America called 'free speech.' That's what you and Joe McCarthy really hate.
December 18, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is obvious that many are missing the point. It is not, again and again I say this, that Warren has diverse opinions. It is that he has repeatedly said vile things about a segment of citizens in this country. That is what is wrong with this choice.
December 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's not that Obama has diverse opinions," says the religous right nutjob. "It's that he has repeatedly defended the gay agenda and is pro-abortion. That's why he should never be allowed to speak at Saddleback. His mere presence tarnishes our values."
December 18, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think speaking at Saddleback is the same magnitude event as an inauguration. Do you?
December 18, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can't answer that question, and he also doesn't know what a neoliberal is.
December 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, perhaps. But, unlike you, at least I know the difference between "you're" and "your."
Really, Ion, I stopped responding to your posts (despite your many replies to me) because you're a bore with an exaggerated sense of victimhood constantly in search of something to be pissed of about.
And with that, I'm back to ignorning you but feel free to continue to stalk me across the board!
December 18, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who disagree with you are "playing the victim" by definition, that's the tiredest canard in the right wing playbook, troll.
December 18, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I shouldn't reply but I can't resist this big fat easy one . . .
"tiredest"??? What next--goodest?
Add stupid to my list of reasons for ignoring you.
December 18, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've established a clear connection between my chatter on the internet and my intellectual faculties: well done, herr doctor!
December 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Troll Critic 3000 were here to deal with you.
December 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, this is really uncalled for, enough with the rudeness.
December 18, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do. You know why? Because it's Rick Warren's highest and most visible platform and he invited Obama to speak there and televised it.
Saying it's not equal is like saying "you inviting me to your home is not the same as me inviting you to mine because you only have a 3-bedroom suburban ranch whereas I live in a mansion with servants overlooking the ocean."
December 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Saddleback is an important institution in the evangelical community. The inauguration is en event for the entire country and the world. They're not the same magnitude of importance.
December 18, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean "the entire country" which includes people who hold Warren's beliefs???
Your argument is silly. Warren isn't president and won't have an inauguration, so the most he can do is give his platform (Saddleback) to Obama. He's already done that, despite the anger it caused among evangelicals.
December 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We disagree. You think speaking at Saddleback is the same degree of importance as an inauguration. I find that funny.
December 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So only people who have allowed Obama to speak at their inauguration have earned reciprocity? That's a pretty short list, don't you think?
If I give you my last $5 and you give me your last $50, we're equal because we've both given all we had. That's how I see it. You obviously think the person who has the most is somehow superior. whatever.
December 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm talking about the importance of the inauguration of the first African-American president, and an appearance at a large evangelical church. These are not of the same magnitude in terms of attention.
This isn't an issue about who has what to give.
December 18, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think delivering an address at an inauguration is somehow equivalent to being a policymaker.
December 18, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is at the inauguaration Warren won't be talking about his views, he will be giving a prayer. Obama was invited into Warren's "home" and was able to fully express his views. Warren will be giving a prayer - a universal one, not a Pray Away the Gay session.
December 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, so you compare Amelie to a religious-right nutjob? Talk about phony equivalence.
FreeRider, you epitomize the very problem of current political discourse that Greg has tried to bring up.
December 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wingers think Obama shouldn't be given a platform because they find his views abhorrent. She thinks Warren shouldn't be given a platform because she finds his views abhorrent.
I'm having a hard time seeing the difference. Show me.
December 18, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that you even use terms like "religious nut-job" tells me that you already know the difference.
December 18, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't honestly. Because the people hear are coming off as left-wing nutjobs. I don't see any difference. They're both intolerant haters.
December 18, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think calling Amelie an "intolerant hater" is offensive and uncalled for.
December 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intolerant haters? Amelie? Good grief.
I take back my statement that suggested that you did in fact have an idea of what you were talking about.
You need to step away from the computer for a bit and calm down. It is ironic and sad that you say such offensive things while defending Obama and his statement about 'disagreeing without being disagreeable'.
December 18, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is hating and being intolerant of Rick Warren and his views acceptable? Evangelicals aren't people so it's OK to hate them, huh?
Warren is wrong when he is intolerant of gays but Amelie is just peachy when she's intolerant of him.
You folks are the biggest hypocrits I've ever seen.
December 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
FreeRider, I have never said I hate anyone. Secondly, I am very tolerant of opposing view points and freedom of speech and I also am an Obama admirer. Again, for the 15th time, what I said was that Warren has made inflammatory, disrespectful and demeaning remarks about gays, therefore, he is not just opposed to gays (his right), he is actually degrading towards a portion of our society. And because of his own words, I do not feel he is a good choice for a remarkable day in history. Just my opinion, I am not asking anyone to agree.
December 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
LISTEN FreeRider~ Rick Warren just stood up and cheered when over 36,000 of your fellow Americans in California had their WEDDING RINGS FORCIBLY REMOVED and thrown in the garbage!!!
DO YOU GET THAT?!?
The right wing just kicked shit in the face of EQUALITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL and you are pissing on them for being pissed???
Why don't you throw your wedding ring in the garbage today just to show how trivial an issue it is .... go ahead .... PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!
December 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't see any difference. They're both intolerant haters."
You don't see any difference between people fighting for their equal rights and those trying to take them away? You don't see any difference between Jews and the Nazis who took away their rights? The Jews who hated the Nazis for what they did are just as guilty in your book.
You are a moron.
Gays aren't trying to take away Rick Warren's rights. Gays didn't just campaign and vote to annul Rick Warren's marriage and take away his children and make them bastards. Rick Warren is the one who just did that to gays. So for you to imply some sort of moral equivalence is morally bankrupt.
You can see now why I supported Hillary Clinton and did not trust Obama or his flunkies.
December 18, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has tolerance for even jerks like you!
December 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama had tolerance for homosexuals, he would be intolerant of those who lie and slander them and take away their rights.
December 18, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe just maybe he could be inoculating himself against future accusations of being "antichristian or antifamily". Remember he is a lawyer so it isn't outside the realm of probability.
If (big if) his administration commits to policy that respects the civil right of all, the opposition will come from the fringe right as he may have pacified a large chunk of the center right.
As someone who was hot for hil I say give BHO the benefit of the doubt.
December 18, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not trying to be obtuse or make a point or even put you on the spot, but possibly I am underinformed. Could you (or somebody) actually compile a souced, non-paraphrased, list of quotations of things he said that were "vile" and "hateful"?
It just seems like that would be a useful baseline for the argument. And, frankly, I'm great of thinking of great ideas that I'm too lazy to implement myself.
December 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction. He is a supporter of marriage equality and was heavily criticized by the right for ripping Bush to shreds (to his face) at Coretta Scott King's funeral.
Yet, there's none of the outrage that you describe in your hypothetical.
Hmmm, that's strange...
December 18, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
you really think he's comparable in ideological degree to Warren? that's a sincere question
December 18, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose that's a matter of perspective, isn't it? At least on the issue of gay marriage, more Americans agree with Warren than Lowery.
December 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only do more Americans agree with Warren than Lowery, BUT more of Warrens parishoners agree with him on gay marriage than Lowery's parishoners agree with him.
December 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But has Lowery openly compared those he disagrees with to something akin to pedophiles or practitioners of incest? I agree that there's a whole lot of hating and vilifying that needs to stop, and support the basic goals Obama is pursuing on that front, but using the broad standards of comparison that some are in this discussion seems to water down the degree to which Rick Warren preaches real hate. If that serious difference of degree was acknowledged we'd be having a more meaningful debate here.
December 18, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got any data on that?
December 18, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lowery spoke out against Proposition 8, attacked Bush to his face, and has supported a large number of other actions that many right wingers abhor.
IMO, they should be viewed similarly in the eyes of those who disagree with their message.
December 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting.
December 18, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the biggest issue concerning Lowery/warren is that Warren's views are much more widely known and he is a much more prominent figure. A lot of people don't know who is Lowery is. In some reports I've seen, his name isn't even mentioned - dilutes the storyline, I suppose.
In the NYT piece, there's a link to all the people mentioned EXCEPT Lowery, as if to say - "who cares about him?"
December 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say we should 'agree to disagree' while offering a choice that is clearly very divisive for a variety of reasons just doesn't fly. Making such a divisive choice instead of a more unifying or at least a less divisive one is not a great way to begin.
December 18, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry guys, this outrage over this thing is boring in the extreme. As is the faux-outrage over cabinet choices, etc etc.
What matters is what happens during the presidency. I really am starting to think the netroots doesn't get the sheer magnitude of the crises Obama is going to have to deal with.
It's amazing that a campaign about big things has led to a transition in which we've become consumed with small things.
I don't know, after being around some of these sites for awhile, I'm thinking it's time for a break. I can watch the netroots marginalizing itself in front of my eyes and it's not pretty.
December 18, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm actually trying to broaden the discussion here beyond just Obama, and to get into what it says about our discourse as a whole.
December 18, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I know Greg. It's not you, you've kept sane throughout this. And there are legitimate discussions to be had about Warren.
But in general, spend some time on Daily Kos or other places and you'll know what I'm talking about. People are working themselves into a tizzy over lots of small things, attacking Obama at every opportunity.
And most of all, a narrow focus on tactics while ignoring the larger strategies at play.
It's a macro-thing going on, the netroots - so often defined in opposition to Bush - doesn't know what to do with itself now so expresses "OUTRAGE!" at every turn. It's just boring.
Greg, I will always still read your reporting, but it's these other sites I'm going to take a break from.
December 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you Das. I rarely go to Kos and other Democratic leaning sites because of the constant yelling and the continuous state of outrage at small things. They dont realize that all they are doing is perpetuating the angry left meme.
December 18, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here here!
FYI: I stopped browsing Kos a while ago for the same reasons, and limit my time on other "progressive" sites as well...hatred is hatred is hatred. When is it ever the best response? And when does it ever lead to a better outcome?
I sense, in actuality, it's more about the need for an adrenaline rush...exciting stuff, venting that much outrage. Unfortunately, some humans still hang on to the need for an "Other," a "Bad Guy," an "Evil Doer." It's what's given our species a reason for existence...
I encourage a reading of the book "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning." Not much different than the "war" being generated over this (and all the other things Obama has decided that have resulted in anger, name-calling, chiding, threatening...)
P.S. Out of all the progressive sites I've visited, TPM is by far the least vitriolic of them all. I thank you for that. It's a place I can come to and read articles that don't try to demonize nearly to the degree that others do. Absolutely appreciate it.
December 18, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I come here. Yes, less vitriolic. Can happen in the comments. But it's not fomented from above.
December 18, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I almost never go into the comments at Kos, but I couldn't go a day without "Abbreviated Pundit Roundup." It's almost as indespensible as "Get Fuzzy."
December 18, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too. All of the "outrage" is exhausting, not to mention just plain ole boring.
I think the blogs have realized that anger drives traffic to the sites. I can't believe that those guys are that pissed off about all the things they say they're that pissed off about. What a miserable, pathetic way to live.
December 18, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
FREERIDER is going to throw away his wedding ring today to show how BORED he is of this whole fake outrage thing going on with Rick Warren. Tell your wife how bored you are of being legally married.
December 18, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think you're dead right on this.
i was talking to my friend last night and i told him "we won. we shouldn't be so angry."
it's exhausting finding something(usually a pretty trivial something) to be outraged about EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. And obama's not even president yet! can we at least wait until he does something worthy of criticizing before we vow never to vote for him again?
We won. We don't have to be so angry anymore. We
ve got four years to turn this country around. That's not alot of time. Surely, we can spend our time more constructively than writing page long diatribes about the "outrage of the day".
December 18, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm right there with you. The only thing I like about Dkos now is their Abbreviated Pundit Roundup post - because it brings my attention to Liberal and Conservative voices. But, the outrage that is so often expressed is a real turn off, so are many of the posts by readers at the Huffington Post. And now, TPM readers are heading in the same direction. I'm not a blind follower of Obama, my eyes are wide open and nothing he has done has surprised or upset me. I don't want a President who will spend the next 4-8 giving payback to those that wronged his base.
December 18, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
America is still a pretty conservative place.
December 18, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're a center-right nation. At least that's what virtually every political pundit tells me, so it's probably true.
December 18, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was alluding to that cliche, yes, although I think electing Obama shows us to be more a center-center country...much to the chagrin of those on the Left and the Right...
December 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if liberalism can be defined as the new 'center', then I would be happy to agree.
December 18, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is faux outrage. People are rightful to be upset at Obama for allowing Warren, who openly campaigned to impose his religious beliefs through the rule of law. Unless Obama comes out and explains this in great deal it makes him come across as someone that condones discrimination in the rule of law. There is no minority group on the planet that should better understand what an injustice it is to have discrimination set in stone in the form of laws.
December 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putting aside the entire issue of Warren:
Given Obama's refusal to openly advocate for gay marriage, doesn't he already come across as someone that condones said discrimination? Certainly, that's something I disliked about all our viable candidates in 2008, but it's not really news.
December 18, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being against something for personal beliefs is one thing.
Condoning the preaching from a pulpit to have someones beliefs written into law in the form of Prop 8 is something entirely different.
December 18, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that's really a convincing and consistent argument, especially since Obama has used public platforms to openly state that he believes marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.
December 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll provide you with an Obama quote to tell you where I'm coming from.
"I've stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
Yes, he's not a believer of it but does not believe it should be written into law either.
December 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're forgetting Obama's support for civil unions and the same standard of legal recognition sans the word "marriage."
December 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be a start. I know of gay couples that remain overseas and cannot move to the U.S. because the only way for their partner to remain in the U.S. for longer than three months would be to either A) Win a raffle for a Visa B) Get some sort of work/University Visa C) Join the U.S. military and then apply for Citizenship (this causes a few problems for obvious reasons)
All U.S. citizens should have the same right. It's just silly and over time this will pass.
December 18, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Mike!!
December 18, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, go mike indeed!
December 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike Warren, Obama favors civil unions, that's a massive difference.
December 18, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's all bigotry, isn't it? And since we're conflating Warren with Fred Phelps and David Duke, where does our slope get slippery and where's the argument for that arbitrary delimitation of slipperiness?
December 18, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not "all bigotry."
Civil unions and legal recognition, with the economic and social rights that come with them are critical distinctions.
December 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ion, you are one of those who claim civil unions are 'separatebutequal' don't try to back off now.
December 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing is clear from your responses to my posts: you don't know what I think and are incapable of providing evidence to support your positions.
December 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It remains "news" to a lot of gays who supported most everything about Obama except his unjustifiable (but probably tactically inevitable, politically) position on gay marriage. Those who think this is outrage blown out of proportion on some nit-picking issue like a cabinet selection probably aren't thinking about how important Obama's sad position on this issue is to those whom it influences, particularly given that he was elected on the same day as the terrible Prop 8 vote materialized.
I'll say it again - read the 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, then tell me this doesn't matter.
December 18, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, us 'netroots' have always been on the margins - I can't fathom where you get the idea that we have been definining political discourse for the masses these past 8 years.
The fact is, it would have been so easy and uncontroversial for Obama to have someone else do the invocation. But instead, he now has to take time out of his day (and probably the next several) explaining his decision to have a homophobe take front and center stage during his inauguration. It's not only wrong from a human rights standpoint, it's just bewildering from a political standpoint as well.
December 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you. Can anyone tell me (without using the Google) who gave the invocation at Bush's last inauguration? Or Kennedy's or Clinton's? I can't. So if this is such a huge symbolic statement why don't we all know who these people were off the top of our heads? If Obama had the pope come to bless his inauguration someone, somewhere would be hacked off but in 10 years no one would remember.
Think of what your long term political goals are and then think strategy, not symbolism. All the causes that the LGBT community is interested in seeing advanced: Don't ask, don't tell repeal; civil unions/marriage; etc. these cannot be advanced without winning over the support of the straight voter. This is reality. The more that the right can paint Obama as a baby-killing, gay loving liberal, the easier it will be for them to dig in their heels and play obstructionist politics, like they did during the Clinton years. Remember the Clinton years? When DADT was passed?
If we cede the realm of faith to the right, we're giving ourselves headaches. On the other hand if we can peel off the more reasonable members of this very large and proven voting group we've got a working majority.
Were you people not listening when Obama said he wanted to end the politics of division? What did you think he meant? Doing that means you have to respect and talk to people, even people who you disagree with, even people you may not like and who may not like you. We can play the intolerance of the intolerant game (a la Garp) if we like now that we are in power, and in a term or two we'll be back on the bottom, wondering how we got there, just like the Repubs are doing now.
I am a confirmed atheist who was raised in the world of fundamentalist Christian belief (and thankfully escaped it). I could never agree with or return to that lifestyle. But I also know that all Americans are not like me, in fact, most Americans are not like me. So if we are ALL going to advance AS A NATION, we have to get beyond these differences to a common ground. I think Obama sincerely believes that and he intends to make it clear from the get go. Hence the symbolism everyone so objects to.
But I also don't think that, because he chose to make this point by inviting two ministers of very different perspectives to his inauguration, he is suddenly reversed himself and is now anti-LGBT or intends to degrade people who are. And if you think so I don't think you listened very closely to the man we elected.
I'll meet you back here after DADT is repealed (and it will be. Hell, even Colin Powell was on TV this weekend saying it was stupid) and see if everyone sings a different tune.
December 18, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, folks: Warren is a token. Obama could not have been any more clear without coming right out and saying it, which he of course can't.
Obama picked Warren to be the token religious nutjob at the inauguration. As Obama has repeatedly emphasized, he will be the president of all Americans. Even the nutjobs. And as the election showed, about 46% of Americans (McCain's share of the vote) disdain reason and are clearly nutjobs. So Obama wants to represent them at the inaugural. Thus, Rick Warren.
The token nutjob will be allowed to say his prayer, he'll be given a pat on the head, and he'll go on back to his nutjobbing. Obama will continue to NOT hold nutjob views or pursue nutjob policies.
Viewed as the token nutjob pick, Warren is actually a very progressive choice for Obama. As influential religious nutjobs go, Warren is better than most.
December 18, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The guy's going to say a prayer. Until he starts putting "nutjobs" into positions of power, I'm not going to get too upset.
December 18, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
For large portion of this country, Warren is not a "nutjob," rather he represents someone who is able to articulate their faith. Obama isn't about marginalizing these people as nutjobs, just as we hoped that the conservatives in power wouldn't marginalize us as nutjobs with nothing of value to bring to the table.
December 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. "Nutjob" is my own personal (and crude) shorthand for religious and/or political conservatives. There is no doubt that many, many Americans share Rick Warren's values. That's why Obama -- who likes to be inclusive -- wants to include such a person in the inaugural.
But there is inclusiveness in style, and inclusiveness in substance. Warren speaking at the inauguration is an example of the former. Obama and his administration do not share the extreme values that Warren holds, and will not pursue the policies that Warren wants. In a purely symbolic gesture, Warren was chosen to be the token representative of religious conservatives.
You are afraid that Obama is going to marginalize religious conservatives. You are right to be afraid. He won't marginalize you in style -- he's much too polite for that -- but he will marginalize you in substance. Put it this way: he won't marginalize you as nutjobs; he'll marginalize you as having the wrong beliefs.
December 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sorta agree with some of what you say, but I think it's incomplete and you're missing a big part of the picture.
Rick Warren, for all his faults, does advocate protecting "the creation" and can can be a powerful ally on that. It doesn't require adopting his view of gay marriage or abortion, and Obama has made clear they disagree on those issues. I respect them both more for working together on common causes despite other differences.
I'd totally jump at the oppurtunity to ally with him and Evangelicals to help save the planet and humanity from a catastrophe worse than any in history. Some people in both camps could take a lesson on how adults handle issues.
Climate change is, ultimately, the most important issues facing not just America, but all of humanity. Because it occurs slowly, and becasue it's seemingly less pressing than more immediate problems, it's often neglected. However, if left to worsen, it will produce catastrophes of biblical proportions, worse than anything in human history.
Just some of the things that will happen if climate change continues:
1) changing weather patterns causing massive disruption to ecosystems, and consequent crop failures and global starvation. In poorer countries tens to hundreds of millions could die.
2) Disruption of water distribution. Ranging from droughts in some ares, to floods in others. In either case it becomes difficult for poor people to obtain clean water, leading to disease.
3) Failed states due to disease and starvation. Upticks in fundamentalism and terrorism in failed stated, potentially including a nuclear Pakistan.
4) wars for basic resources. Genocides for resources.
5) changes in weather patterns that have existed for millenium, causing disruption in trade and services throughout the developed world. Such as the heat waves in W Europe, droughts and floods such as Katrina.
6) species extinctions and species relocation. It's not just the polar bear, it's entire ecosystems. Already we see bees used for crop pollination dying off in massive numbers for unknown reasons, and we see many insects moving north every year. We can also project many temperate regions becoming more tropical and consequently bringing mosquitos and disease to regions/populations without resistance.
7) the direct effects of rising sea levels and ice cap melting, such as all of bangladesh being submerged, which would create 150 million refugees in an already unstable region.
It would be crazy not to ally with Rick Warren on climate issues, and given that, it's totally appropriate to allow him to be part of the ceremony and signal they intend to work together on some issues.
December 19, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You made me laugh! Truth with humor. Thanks!
December 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: update.
We're not going to be asked to politely agree to disagree with other hater groups. Because, thankfully, it's no longer acceptable to be haters of certain groups. Gays? It still is, sadly.
December 18, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
And how do you propose going about changing the fact that 61% of Americans have an unacceptable viewpoint? Alienating them? Ostracizing them? You know how the whole representational democracy thing works?
The strawman arguments put forward by Aravosis should would be more compelling if he had an effective strategy for helping to build popular support.
December 18, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if polling was ever done on this issue, but do you imagine that Truman's decision to integrate the armed forces was popular?
The majority of Americans were in favor of invading Iraq. Does that make that decision ok?
I didn't read Aravosis' arguments, so I can't comment on that.
December 18, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you see, this is where your argument heads into strawman territory.
I didn't say opposition to gay marriage was "okay," that's your embellishment, and it's a dishonest one that completely misses my point. The question is how we're going to go about fostering conditions that allow us to open a dialogue in which we can make our case to those in the majority who are persuadable. Alienating and radicalizing the majority will not be effective. It simply marginalizes the minority (i.e., us). Even in the case of a substantive minority, being respectful of others' views and maintaining a dialogue under the umbrella of a single community is necessary to work together on other pressing problems.
Also, integration of the armed forces is a poor analogy to this invocation controversy since that was a matter of instituting an actual, substantive policy. If opposition to that policy were held by a clear majority of Americans, however, I do think it would be appropriate for Truman to recognize and maintain a civil dialogue with those who held those views. With that said, I wholly expect Obama to fulfill his promise to push for the repeal of DADT at some point during his presidency, and if he fails to do so, I will not be pleased.
December 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't saying anything about you.
I was trying to make the point that the majority often hold views that, in retrospect, are repugnant and wrong, so to invoke the fact that the majority doesn't believe in gay marriage isn't a compelling argument for inviting Warren to the inauguration.
December 18, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, strawman-a-licious. Yes, the fact in itself is not a compelling argument, until you also include the argument that it's important to foster conditions for a respectful, inclusive dialogue between the prevailing ideologies in a liberal democracy. Now, that's not an argument you have to accept, but it's not one I'm seeing a whole lot of rational responses to either.
December 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice "above the pay grade" remark, greg.
it appears to me that most of the consternation displayed on this and others might stem from the fact that by giving rick warren this international platform, it is somehow legitimizing the views of rick warren and his congregation.
i don't necessarily agree with that, mostly because he will pretty much be giving a prayer and not a sermon, but i think we should take a look at the entire inauguration schedule and all of the other participants (some of them historic in and of themselves) before we cast judgment on obama's judgment.
December 18, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean he didn't pick Billy Graham?!?!
December 18, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just not that exercised about Warren given the invocation and I say this as a California resident who is embarrassed that Prop 8 passed on the same day that we overwhelmingly elected Obama.
Does anyone believe that Warren is going to sway Obama on his views about equality? Does anyone believe that by given this invocation Warren will be Obama's go-to-guy on social issues? It's an invocation. My guess is it will be 2-3 minutes of solemn speak and that's it.
At the end of the day, are we so insecure in our beliefs that the mere presence of a person that we disagree will throw us into a collective fit? And remember, Obama is being sworn in as POTUS, not as POTPUS (P is for progressive). The same folks that spread every nasty rumor about him still deserve to be heard. We may not like what they say or think, but it's their right. Just like it's our right to protest and register our discomfort or unhappiness with their statements, or in this case Obama's decision.
At the end of the day, however, I don't think it changes Obama's positions on the issues that matter. And in the bigger picture, this doesn't exercise me that much. It just doesn't.
December 18, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
December 18, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignorant, hateful bigots like Warren should be placed beyond the pale of civilized society, not honored with invitations such as this.
December 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe true, but how to engage the millions he speaks for? Without calling them "hateful bigots", of course, which they may well be.
December 18, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't confuse the sheep with the wolf in shepherd's clothing who leads them astray. Going out of your way to honor the wolf is counterproductive as part of any real program to lead the sheep towards civilization. People stopped publicly parading their racism (which was and is an improvement even when they haven't really eliminated it from their innermost thoughts) when it became socially unacceptable to do so, not because anti-racists went out of their way to "engage" racist demagogues.
It will be the same with fundagelical homophobia and misogyny.
December 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think another point is that Obama understands that to win some over on the right he has to sometimes piss off the left. He's doing it in ways that really don't matter - e.g. picking someone that the left hates to simply "say a prayer".
December 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Americablog comments, and right on point:
Obama sees gay rights, like abortion, as a social issue not a civil rights one. This is where the conflict comes from.
December 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a civil rights issue, and Warren is entitled to speak out and work for denying segments of the population those rights.
He doesn't need to be honored by being invited to play a role in the inauguration.
December 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you see this as Obama honoring him FOR his views? And if so, how do you draw that conclusion?
December 18, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I certainly don't think Obama is honoring him FOR those views. But this is an honor for Warren, wouldn't you agree?
And why was it necessary?
December 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it necessary? Ummmm, here's a novel idea: because Warren is Obama's friend.
December 18, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama sees Warren as MORE than his views on social issues. That he values his opinion, as do others, on matters of spirituality and that he respects Warren's willingness to engage in dialogue on the issues of the day. I think he values Warren's willingness to do all of these things at great risk to his professional/personal image even when Obama wasn't really seen as a player (he expended some political capital in the process).
You may not value those things as much as Obama does, but I think to pigeon hole Warren as 'x' and that's all that he can ever be, then you lose the ability to reach him on issue 'x'. I mean once someone has decided that you aren't worth talking to, how much attention do you pay to their words? Not much I gather...
December 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect that's exactly how Obama views Warren.
I guess my question is this: it's acceptable to honor an individual regardless of what ever "social" positions they take, in the interest of inclusiveness?
December 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you only invite friends to your party who agree with you on EVERY issue? Or better yet, do you have any friends that you disagree with on certain issues?
I have a ton of friends who I love, but I disagree with on some very fundamental issues (gay rights would be one of them). I'm still their friend and I work on them in big and small ways whenever the moment feels right, but they are still my friend. The thing is the only person that can change a person's mind is that person. The people around him or her may influence the process, but the ultimate decision to change is their own.
I just think folks are losing sight of what really matters here. It happens, I guess. I just wish folks would take a step back and view this for what this is and not for what they believe it to be. Obama is who he said he was.
December 18, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with friends on issues, of course. But my question wasn't about whether disagreement is ok, or acceptable or whatever. Do you honor an individual for some of that individual's accomplishments regardless of the positions on other issues?
Suppose Rick Warren advocated the internment of American Muslims. Even while he's a force for good in the fight against poverty and AIDS. It's a hypothetical question.
December 18, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you wouldn't throw your friend a birthday or engagement party because of you disagree with their views? Give them a community service award for their hardwork advocating on behalf of group 'x'?
I don't want to trivialize Warren's views or those the oppose them (I oppose them), but I think it's important that he appears to hold his beliefs sincerely. That he doesn't believe they come from hate or otherwise. That doesn't make his views more palatable; just that it makes him a better candidate to be persuaded or at least someone you can engage on the subject with all sincerity. At the end of the day, I think you would end up agreeing to disagree, but not hating the man for his views however much you disagree with them.
December 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that if their "views" were antithetical to my own, and were deeply offensive to me, that I probably wouldn't be all that good "friends" with them, and hence, wouldn't throw them any sort of party.
And you didn't really answer the hypothetical, PH.
December 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't think the hypothetical was relevant when we have a real live issue at hand. I guess as I come at this differently. Homophobia is fairly rampant amongst black men, in a hostile way. I'm a member of a historically black fraternity where this plays out on a daily basis. It's a struggle; I challenge them every time they bring up or say homophobic comments, but that wouldn't stop me from calling them my brother or inviting them to my wedding or letting them be a godfather to my child. Their views are anti-ethical to my own, but their views are not the sum total for who they are as a person.
I'm not condoning or accepting their views by continuing our friendship. At least that's how I view it.
December 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But there have to be positions that would prevent you from giving those individuals the honor of being a godparent, right? Surely there are?
If your friend thinks it's healthy to sexually abuse children, for example, I'm guessing that would be an "opionion" or "view" that you wouldn't be able to get over, and you certainly wouldn't honor that person by, for instance, naming them godparent.
December 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think this is wrong. Abortion rights flow from the right of privacy which the court recognized in Griswold. Similarly, the rights of gays to marry will fall into the same argument (just like the sodomy cases). So, in short, they are both. Social issues that flow from our civil rights.
December 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "social issue" doesn't involve "civil rights" at some fundamental level? So what's your point?
December 18, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was that the criticism that Obama sees this as a social issue and not a civil rights issue is bogus.
December 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much noise here, but look for "Posted by Amelie" for a grown-up analysis. Read her comments and it all makes sense.
Thanks
December 18, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the last update and the blog entry that goes along with it.
Since we're into being all inclusive and all, Obama should invite David Duke to include all racists.
December 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will be quite a few racists at the inauguration. Sexists too. Ageists. People hostile to the morbidly obese. You name it, they'll be there, on stage at some point. They are called Americans.
December 18, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if 61% of the country were still racist, then yes, maintaining a national dialogue that is civil and respectful would be important. You honestly think LBJ didn't ever associate or respectfully acknowledge any racists?
December 18, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't that you can use that figure as accurate. All polls are skewed.
December 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink