Illinois Lt. Gov.: We Can Have Blago Out Before Feb. 12
Appearing today on Face The Nation, Illinois Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn predicted that the state legislature could successfully impeach and remove Rod Blagojevich before Lincoln's 200th birthday on February 12. He also said that while he hopes they can have a special election to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat, it would not take place before June.

Obama Speaks To Condoleezza Rice About Israel
Barack Obama had an eight-minute phone call with Condoleezza Rice, monitoring the situation in Israel and Gaza. However, an Obama spokesperson was careful to note that "there is one president at a time."

Caroline To NYT: "I Thought You Were The Crack Political Team"
In an interview with the New York Times, Caroline Kennedy became somewhat annoyed when asked to describe the moment when she decided to seek Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. "Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman's magazine or something?" said Kennedy. "I thought you were the crack political team."

Gibbs: Obama "Wants And Expects" Disagreement Within His Administration
In an interview with ABC News, incoming White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to the idea that Obama's politically diverse cabinet could lead to serious internal divisions. "I think the far greater risk is assembling a group of people that whenever the president opens their mouth they all nod their heads in agreement," said Gibbs, adding that Obama "wants and expects there to be disagreement within that room," with Obama making the final decisions.

Axelrod On Rick Warren Pick: We Have To Find Ways To Work Together
In an appearance on Meet The Press, David Axelrod defended the selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inaugural. "You have a conservative evangelical pastor who's coming to participate in the inauguration of a progressive president," said Axelrod. "This is a healthy thing and a good thing for our country. We have to find ways to work together on the things on which we do agree, even when we profoundly disagree on other things."

Laura Bush: The Shoe-Thrower Shows That Iraqis Are Now Much Freer
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she was offended at the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at the president, but also looked on the bright side. "As bad as the incident is, in my view, it is a sign that Iraqis feel a lot freer to express themselves," said Mrs. Bush.

Laura Bush: The Bush Presidency Was Not A Failure
Also in her Fox News interview, Laura Bush rebutted the charge that her husband's administration was a failure. "I know it's not, and so I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way," said Mrs. Bush. "I think history will judge and we'll see later."

Poll: FDR Edges Out Reagan As Better President
As a further sign that the country appears to be taking a real turn to the left, a new Rasmussen poll pitted Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan against each other in a two-man race, asking respondent who was the better president. The numbers: Roosevelt 45%, Reagan 40%, with a ±3% margin of error.

In an interview with Larry King set to air tonight, Joe Biden defended Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration:

Barack Obama said you've got to reach out. You've got to reach a hand of friendship across the aisle and across philosophies in this country.

We can't continue to be a red and blue country. We can't be divided like we have been. And he's made good on his promise.

And I would say to the gay and lesbian community, they have nothing to worry about. Barack Obama, every aspect of his life, every aspect of his public life, and every commitment he's made relating to equality for all people, will be things that he will stick with and that they should view this in the spirit in which he offered the opportunity to -- to Mr. Warren.

Biden was also asked about Caroline Kennedy's bid for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, to which he said he was "a big Caroline Kennedy fan," and defended her against the charge of being a dynasty candidate by saying that anyone who is selected will have to face the voters in 2010. But he also made sure to qualify his statements by saying that he wasn't in the position to tell Gov. David Paterson who he should appoint.

Hmm -- seems like Rick Warren, who's set to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration, has said stuff that could prove offensive to yet another group: Jews.

John Aravosis has discovered some interesting quotes from Warren from 2006, talking about how he'd visited Syria and found it to be a place of moderation and religious tolerance -- including tolerance towards Jews, who in reality are barred from government jobs and who are singled out for special identification and discrimination in other ways.

Here's what Warren said:

"The Syrian government has long had a bad reputation in America, but if one considers a positive action like welcoming in thousands of Christian refugees from Iraq, or the protection of freedom to worship for Christians and Jews in Syria, it should not be ignored."

Aravosis reads it as Warren praising an "Israel-hating terror state as a `moderate country' that treats its Jews great." Of course, it's quite possible that Warren is merely ignorant of the plight of Syrian Jews, and actually believed the wonderful things about itself that the government there told him. Either way, it seems questionable.

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:

The gang of pundits at First Read says the decision to have Rick Warren deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration is brilliant politics, because it's getting the left to scream:

When Liberals Attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party's interest groups...

...when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to.

What about the question of whether it was, you know, the right thing to do? The conventions of mainstream political reporting and punditry simply don't allow for such a question to be entertained.

That aside, I'm with Steve Benen: Whatever short term political benefit this gives Obama is transitory at best, and it's easily outweighed by the downside: It gives an enormous platform, and the appearance of moderation, to someone whose views are radically out of step with Obama's -- things that can only help Warren when he opposes Obama's agenda on social issues for the rest of his presidency.

This isn't going to help dispel the "Obama stiff-arming liberals" narrative. The news today that bigoted pastor Rick Warren is going to give the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration is sparking an uproar on the left, with the latest being that the venerable liberal group People For The American Way is sharply condemning the decision.

Here's the group's statement:

It is a grave disappointment to learn that pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama.

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

I'm sure that Warren's supporters will portray his selection as an appeal to unity by a president who is committed to reaching across traditional divides. Others may explain it as a response to Warren inviting then-Senator Obama to speak on AIDS and candidate Obama to appear at a forum, both at his church. But the sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.

Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances. He doesn't need or deserve this position of honor. There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good.

To be clear, this isn't only Obama's decision. But the official press release describes the President-elect as one of the co-deciders, and it's unthinkable that it would happen without his explicit approval.

As you regulars know, this blog has argued that it's premature for liberals to get too agitated about Obama's cabinet picks and that we should wait to let his policies do the talking. But I'm not sure how you can defend this one, even if the two men are friends and the choice doesn't necessarily have actual policy implications.

After all, the decision really gives Warren an extraordinary platform -- not to mention yet another data point supporting the bogus notion that the radical Warren is some kind of "moderate." If the first black president doesn't mind him giving the invocation at his historic inaugural, how bad and bigoted can he really be?

More from Atrios, FireDogLake, AmericaBlog. and Steve Benen.