Yes, we can.

[wendybeth]

Lol, BTD!!!!

Can you imagine the hateful vitriol in his e-mails now?? Could be entertaining.

[Disneyphile]

Lol, BTD!!!!

Can you imagine the hateful vitriol in his e-mails now?? Could be entertaining.
I'd so respond with the same line I gave my dad that seems to be very popular with conservatives:

"If you don't like this country, you're welcome to leave." :evil:

Gods, I love dishing that back out.

[innerSpaceman]

I actually felt a little bad for McCain during his concession speech. Had to deal with the rude rable he encouraged while he sold out his ideals and his precious honor in an ultimately unsuccessful quest.

And the stuff I've learned about what he was really like during the times I actually liked him can't be unlearned. He has been diminished in a way that wasn't necessary. I wonder if, since he lost anyway, he regrets not remaining the John McCain that the Republican base would have never supported. For all the good it did him to gain that support.



I teared up at one point during Obama's speech. But I think it was the part that implied the rights likely denied me tonight in California would be regained someday. He's a powerful speaker when it counts. I will give him the chance to be the powerful president we all deserve and hope for.


Good luck, President Obama. Do good by us and by you.

[Kevy Baby]

I actually felt a little bad for McCain during his concession speech. Had to deal with the rude rable he encouraged while he sold out his ideals and his precious honor in an ultimately unsuccessful quest.Had McCain been like he was during his concession speech, it would have been a closer race.

[Moonliner]

Had McCain been like he was during his concession speech, it would have been a closer race.

Had McCain not picked Palin
Had McCain picked Ridge
Had McCain a clue on the Economy
Had McCain not went negative

So many chances, so many mistakes. It's probably better a guy like that stays in the senate.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I found McCain's concession speech mostly palatable, but his use of "associations" soured it for me. I know he was trying to speak to those people who were riled up against Obama over Ayers and Wright, telling them to let it go because we're all Americans, but all it did was remind me that HE was the sleazeball who riled them up in the first place.

But enough about that, Yes We Could! I have been foolishly imagining this moment for 4 years. At that convention I saw someone who was everything our leaders, and potential leaders, of the time were not. Experience or no, he seemed to have the head for the job and I'm thrilled the country came to agree.

Now don't screw it up!

[Alex]

Yeah, I found his concession speech to be pretty much on script for every undoubted concession speech ever given. And the audience booing with the loser graciously shushing them is part of that script. But he did it and didn't technically have to, so good for him and time to move on.

And just think, it'll be just two years until we're once again asking ourselves (as a nation) whether a two-year senator -- Palin -- has what it takes to run this country.

[Moonliner]

Yeah, I found his concession speech to be pretty much on script for every undoubted concession speech ever given. And the audience booing with the loser graciously shushing them is part of that script. But he did it and didn't technically have to, so good for him and time to move on.

And just think, it'll be just two years until we're once again asking ourselves (as a nation) whether a two-year senator -- Palin -- has what it takes to run this country.

I half expect Hillary to change parties so she can run again....

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I can't stop thinking it. Yes, we did.

We - all of us - did this.

I know many of you are on Obama's email list but I thought I'd share this, sent just before he went on stage last night. Emphasis mine.

I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.

We just made history.

And I don't want you to forget how we did it.

You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.

I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.

We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.

But I want to be very clear about one thing...

All of this happened because of you.

Thank you,

Barack

This election not only elected an intelligent leader, but it also mobilized millions. All of us who helped, even in small ways, now have stake in the future of our country. I'll be ready to answer the call, and I know everyone else will too.

This is why the "messiah" accusation falls flat in the end, because it's always been a group, a movement, a collaboration of people from all across America. Even in the states Barack lost, there were people trying. There were Dem offices in the most historically red places, places where the blue have feared to even open a storefront in the past 20 years.

There's always been a "we" in the campaign. And that "we" isn't going anywhere. Yes, We Did, yesterday, and for months prior - but now there's the ongoing Yes We Can, Yes We Will - make this country better.

:)

[Snowflake]

barackaspresident.com (http://www.palinaspresident.us/)
wonder what will happen next?

[Gn2Dlnd]

barackaspresident.com (http://www.palinaspresident.us/)
wonder what will happen next?

Looks like they were prepared for any contigency, the address bar reads http://www.palinaspresident.us/. :eek:

[Ghoulish Delight]

Looks like they were prepared for any contigency, the address bar reads http://www.palinaspresident.us/. :eek:
That's what it started as, if you click at the bottom you can see what it originally was.

[Strangler Lewis]

Going forward, I am guardedly optimistic. However, it is great that we elected a black man. The best part of the evening was watching and listening to people like Jesse Jackson and John Lewis who were genuinely emotional. I think there is a tendency on the right to assume that men like are about nothing more than cynically exploiting laid-to-rest racial issues for power and political gain.

[Moonliner]

Going forward, I am guardedly optimistic. However, it is great that we elected a black man. The best part of the evening was watching and listening to people like Jesse Jackson and John Lewis who were genuinely emotional. I think there is a tendency on the right to assume that men like are about nothing more than cynically exploiting laid-to-rest racial issues for power and political gain.

I can't think of anything that bag of hate know as Jesse Jackson would be the "Best Part" of. I hope Obama marginalizes him toot-sweet.

[Gemini Cricket]

Sad that Obama had to be encased in a bulletproof aquarium for his speech. A safety precaution, of course. Sad that it unfortunately is necessary.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Good luck, Obama! (And, GC, yeah...sad, but necessary.)

And thanks, Heidi and Tom, for hosting a few of us at your homestead last night.

[Kevy Baby]

Going forward, I am guardedly optimistic. However, it is great that we elected a black man.To me, this is minor. I don't look at it as having elected a black man, I look at it as we elected a man who happens to be black. To me, his color is irrelevant.

[Moonliner]

To me, this is minor. I don't look at it as having elected a black man, I look at it as we elected a man who happens to be black. To me, his color is irrelevant.

Oh sure you say that now, but what happens down the line when they decide to add his face to Mt. Rushmore?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Rushmore, ha. He gets his own mountain. ;) Solid as Barack, hehe.

Seeing Jesse Jackson and Oprah cry like babies was awesome. I think they're jerks, but I realized this was incredible for them, and to see them humanized was amazing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To me, this is minor. I don't look at it as having elected a black man, I look at it as we elected a man who happens to be black. To me, his color is irrelevant.
It's not minor. His value as a person and as a President are not affected by the color of his skin. But the fact that he was elected is NOT a minor commentary on the progress of our country.

I'm not glad a black man is President. I'm glad we are a country that is willing to elect a black man.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

One person at the party we attended said he's going to DC for the inauguration. "I don't care if I have to sleep on the street for 2 days, I'm going to be there when it happens." While I can't make it to that, GD and I have talked about visiting DC in the next year. :)

[Gemini Cricket]

Visiting DC made me feel all patriotic and happy. The Lincoln Memorial blew me away.

[Andrew]

One person at the party we attended said he's going to DC for the inauguration. "I don't care if I have to sleep on the street for 2 days, I'm going to be there when it happens." While I can't make it to that, GD and I have talked about visiting DC in the next year. :)

Same here. I hadn't wanted to visit while Bush was still in office. Now I want to go sometime next year.

[Moonliner]

Oooh outside, in DC, in January. Fun.

[JWBear]

I'd love to go now too. Hmmm.... A mass LoT trip, perhaps?

[Strangler Lewis]

Visiting DC made me feel all patriotic and happy. The Lincoln Memorial blew me away.

Watched "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" a few times lately. The scene where he disappears and takes a tour of DC and the monuments is quite moving. A touch Leni Riefenstahl-ish, to be frank, but since it's our country, I'll forgive it.

[innerSpaceman]

I'd love to visit D.C. again. I was so moved by so much of it.

I actually saw the President arrive on the South Lawn of the White House via helicopter. It was Dubya's daddy Bush, so not the best (nor now the worst) of presidents to see, but it was still really cool.

I never did tour the White House though. I'd love to go back.

While it would be really cool to be there for the inauguration, I would recommend NOT going when the city is going to be ultra crowded. There's so much wonderful Americana to experience ... it would be a shame to be deterred from any of that by impossible crowds at all the shrines, museums, monuments and important sites.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Visiting DC made me feel all patriotic and happy. The Lincoln Memorial blew me away.

I had a similar reaction. Totally didn't expect to be wowed and was wowed. Love, love, love the Lincoln Memorial.

[Gemini Cricket]

I had a similar reaction. Totally didn't expect to be wowed and was wowed. Love, love, love the Lincoln Memorial.
It was awesome standing in the "I Have a Dream" spot on the stairs.

The best thing is going up the center of the stairs. You will see Lincoln staring at you. It's a powerful feeling. I love it.
:)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

It's not minor. His value as a person and as a President are not affected by the color of his skin. But the fact that he was elected is NOT a minor commentary on the progress of our country.

I'm not glad a black man is President. I'm glad we are a country that is willing to elect a black man.

Well said!

[innerSpaceman]

The best thing is going up the center of the stairs. You will see Lincoln staring at you. It's a powerful feeling. I love it.
:)

I remember we were doing the Patented Zlick Circlevision Thingie TM on the Mall when we caught sight of Lincoln staring at us through the columns of his Memorial. It was awesomely powerful and fantastic.

And I'd never before read or heard the 2nd Inaugural Address ... reading it for the first time with each letter 2 feet high incised in Marble in the temple filled with Lincoln's presence moved me to tears.


I'd love to go back to D.C. :snap:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yup, I'm still addicted.

Lovely photos. (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/the_next_president_of_the_unit.html) Just look at these ridiculous crowd shots. Wish I could have been to at least one rally.

[CoasterMatt]

If things keep up they way they have been lately, I'll be in D.C. a few times next year.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yup, I'm still addicted.

Lovely photos. (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/the_next_president_of_the_unit.html) Just look at these ridiculous crowd shots. Wish I could have been to at least one rally.
Thanks for posting that link, CP! I'm like in love with our President elect.
:)

[innerSpaceman]

Will Bow Biden at least get a cabinet post or something?


Then we can all be in love with various members of the administration.

[Tenigma]

A couple of things folks might enjoy:

First, a Flickr set of behind-the-scens photos from Grant Park on Election Night (http://flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/sets/72157608716313371/)

Second, a 10-minute YouTube video from the Jed Report that encapsulates the most exciting parts of Election Night, including all the major networks calling the win for Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qiRwCuQmZA).

Enjoy!

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama told a group of reporters in Chicago on Friday that since his 10-year-old daughter, Malia, is allergic, the Obama family is looking for a hypoallergenic breed. But Obama also said the family wants to adopt one from a shelter.Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/07/obama-new-dog-could-be-mutt-like-me/)
Yay!
:)

[Chernabog]

Honestly, the Prop 8 stuff absolutely killed any enthusiasm I had for Obama. It isn't a bittersweet feeling at all.

Not that Obama or his campaign had anything to do with Prop 8. But hearing him talk about a new era for America, when we get our rights ripped away, is sickening.

The black community is understandably ecstatic about Obama, but they should be horribly ashamed that the very laws and sentiment that led to our first non-(completely)white President they are more than willing to rip away from other communities. I simply cannot be excited about this, it's like a slap in the face.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I know where you're coming from, Chern, I've had similar thoughts. It doesn't solve anything, but I found the historical perspective I brought up in this post (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=251290&#post251290) somewhat comforting. It's a long painful struggle, and people are going to make the wrong decisions along the way. But the war can and will be won.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Obama's first press conference as President Elect.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27597527#27597527

[CoasterMatt]

I would say that bigotry has won this round, but justice will prevail.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm still plowing through this but it's an amazing read.

Since 1984 Newsweek has been embedding reporters with the candidate's campaigns under the requirement that they not be able to report their findings until after the election is over. The candid reports they have are astonishingly honest and revealing.

Chapter 1 of 7. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/167582)

You can't read it all at once but I'm working my way through it. Seeing all the candidates make mistakes and cuss and chafe at the requirements of a race is heartening.

[Alex]

Obama's first press conference as President Elect.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27597527#27597527

I just listened to the press conference on PBS. Not bad but I expect we'll be hearing some howls at the Nancy Reagan joke.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I'm still plowing through this but it's an amazing read.

I am reading that too, and I love it. I'm on chapter four (movin' slowly but am enjoying it so much!)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Hilarious, too true, and not from The Onion. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obamas-use-of-complete-se_b_144642.html)

[innerSpaceman]

Is that really a Palin quote, or was that made up? If not, OMFrellingG ... even for her.

[Gemini Cricket]

Tom Daschle as Health Secretary... hey, I remember that guy...

[Strangler Lewis]

Is that really a Palin quote, or was that made up? If not, OMFrellingG ... even for her.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was a joke.

[innerSpaceman]

I would think so, too. But with Palin ... well, I can never be sure.

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's why despite Prop 8 being passed that I'm hopeful for the gay community in the US:
Support for the LGBT Community"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect." -- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
The Obama-Biden Plan
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.
Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.Source (http://change.gov/agenda/civil_rights_agenda)

[JWBear]

<SWOON>

[innerSpaceman]

I'll believe it when I see it. I can't see any of this being near the top of his agenda, and to act on any of it soon would be the same boondoggle that affected Clinton's early term ... a playbook which Obama seems to be wisely avoiding quite carefully.


So ... yawn for now. Hope for the future. :iSm:

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama does not get a free pass from me because he's a Democrat. I plan to be watching this guy as much as Bush when it comes to everything but especially GLBT rights. I hope he keeps his word. But who knows? In the end, he's a politician.

[Snowflake]

Obama does not get a free pass from me because he's a Democrat. I plan to be watching this guy as much as Bush when it comes to everything but especially GLBT rights. I hope he keeps his word. But who knows? In the end, he's a politician.

Yes, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Never Forget.

That said, I am still filled with hope.

[Alex]

Well, I disagree with the first bullet.

And if the ultimate goal at the federal level is gay marriage and not "separate but equal" domestic partnerships I'm not sure that getting DPs is a good thing because then it will probably be harder to get that last bit. Except maybe insofar as it pushes the Supreme Court to say it is a difference without meaning and therefore needs to be removed.

Otherwise, here's hoping.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Hilarious, too true, and not from The Onion. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obamas-use-of-complete-se_b_144642.html)

I'd call that depressing, not hilarious. Boo.

[Morrigoon]

Anybody that wants to give the Obama-Biden administration their input on Energy and the Environment can do so on change.gov right now.

[BarTopDancer]

Maybe his use of complete sentences will help reverse the dumbing down of the English language.

[wendybeth]

I'd call that depressing, not hilarious. Boo.

Borowitz is a humor columnist, not unlike Dave Barry. He's in one of our area's semi-underground newspapers, so I'm very familiar with his writing and read him regularly. He's actually pretty good.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If you're a Guitar Hero/Rock Band fan, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlMYWuGUZlM) is unfathomably astounding.

[Alex]

That is pretty amazing, I'm not sure Obama deserves credit though.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That is pretty amazing, I'm not sure Obama deserves credit though.
ah crap.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Borowitz is a humor columnist, not unlike Dave Barry. He's in one of our area's semi-underground newspapers, so I'm very familiar with his writing and read him regularly. He's actually pretty good.

I think my comment was unclear. I think his writing is funny, but I also think some people will find a well spoken person an elitist simply because he speaks well. So though I enjoyed the humor of the writing, the little truth within depresses me.

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama is vacationing in Kailua, HI (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081206/NEWS01/812060346/1001/LOCALNEWSFRONT) for Christmas. This is the same city I am in. I think he should come visit me, don't you? He needs to get rid of DOMA. I need to tell him that.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Invite him over for stew & poi.

(I just gave you the idea for your own business, btw)

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Since I applyed for a job with Obama transition team, I get emails periodically. Here is the latest for your enjoyment.

MEMORANDUM
From: John Podesta
To: All Obama-Biden Transition Project Staff
Date: December 4, 2008
Re: "Seat at the Table" Transparency Policy -- EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

Overview:
As an extension of the unprecedented ethics guidelines already in place for the Obama-Biden Transition Project, we take another significant step towards transparency of our efforts for the American people. Every day, we meet with organizations who present ideas for the Transition and the Administration, both orally and in writing. We want to ensure that we give the American people a "seat at the table" and that we receive the benefit of their feedback.

Accordingly, any documents from official meetings with outside organizations will be posted on our website for people to review and comment on. In addition to presenting ideas as individuals at www.change.gov, the American people deserve a "seat at the table" as we receive input from organizations and make decisions. In the interest of protecting the personal privacy of individuals, this policy does not apply to personnel matters and hiring recommendations.

Scope:
The following information will be posted on our website:
1. Documents: All policy documents1 and written policy recommendations from official meetings2 with outside organizations.
2. Meetings: The date and organizations represented at official meetings in the Transition headquarters or agency offices, with any documents presented as noted above.

This scope is a floor, not a ceiling, and all staff are strongly encouraged to include additional materials. Such materials could include documents (recommendations, press releases, etc.) presented in smaller meetings or materials or made public by the outside organization without a connection to an official meeting.

If you have any questions as to whether documents should be included, please email [REDACTED].

Process:
Prior to an official meeting with an outside organization or organizations, Obama-Biden Transition Project staff members will inform attendees that any documents provided will be posted on our "Seat at the Table" website found at www.change.gov. Suggested language for email invitations is: "By presenting or submitting any document at a meeting with the Obama-Biden Transition Project, you agree to allow the document to be made public and posted on www.change.gov." At the completion of each meeting or upon receipt of such documents, Transition staff will provide the documents to [REDACTED] with the date of the meeting, a list of the organizations in attendance, and the topic of the meeting.

Notes:
1) This policy does not apply to non-public or classified information acquired from the Agency Review Process and internal memorandum.
2) An "official meeting" is defined as a meeting with outside organizations or representatives of those organizations to which three or more outside participants attend.

[Morrigoon]

Okay, this pisses me off.

Obama chooses Rick Warren to give invocation at inauguration (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16693.html)

[Ghoulish Delight]

:mad: WHAT?!?!?!

[Morrigoon]

Yup.

[Ghoulish Delight]

My brain's frozen on this one. Angry frozen.

Like, let's start with, umm, you couldn't have found a pastor that, oh I don't know, hasn't been picketed?! Like, really? I don't care what the issue is and whether I agree with them or not, that just seems like basic political smarts to me, no?

And that's the nicest thing I can say right now.

[Gn2Dlnd]

I'm so deeply offended by this choice. It's not as if we wouldn't assume that pretty much any preacher involved wouldn't necessarily be pro-gay rights, but this one recorded a video pushing prop 8! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4QqGbQmU0) Every third sentence, by the way, is an out and out lie.

At least Clinton was president for a while before I became disillusioned.

[Strangler Lewis]

Taking the team of rivals concept this far tells me we can expect to see Heath Campbell and little Adolf in the gallery of heroes at the State of the Union.

[Kevy Baby]

He should have chosen Jeremiah Wright do the invocation.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Some people are trying to say, "It's okay, he's chosen Joseph Lowery for the benediction, and he's pro same-sex marriage. So that balances it out."

Fvck that bullsh!t. "Hey, I invited this guy who advocates for the KKK, but I also invited a Rabbi so we're cool, right?"

Fail.

[Alex]

I'm primarily annoyed that at what is essentially a civic ceremony putting into office our leader prayer is even viewed as appropriate.

So having anybody up there irks me in a way, the specific choice just layers onto that.

[Moonliner]

At least Clinton was president for a while before I became disillusioned.

That's it? One minor footnote in an inaugural ceremony and you are "disillusioned"?

Oh good grief.

The Economy. The War in Iraq. The War in Afghanistan. Jobs. The global environment.

Do any of those ring a bell? Is attending to some of these issue just a bit more important that one prayer by some silly preacher 95% of the country has never heard of and will never hear from again?

[Tom]

I have just sent the following message to... well, whomever it goes to, through change.gov.

I am very upset about President Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. My wife and I gave our time and money and energy to help elect Barack Obama president, but as hard as we worked for his election, we worked equally hard to defeat proposition 8. I understand and agree with the importance the President-elect has placed on reaching out to those with whom we do not agree, but it still is possible to reach out in one direction without reaching away from the other, and I wish that he would have taken such an option in this case.

[flippyshark]

public Tom mojo - that's pretty well how I feel about it - disappointed and really hoping this decision will be rethought.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's it? One minor footnote in an inaugural ceremony and you are "disillusioned"?

Oh good grief.
You seriously don't see why someone would be outraged by the choice? Really?

[JWBear]

I heard the news on Stephanie Miller this morning. :mad:

[flippyshark]

I've added my own two cents at change.gov - apparently, they are being swamped with comments - hope someone is listening.

Looks like some pro-lifers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/pro-lifers-hate-warren-in_n_152042.html) are also cheesed about Warren's appearance. Interesting.

[Moonliner]

You seriously don't see why someone would be outraged by the choice? Really?

I read "dissalusioned" to mean giving up on Obama and his presidency before it has even started.

Are you giving up on the promise of the entire Obama administration based solely on his selection of Warren for the inauguration?

Personally my view is that the the inauguration is just fluff and ceremony. I really don't care who he invites. I care what he does after he is sworn in.

[Snowflake]

Well, I did my bit and followed Tom's lead. I do not know if anyone will see it, or if it will make a damn bit of difference. But, Prez-Elect Obama wants people to disagree, and I do and voiced it. There are bigger issues that he is facing, but this is a big issue to me and people I know and love and respect. So I have no problem letting him know, even if he never sees the emails. If enough people send a note, dollars to donuts, he will see it.

[Strangler Lewis]

It may be ceremony, but it is constitutionally mandated ceremony, and the fluff that surrounds it can be a good predictor of how the president will govern. It was, as I recall, with the Reagans.

Here, I submit, he is throwing a bone just for the sake of bone throwing. It need not be thus, and it is not encouraging.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm a little at odds with the "disillusioned" argument, although I understand and agree with the outrage, because I also strongly disagree with this Pastor's views.

First, I've never been under the illusion that Obama supports SSM because he has always made it quite clear that he does not (with the caveat that he also does not support a Constitutional amendment to ban SSM.) Then again, I do not think that is why Obama chose this pastor.

I clearly remember Bush coming into office and stating that he was "a uniter, not a divider." It was a good line at the time but the problem was that, once he came into office, he proceeded to build an impenetrable wall of idealogical purity around him. If you disagreed with anything, you were forever on the outside of that wall. And I simply don't want to see that mistake repeated, even if I would happen to be on the inside of that wall. Obama has made it clear that he intends to show respect to all views, even those he disagrees with, and if he is able to do so, it will be the polar opposite of what we have faced for the last eight years. The thing is, you cannot just talk about it, you actually have to do it. You have to show the other side that, even when you disagree, it does not mean that the opposition must be silenced.

The sad and harsh fact is that this pastor represents millions of people, who happen to agree with him on this issue. If Obama wants to show that he truly represents ALL Americans and not just those who agree with him, he isn't going to get that point across by only working with people who progressives happen to approve of. And in this instance, it isn't even a matter of working with this pastor, it's simply a gesture that shows that Obama stands by his word.

I think a lot of people have the expectation that, by Obama winning, the liberals were going to now be able to tell the other side, "F*ck off, we're doing things our way now." But I'm of the opinion that this really isn't any different from what Bush did, and that isn't what I'm looking for in a leader. I voted for Obama because that is part of the change that I wanted to see. And it is only logical that, as a result, I'm not going to agree with everything that he does. That's the downside of compromise - whoever actually decides to do it is going to piss off a lot of supporters.

The good thing is that, unlike some of Bush's actions, this particular gesture holds no weight as far as policy goes. I would rather that a pastor give an invocation that not only will not even mention SSM, but is basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things. That's far better than Obama appointing someone to his cabinet, for example, whose lifelong mission is to overturn Roe V Wade or eliminate stem cell research. I'm more interested in those that actually have power, than someone who I'm opposed to being allowed to recite a short and, in my opinion, relatively meaningless prayer. Personally, I'm against the whole idea of a religious invocation in the first place, in regards to what amounts to a Government ceremony, but it is clear that prayer is going to remain a part of the process for a long time.

I see this as a relatively empty gesture, but one that demonstrates to the other side, "You are not going to have your beliefs silenced." I think overall that it was a pretty smart move on Obama's part, because it doesn't compromise any of his positions, but still throws a bone to the religious right of this country, who still comprise a greater segment of the population than many would like to believe. Maybe, just maybe, it is a good first step towards showing that he does indeed walk the walk.

And lastly, it should be noted that Obama also chose Joseph Lowery to deliver the closing benediction, a man who has stood for tolerance and civil rights his entire life. While he isn't exactly a gay activist, he is a far cry from what Rick Warren espouses.

So no, I'm not disillusioned by this. And I do understand the outrage. I completely disagree with Pastor Warren's views regarding gay marraige, and I find his lies dispicable. But I also don't think that Obama chose him because of his stance on gay marriage, but rather because he is a powerful representitive of the other side of the political spectrum whose support Obama is going to need if he hopes to get anything substantial done.

And now I'll don my asbestos undergarments.

[mousepod]

I'm not saying that it doesn't annoy me, but why is everyone surprised? Wasn't Warren the guy who held the "Faith Forum" and sat down on TV with both McCain and Obama? Obama capitulated to the religious right then, just as he is now.

[Strangler Lewis]

I sent my two cents:

"Subject: Rick Warren

You've got to be kidding.

Preliminarily, I don't know why we need an invocation at a constitutionally mandated civil ceremony. I also realize it's hard to find an evangelical who's not anti-gay. Still, I think you could have picked one who was not in the forefront of a campaign to denigrate the lives of a good many of your supporters.

This calls to mind the two occasions I wrote to President Clinton. The first time was when the pastor leading the invocation solemnized the proceedings in the name of Jesus Christ. The second was when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Both times "he" wrote back saying that he agreed with my positions and opposed discrmination and divisiveness, but that he had done what he had done. No principled defense whatsoever.

Inviting Rick Warren to speak strikes me as similarly unprincipled and indefensible. It is bone throwing for the sake of bone throwing. It is easily seen through, and it is not encouraging."

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm not saying that it doesn't annoy me, but why is everyone surprised? Wasn't Warren the guy who held the "Faith Forum" and sat down on TV with both McCain and Obama? Obama capitulated to the religious right then, just as he is now.
Yes, where he lied to Obama about keeping McCain in "isolation" while questioning Obama first so as to prevent McCain from getting the unfair advantage of hearing the questions and answers first.

There are hundreds of pastors that the religious right could have been perfectly happy with that have not gone out of their way to support something Obama has said he's supposedly against (amendment against same-sex marriage). There are options out there that have not said things controversial enough to draw angry protests. By choosing Warren, he's saying more than "I'm not going to ignore the beliefs of religious people," it gives the impression that he's saying that the protests don't mean anything and that Warren's lies are perfectly valid.

[BarTopDancer]

I'm not saying that it doesn't annoy me, but why is everyone surprised? Wasn't Warren the guy who held the "Faith Forum" and sat down on TV with both McCain and Obama? Obama capitulated to the religious right then, just as he is now.

Yes.

RW disgusts me on so many levels. I work right by his mega-churchpound. A large percentage of my co-workers go there and spout his drivel. For me, to hear that RW is going to be speaking to the entire country makes me want to claw my ears out.

MBC has made an excellent point. It is really just a speech and I would be much more worried if he was appointed to a position that has power. That isn't to say that RW will not have influence over this administration. I know Obama personally isn't pro-SMM but it's enough that he's anti-banning amendment. Yet, to have someone who promoted such lies and hatred in their congregation in the name of god be given a prime-time pulpit in the name of the country just makes me so disgusted.

I'll be sending a letter tonight.

[Gn2Dlnd]

I read "dissalusioned" to mean giving up on Obama and his presidency before it has even started.

Really?

Are you giving up on the promise of the entire Obama administration based solely on his selection of Warren for the inauguration?



No.

I was hoping for a bigotry-free white house. But I can surmise that we'll see a lot more of Warren for the next 8 years, and this makes me unhappy.

I'd love to chat more, but I have to go to work.

[BarTopDancer]

Obama Defends Invocation by Conservative Pastor (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/12/18/choice_of_warren_to_give_invoc.html?hpid=topnews)

"I am a fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on in my presidency," Obama said at a morning news conference to announce several financial appointments. "What I've also said is that it is important for American to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues."

Obama told reporters that he appreciated Warren's invitation to speak at the his church "despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his" on gay rights and abortion. "Nevertheless, I had the opportunity to speak," Obama said. "And that dialogue has been part of what my campaign is all about."

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm angry, I sent my 2 cents in, I even posted it on my my.barackobama site.

That said, I am resigned to the fact that Obama wants to talk to everyone, and wants to alienate no one. Remember how angry people got at his willingness to talk to enemy heads of state? This can be seen as a similar conundrum. Interesting perspective. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/embrace-what-you-have-in_b_151976.html) Can't say I totally agree but there's some truth in there to Obama's MO.

I'm not happy, though.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm sorry, there's a difference between acknowledging and talking to everyone vs. affording someone a place of honor. You can do the former without doing the latter.

[JWBear]

To me, it's like inviting a KKK leader to speak. Completely unacceptable.

[wendybeth]

I agree that this is an incredibly poor choice. I hope people make that loud and clear for Obama and his team of advisers- this is no more acceptable than it would have been were Rev. Wright chosen for the task. Very, very disappointed here.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Well since I've already offered an unpopular opinion, I'll go ahead and offer another.

The day will come when gay people have the right to marry, I'm sure of that. It will not come by way of anger though. It will not come by way of shouting at and insulting those that disagree. Nobody has ever changed their opinion after being yelled at. Rather, it gives them further justification for their opinion, misguided as it may be. It gives them the ability to band together even more fervently and grind everything to a halt. And until people realize this, change is going to be an excruciatingly slow process.

I know plenty of religious people that found it in their heart to vote against Prop 8, because they understood that it was the right thing to do, even if their religion told them otherwise. And I heard many of these same people say, once the protests started, that they were no longer sure that they had voted correctly. For regardless of their vote, they were all demonized just for belonging to a church that, in many cases, they disagreed with on this issue. And I have to wonder, if the vote was held again today, would the votes for prop 8 decrease or actually increase, based on the subsequent anger that was shown towards anyone who dared to belong to one of these churches.

I think that achieving gay rights is a vital cause. But, at the risk of offending people, I think the way people are going about it is too often misguided at best, harmful at worst. It's kind of like what I tell some of my religious friends - when you get in people's faces and tell them they are horrible, you alienate and turn off far more people than you convert. Often, I think we are guilty of the same thing.

For left to their own devices, the church was doing a piss-poor job of keeping their bigotry alive. Each year, more and more people were supporting gay rights, because their heart told them something different than the church was telling them. In my opinion, change was moving more quickly than it is now. And then, when Prop 8 failed to be defeated, things got mighty ugly and through their anger and disappointment, many opponents of the Proposition began going way over the top in their insults towards religious people. I honestly think the nasty reaction to the aftermath of Prop 8 potentially set progress back by 5 years. And that really sucks.

As far as Obama goes, rumor has it that he is considering appointing the first openly gay man as Secretary of the Navy. He also made a campaign promise to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of our military. And should he succeed, it is going to royally piss off plenty on the other side. On the flip side, Obama is giving a man with an opposing viewpoint the time to say a three minute prayer. Sounds like, overall, one side is going to eventually make out far better here as a result of Obama's presidency and it isn't the pastor's side I speak of. I will wait before I demonize Obama on this issue. I want to see what he has in store first.

Finally, my intention honestly is not to demean everyone who was involved in these protests. I understand where their hearts were, I understand their disappointment and anger, of which I most certainly shared. And most importantly, I understand and dearly appreciate that the reason they stood there with those signs was to help me achieve the same rights as everyone else. But I don't think that the specific signs that ridiculed people with religious beliefs, or boycotts that had the potential of hurting good employers, or refusing to be a guest at a straight person's wedding are the answers. I think they are reactions based on anger and pain alone, rather than ideas that are ever going to be truly effective. I see some of this as a massive PR failure.

Again, I agree with the cause; I don't agree with many of the tactics that I've seen, even if I sympathize with the reasons behind them.

[scaeagles]

MBC, what a great post. I could almost take that word for word but change the subject matter to abortion to express my feelings toward that.

It's funny how everyone wants a big inclusive tent until there's something that's offensive to them, then it's no longer something that can be discussed in a raitonal manner. This goes for all extremes of the political spectrum.

[Strangler Lewis]

I agree with much of MBC's post and am especially grateful for the chance to have "In the Navy" playing through my head in what is otherwise a pokey mornning.

Today it is reported that, as with the death penalty, we are once again a light to the world as, alone among western nations, we have refused to sign a non-binding UN resolution recommending that laws criminalizing homosexuality be repealed. We supposedly cited "legal concerns." I'm not a big fan of nonbinding resolutions, but it would be nice to hear Obama say that he agrees with the substance of the resolution.

[Alex]

People may not change their minds after being yelled but governments frequently do (and all I really care about is government). But I do agree that many aspects of the protests have been misguided from a PR angle.

If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way.

As for the big tent it doesn't strike me as surprising that the symbolism of a purely symbolic invitation is being taken seriously. Quite clearly the calculus was that upsetting one smaller group that has nowhere else to go politically (it isn't like the gay lobby can run to the Republicans with their support) was acceptable to mildly appease a larger group that barely supports him. If his ultimate real actions are good and this loosens the ropes for him to accomplish those goals then it'll have been a properly placed bet.

But if in 2000/2004, Bush had offered a similar invitation to a religious icon whose most recent political activities had been pursuing broadened access to legal abortion I don't think a lot of the people now saying "what's the big deal? It's just a short speech" would be saying that. Such is (as I so often say) the hypocrisy of politics.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If Obama ends up doing good things on gay rights then this choice of Rick Warren will fade into memory but it does raise questions about how strongly he stands on the side of "right" as we look forward to his administration. As has been pointed out he can't bring himself to say he supports gay marriage instead trying to keep his hands clean of the mud of taking a strong position either way.
Here's my issue with the selection. As I see it, there are 2 possible scenarios.

1) He was not paying enough attention to the Prop 8 reaction to realize the impact of his selection of Rick Warren.

or

2) He knew full well what the impact would be and decided, "Eh, those whiners aren't important enough."

Either one says that he simply does not care about the movement for gay rights, and either one deserves a loud response that everyone will hear.

Of course, there's always the conspiratorial 3rd option.

3) Conscious of the unsurprising drop in momentum after the initial surge of protests, Obama wanted something the movement could rally around and get energized again, so he selected Warren knowing it would piss people off and get them to the streets again.

It will not come by way of anger though. It will not come by way of shouting at and insulting those that disagree. Nobody has ever changed their opinion after being yelled at. Rather, it gives them further justification for their opinion, misguided as it may be. It gives them the ability to band together even more fervently and grind everything to a halt. And until people realize this, change is going to be an excruciatingly slow process. I've SEEN people say, "Wow, I didn't realize it was this important to them?" after the protests started. So many people have been oblivious to what's going on, or only know of gays in the abstract. It's easy to take away rights from invisible people. When those invisible people suddenly appear, and look and act hurt, people notice.

[JWBear]

Rick Warren isn't merely someone with an "opposing viewpoint"; he is someone who has actively fought against the rights of gays and lesbians.

[Snowflake]

As far as Obama goes, rumor has it that he is considering appointing the first openly gay man as Secretary of the Navy. He also made a campaign promise to rescind the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of our military.

This from the Washington Times yesterday

Washington Times
December 18, 2008
Pg. 6

Gay Man Backed For Navy Secretary

Foes cite 'Don't ask, don't tell'

By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times

Some top retired military leaders and some Democrats in Congress are backing William White, chief operating officer of the Intrepid Museum Foundation, to be the next secretary of the Navy - a move that would put the first openly gay person at the top of one of the services.

The secretary's job is a civilian position, so it would not run afoul of the ban on gays serving in the military, but it would renew focus on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office.

"He would be phenomenal," said retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, pointing to Mr. White's extensive background as a fundraiser for veterans' and military causes.

Retired members of the Joint Chiefs have contacted Mr. Obama's transition team to urge them to pick Mr. White, and members of Congress said he would be a good choice for a service secretary.

"He's very capable," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, whose district includes the Intrepid Museum, a retired aircraft carrier berthed on the Hudson River in New York City.

Mr. Nadler said Mr. White has become a friend of the military, and particularly the service members and their families, both through the Intrepid and through Fisher Houses, which offer a place to stay so families can be close to military members who are receiving medical care.

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign said they won't comment on personnel decisions.

Others are in consideration, such as Juan Garcia, a former naval aviator who was defeated for re-election to his seat in the Texas House. Mr. Garcia is friends with Mr. Obama from their Harvard Law School days and was chairman of Mr. Obama's Texas campaign.

Democratic members of Congress from Texas sent a letter to Mr. Obama earlier this month supporting Mr. Garcia for the position.

A spokesman said Mr. White would not comment.

If Mr. White were nominated, he likely would face questions during a Senate confirmation hearing over how his nomination would square with the military's policies on gays.

In 1993, President Clinton signed into law a ban, and White House and congressional leaders settled on a new policy known as "don't ask, don't tell." Under it, gay service members must keep their sexuality private or face expulsion. About 12,500 people have been discharged under the policy.

Supporters of the ban said nominating Mr. White would send the wrong signal.

"It's a matter of judgment, and I think that would be very poor judgment on the part of the commander in chief," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes gays serving in the military. "It would be very demoralizing to the troops."

But Mr. Nadler said the military policy that says gays are a threat to unit cohesion is "nonsense," and it shouldn't apply to Mr. White anyway because as secretary "he's not in the foxhole, he's not on the ship."

Gen. Shelton called Mr. White's work at both the Intrepid Museum and the Fisher House Foundation "legendary."

"He has always been a staunch advocate of our men and women in uniform," Gen. Shelton said

[Ghoulish Delight]

But if in 2000/2004, Bush had offered a similar invitation to a religious icon whose most recent political activities had been pursuing broadened access to legal abortion I don't think a lot of the people now saying "what's the big deal? It's just a short speech" would be saying that. Such is (as I so often say) the hypocrisy of politics.Hmm, I think my reaction, as someone who would be trying to ameliorate with such a choice, would be something like, "Seriously, George? Not buying it."

This whole thing is just more of the O'Reilly definition of "fair and balanced". It's the fallacy that to be "fair" and "accepting" one has to give equal weight to all viewpoints. There's a difference between allowing everyone the opportunity to state their views vs. having to take them all seriously.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I've SEEN people say, "Wow, I didn't realize it was this important to them?" after the protests started. So many people have been oblivious to what's going on, or only know of gays in the abstract. It's easy to take away rights from invisible people. When those invisible people suddenly appear, and look and act hurt, people notice.

Right, which is why I was very clear in stating that it isn't the protests themselves that I have a problem with.

[Ghoulish Delight]

On a slight tangent, I spent an ill advised amount of time in the trenches over at Change.gov in the comments section.

First off, it was a pleasant surprise to see that the level of discourse there was well above average for blog comment threads. Well above. Even at its nastiest, people remained relatively civil and well spoken, on both sides.

What was particularly gratifying, though, was that the people defending the selection, and ultimately defending the ban on gay marriage, were doing a great job of proving my point for me, namely that opposition of same sex marriage is rooted in religious dogma and nothing else. Here is how every single one of the conversations I got into over there proceeded:

Me (or some other like minded commenter): Angry at the choice of Warren
Defender: You're not being inclusive. Besides, he's just defending his beliefs. [insert bad analogy that equates supporting same-sex marriage with preventing religious freedom]
Me: Actually, no, Warren's free to believe whatever he wants still, he's just not free to legislate it
Defender: ....Oh yeah? Well God said gays are icky!
Me: That's nice. Good thing god didn't write the Constitution. Not a basis for law. Thanks for playing.
Defender: ............

Over and over again in various forms, the most common alternate form being, "Marriage has always been that way!" leading to the simple miscegenation rebutal. Without fail, no matter how rational they were trying to be, they all eventually had to fall back on, "Oh yeah, well God said so!" And once I called them on that, they never responded.

It was frustrating to see so many people willing to legislate religious doctrine. But it was comforting to see in practice what I had known in theory, that when pressed, religious doctrine is all they have to stand on. And that when you finally force them to face the fact that they're trying to get "God said so" into the constitution, they shut up.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Rick Warren isn't merely someone with an "opposing viewpoint"; he is someone who has actively fought against the rights of gays and lesbians.

True, and he is also someone who has enormous influence on many people. This isn't Fred Phelps wacko that nobody pays attention to; this is someone who sold 20 million copies of a book he wrote. His influence isn't merely Orange County, it is worldwide. People are listening to this man in great numbers and I don't think that comparing their hero to a KKK member is going to change one single mind in the bunch. And that's a problem, because I do think that many of their minds are changeable. The harsh reality is that millions upon millions of Americans do not believe that gay people should have equal rights, and angering and galvanizing them into a more solidified front is simply not the best path to progress. There are far more effective tactics in my opinion.

[Ghoulish Delight]

True, and he is also someone who has enormous influence on many people. This isn't Fred Phelps wacko that nobody pays attention to; this is someone who sold 20 million copies of a book he wrote. His influence isn't merely Orange County, it is worldwide. People are listening to this man in great numbers and I don't think that comparing their hero to a KKK member is going to change one single mind in the bunch. And that's a problem, because I do think that many of their minds are changeable. The harsh reality is that millions upon millions of Americans do not believe that gay people should have equal rights, and angering and galvanizing them into a more solidified front is simply not the best path to progress. There are far more effective tactics in my opinion.
Neither is honoring one of their most influential leaders.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Neither is honoring one of their most influential leaders.

With all due respect, I just don't see it that way. It isn't some great honor that is going to remembered for centuries like a monument in a national mall. It is a small token gesture in the grand scheme of things, but it is also a representation of Obama's exact platform that he campaigned on. It's just that when he said that he would be inclusive of all viewpoints, most people never considered that it meant being inclusive of viewpoints they strongly disagreed with.

But if we are EVER going to get away from the deep political divides that are fracturing this country, that can only come from giving BOTH sides a little respect. Bush said he would do that and failed miserably because he never really meant it. Obama apparently means it, and I'm hopeful that some good can come from it, even if it means that a guy that I disagree with is allowed to give a three-minute prayer on national TV, especially considering that I highly doubt this invocation will mention one word about gay marriage.

[Ghoulish Delight]

For the record, I would have been nearly, if perhaps not equally, as disgusted if he had, instead of Rev. Lowrey, chosen Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

I voted for Obama because I hoped he would move away from propping up loud mouthed egos who have vested interests in continuing to polarize the country. Rick Warren is one, Jesse Jackson is one. It's not about respecting viewpoints with those personalities. It's about no longer telling the American people that these blowhards should be looked up to.

[BarTopDancer]

I listen to my co-workers talk about RW and they think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's seriously scary how much influence this man has over his followers. Not his religion, him. He could easily form a cult, and in a way he has.

The more I think about it, it's not really a bad move. By inviting him to speak, Obama can get RWs followers across the country to think Obama won't be so bad, because after all, Obama invited RW to speak at his inauguration then they may be more likely to accept Obama and the decisions he is going to make setting him up for a more effective Presidency. It may help remove the "Democratic party = anti-god and anti-country" stigma that was so well perpetrated by the last Administration.

We tend to forget that we live in, and are surrounded by a mostly politically liberal population. The rest of the country isn't so progressive. It's "that rest of the country" that needs to be eased into a more liberal administration after having 8 years of their god-law President. It would not be effective for Obama to go "ok, I personally think gay marriage is wrong but I want the Supreme Court to find a way to add gay marriage is to be allowed in all 50 states to the Constitution" right away. That would just piss off his opposes and those looking at him to fall on his face.

It's sad that starting out of the gate he's made such a poor choice in the eyes of us, but much like selecting Hillary as the SoS, this may be a politically savvy move.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

It's not about respecting viewpoints with those personalities. It's about no longer telling the American people that these blowhards should be looked up to.

I think the best way to turn people off from these "blowhards" is to let them be heard loud and clear, otherwise their followers simply see them as martyrs. But when you give someone like Bill O'Reilly a national audience, his popularity eventually fades and he soon wakes to find himself a laughingstock that fewer and fewer people agree with. People have to come to that decision on their own though. Trying to silence them actually has the reverse effect.

And I don't think that Obama is saying that you should look up to this man. He has made it clear that he disagrees with many of this pastor's viewpoints. I think he is simply saying "I'm going to give someone I disagree with the opportunity to be seen." And considering that millions of people already look up to this guy, I hardly think that this prayer is going to make much difference.

And hey, there is always that small chance that this guy will decide to make a political statement while doing this and say something really stupid. That might actually change some minds as to whether he should be looked up to or not. I've always felt that the best thing one can do is let these people keep talking and talking and eventually, given enough rope, they will hang themselves by saying something that nobody agrees with.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The more I think about it, it's not really a bad move. By inviting him to speak, Obama can get RWs followers across the country to think Obama won't be so bad, because after all, Obama invited RW to speak at his inauguration then they may be more likely to accept Obama and the decisions he is going to make setting him up for a more effective Presidency. It may help remove the "Democratic party = anti-god and anti-country" stigma that was so well perpetrated by the last Administration.

We tend to forget that we live in, and are surrounded by a mostly politically liberal population. The rest of the country isn't so progressive. It's "that rest of the country" that needs to be eased into a more liberal administration after having 8 years of their god-law President. It would not be effective for Obama to go "ok, I personally think gay marriage is wrong but I want the Supreme Court to find a way to add gay marriage is to be allowed in all 50 states to the Constitution" right away. That would just piss off his opposes and those looking at him to fall on his face.

It's sad that starting out of the gate he's made such a poor choice in the eyes of us, but much like selecting Hillary as the SoS, this may be a politically savvy move.

Exactly my point. Well said.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To me, all it does is legitimize him. "See, even your precious Obama is willing to give his views serious consideration."

[Motorboat Cruiser]

To me, all it does is legitimize him. "See, even your precious Obama is willing to give his views serious consideration."

He was already legitimized by the millions that follow him. I have yet to see where Obama has given any of his specific views serious consideration though. True, it is a show of respect for the man's influence, but I certainly don't think Obama is going to change his mind about abortion and gay rights as a result.

[Alex]

But when you give someone like Bill O'Reilly a national audience, his popularity eventually fades and he soon wakes to find himself a laughingstock that fewer and fewer people agree with.

I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.

People have to come to that decision on their own though. Trying to silence them actually has the reverse effect.

Not giving Warren the opportunity to lead the nation in prayer is not silencing him.

And I don't think that Obama is saying that you should look up to this man. He has made it clear that he disagrees with many of this pastor's viewpoints. I think he is simply saying "I'm going to give someone I disagree with the opportunity to be seen."

Would you agree that there are ideas sufficiently repugnant that they should not be given even token acknowledgment? Without directly comparing being opposed to gay marriage, if Warren were a preacher who was surprisingly progressive on many issues but had campaigned in support of limiting civil rights of Jews and Muslims because those faiths are sins according to his interpretation of the bible, would your view still be that this is relatively unimportant and it ok to hold up that person before a national audience in a task of some honor? Does it matter if that man holds the opinion himself with little public support (a congregation of 100) or does it become more acceptable as more people (a congregation of 2 million and a popular video series) buy into it?

I ask just to establish if you agree there is a line, in which case we're just arguing over where it is. Or whether are arguing about the existence of the line in the first place.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.

Bill is successfully contained at Fox, the only network that would ever give him a pulpit, and their ratings overall do not seem to be holding their ground against their competitors.

“But the back-and-forth these last few months masks a more ominous trend for Fox News, particularly as its gears up to cover the general election campaign. The most dominant cable news channel for nearly a decade and a political force in its own right, Fox has seen its once formidable advantage over CNN erode in this presidential election year, as both CNN and MSNBC have added viewers at far more dramatic rates.”

For example: “In the first five-and-a-half months of 2004, the last presidential election year, Fox’s prime-time audience among viewers aged 25 to 54 was more than double that of CNN’s — 530,000 to 248,000, according to estimates from Nielsen Media Research. This year, through mid-June, CNN erased the gap and drew nearly as many viewers in that demographic category as Fox — about 420,000 for CNN to 440,000 for Fox.”

As far as your other questions, I'm going to need to ponder them a bit before I respond.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Bill is successfully contained at Fox, the only network that would ever give him a pulpit, and their ratings overall do not seem to be holding their ground against their competitors. Yes, but then, you don't see MSNBC inviting him over to record promo spots for them.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Not giving Warren the opportunity to lead the nation in prayer is not silencing him.


I can respond to this though.

I don't believe that I ever said that not choosing Warren to give this invocation would be akin to silencing him. He is clearly not being silenced as can be seen by the millions of people that follow him, whether he appears at the invocation or not.

But for many Americans, they are fearful that their voices will be silenced by an Obama administration and I think this gesture acts to diminish those fears. And again, my point is simply that allowing someone to voice their opinion is not the same thing as agreeing with that opinion.

[Alex]

You're comparing CNN to Fox ratings not O'Reilly's against himself. For a while Olbermann was competing with O'Reilly in ratings but since the election it has gone back to what it was before: O'Reilly is the top rated political show on cable TV.


You say he is safely contained. That may be, but that is all he ever was. There is no evidence that he has lost any significant audience due to people who liked him suddenly realizing he is an oaf. Sure, there may be a more vocal larger group of people who think he is an oaf but they aren't converts to that position.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Yes, but then, you don't see MSNBC inviting him over to record promo spots for them.

True, but I have seen Letterman invite him on his show numerous times. And each time, Bill looks like an idiot in front of millions of people. I can only hope that Letterman continues to do so. That's what I mean about letting people like this speak frequently. It may take more time than I originally implied, but eventually people start to see these people for who they are. O'Reilly is always going to have his rabid supporters, but I think mainstream America is starting to see him for who he really is.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

You're comparing CNN to Fox ratings not O'Reilly's against himself. For a while Olbermann was competing with O'Reilly in ratings but since the election it has gone back to what it was before: O'Reilly is the top rated political show on cable TV.


You say he is safely contained. That may be, but that is all he ever was. There is no evidence that he has lost any significant audience due to people who liked him suddenly realizing he is an oaf. Sure, there may be a more vocal larger group of people who think he is an oaf but they aren't converts to that position.

Tell you what then, let me completely recant my argument about Bill O'Reilly as being poorly thought out, because quite frankly, that isn't what I came here to debate.

[Strangler Lewis]

On the other hand . . . maybe as a practical matter, it would be a good thing if we returned to the Billy Graham "pastor-to-the-president" model where it was enough for the evangelical community to feel that they had the president's ear. I'm not sure if that genie can be put back in the bottle, though.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Would you agree that there are ideas sufficiently repugnant that they should not be given even token acknowledgment?

If millions of people agree with those ideas, I think they should be acknowledged. That's not to say that I think they should be accepted or endorsed, but we damned well better acknowledge their existence because they aren't going away anytime soon. There is power in numbers, the power to vote. And if we fail to acknowledge them, we will continue to wonder how things like Prop 8 passed.

I'm not sure if I believe there is a line or not, because I tend to think that there is no stance unworthy of consideration. There are many that upon examining, I would completely disagree with, but I'm certainly not going to pretend that they don't exist, especially in cases when half of the nation agrees with them. A guy like Fred Phelps, who has a handful of followers, I'm not much concerned with him because he has no power. Millions of people in lockstep do have power though, significant power. That doesn't make their view any more acceptable in my opinion, but it makes it far more worthy of acknowlegement.

And you don't change large groups of people all at once, you change them one at a time, a tedious and frustrating process, but one that has been proven to work.

Obama could have easily picked someone safer. He chose not to because he is trying to make a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people, that sometimes you can make far greater gains by showing a little respect than by alienating and dividing people further. Warren showed a bit of respect to Obama by allowing him to speak at his church even though he disagreed with him on just about everything, and Obama is responding in kind - saying I do not agree with you but I will show you the same respect you showed me. Maybe that will have a positive effect and maybe it will not, but if nothing else, it shows that Obama is a man of his word. That's a lot more than I can say about the guy currently occupying the White House.

[Strangler Lewis]

It's hard not to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room. However, if you look at the history of civil rights in this country, I don't know how much progress was made via respectful dialogue with the man on the street. We had the Civil War. We had Truman deciding to integrate the armed forces. We had the litigation that culminated in Brown. We had Kennedy and Johnson who made it their business to cram the Civil Rights Act down the throat of half the country. We had schools that integrated with the aid of the National Guard. We had civil disobedience in the south, and riots in the north.

Eventually, much as Archie Bunker did when the Jeffersons moved next door, people learned that mixing with black people and treating them equally was okay. I heard a similar piece on NPR recently about a small town coping with the influx of immigrants. Hostility initially, then everybody's cheering for their kids' soccer teams. I agree that change is coming, but it will come from exposure as people know more gay people and see more positive images of gay families to balance out the images of Folsom Street that weird them out. But, now, just hearing people out on theoretical issues isn't going to do anything than give people the pleasure of hearing themselves talk and dig in their heels.

[Alex]

And you don't change large groups of people all at once, you change them one at a time, a tedious and frustrating process, but one that has been proven to work.

I'm still waiting for an example of it. I'm sure there must be some but I don't think it is the standard path to significant change.

Obama could have easily picked someone safer. He chose not to because he is trying to make a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people, that sometimes you can make far greater gains by showing a little respect than by alienating and dividing people further.

It isn't escaping me that this is the point you're trying to make. I just don't think you're correct in its possible impacts. Especially since, as you say, gay marriage is not likely to come up.

I agree a political decision was made: it is better to please this group and piss off that group than to pick someone neither side would have remarked upon. In the long term it may prove to be good politics.

For me, there is a line in the sand. You are free to hold whatever opinions you wish, but there is a point at which I, personally, will not do anything help prop you up so you can continue expounding on them. Now, for Obama this is probably easier since he does not support gay marriage so for Obama and Warren the question is merely how far they'll go in arguing against it. So, it is good politics? Quite possibly. Is it still a big **** you to a significant portion of the gay community? Yes.

[Kevy Baby]

But when you give someone like Bill O'Reilly a national audience, his popularity eventually fades and he soon wakes to find himself a laughingstock that fewer and fewer people agree with.

I don't think I've seen much evidence of this. Can you provide examples? Bill O'Reilly certainly hasn't faded significantly.Before I even saw Alex's question, I thought of two examples where the person had worked themselves to the laughingstock point: Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh. Sure, they still have their followers, but they did/have become mostly impotent.

[Alex]

They became laughingstocks among those who already disagreed with them, I don't dispute that.

I would strongly contest that either became impotent within the power circle they had. And how they were viewed in larger circles did little to change that. So that is what I am contesting, that by granting visibility and an airing of views this will somehow lead those who already agree with Warren to potentially change their views. That is what I am asking for an example of.

Are there people who laugh at Limbaugh? Absolutely, does that number go up the more mainstream exposure he has? Absolutely. Does that increase in a number represent a diminishment of him? Absolutely not.

[Tenigma]

Hmm...

I'm caught up with this discussion. I know I'm in the complete minority here, but I APPLAUD Obama for doing what he did. He knows exactly what the hell he's doing. He's a shrewd politician.

He spends two years campaigning on the importance of a UNITED States of America, and the first time he reaches out to a demon, you guys are all immediately all jumping all over him.

I say you're all wrong.

OK, I agree, it's OK to be upset. It's OK not to like Warren. It's OK to feel disgusted that he's going to give the invocation.

But in my opinion, Obama did NOT make a mistake. Period.

It's funny how everyone wants a big inclusive tent until there's something that's offensive to them, then it's no longer something that can be discussed in a raitonal manner. This goes for all extremes of the political spectrum.
Exactly. What do you think Obama meant when he said "there isn't a red America or a blue America"? He didn't say "The people who have been ignored for the past 8 years under the Bush administration want to be acknowledged that we exist, too! Include us in the dialog!" Did he say that? No. He said EVERYBODY TOGETHER. That includes progressives acknowledging that conservatives have just as much a right to sit at the adults' table.

1) He was not paying enough attention to the Prop 8 reaction to realize the impact of his selection of Rick Warren.
2) He knew full well what the impact would be and decided, "Eh, those whiners aren't important enough."
3) Conscious of the unsurprising drop in momentum after the initial surge of protests, Obama wanted something the movement could rally around and get energized again, so he selected Warren knowing it would piss people off and get them to the streets again.
Or how about a Harvey Milk-like option #4: He invited Warren knowing that Warren has a HUGE following ("I'm your President, too"), as a way to start rebuilding the bridge towards learning about the "other side," humanizing people again, helping people on the opposite ends of the spectrum to see that perhaps the other side ain't quite so evil.

Listen, Prop 8 passed. Telling other liberal people to support gay marriage until you're blue in the face isn't going to help. You need to convince the people who voted YES to CHANGE THEIR FRICKEN MINDS. If you dig in your heels and refuse to even be a part of the ballgame, how can you expect to win?!?

Rick Warren isn't merely someone with an "opposing viewpoint"; he is someone who has actively fought against the rights of gays and lesbians.
YES -- and maybe that was his plan all along! On purpose!

True, and he is also someone who has enormous influence on many people.
Ding ding ding. "That Obama guy is socialist and he scares he. He wants to keep abortion legal... why did my beloved Warren accept the invitation? What is it that made him say yes? Maybe Warren knows something we don't. Maybe this Obama man isn't quite so bad about everything after all. Maybe I won't oppose everything he wants to pass."

Anyway, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. I think Obama continues to impress me with this shrewdness.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Anyway, I don't care if you think I'm wrong. I think Obama continues to impress me with this shrewdness.
Then I won't bother having a discussion with you on this discussion board.

[alphabassettgrrl]

While I can see some logic in the selection of Warren, it still disgusts me to think about him getting exposure. I know I'm not going to agree with everything Mr. Obama does, but this is icky.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ugh, I feel awful about the whole thing. It's just like election day all over again. I couldn't enjoy that because Prop 8 passed, and now I won't enjoy the inauguration. :(

I understand and empathize with the arguments of both sides. I feel a knee-jerk reaction to defend Obama, because I feel he's a smart guy who wouldn't do this without knowing the implications, and must have meant well. Yet I feel so angry that someone who pushes hate was selected for this honor. He could have picked anyone else. Then I think, most ministers/pastors/whatever have the same point of view anyway. Then I get angry that there is a religious ceremony involved at all. SEPARATE! CHURCH AND STATE! I want to chant it out the window at the top of my lungs.

And when people say it "legitimizes" Warren, I keep thinking about how people reacted regarding talking to enemy leaders. Warren is an enemy leader. But there's a difference between talking to him and inviting him to a place of honor. Right?

Around and around. I just hope that O knows what he's doing. That this really will comfort "the enemy" to the point where we can all talk as Americans......and we can destroy their way of life :evil:

No, seriously, I do want everyone at the table, but.....ugh. Just WHEN do I get to enjoy Obama's victory?? :( Maybe once he gets something real happening as President? I'm saving my confetti and noisemakers for then.

[Not Afraid]

I was disgusted at first, but only because I really dislike Warren and despise his brand of religion. But, I can see where Obama is going with this and I think I'm going to put some faith in him. If Warren's inclusion draws an audience that wouldn't otherwise be there to hear his message, then that's a good thing.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm still waiting for an example of it. I'm sure there must be some but I don't think it is the standard path to significant change.


To date, I think that gay rights is a perfect example of it. Most people who have changed their mind, from not thinking gay people deserve rights to those that do, have done so based on a personal experience in their life, whether it is having a family member come out and re-thinking their position, to meeting a gay person they respected and taking a some time to get to know them. Much easier to hate the abstract, than it it is to hate a good person staring you in the face.

I know plenty of people who have changed their mind over the years, and it was never as a result of force or ridicule. It was a result of realizing they were wrong because the issue was finally personalized for them, for lack of a better word.

Sure, you can force people to comply through the force of law, and often that is necessary, but those people won't do so willingly and, in fact, it is unlikely to change their underlying prejudice. There are still plenty of racists out there who still detest people of color because that is what they have been taught at an early age. They might not be able to discriminate against them in the workplace, but that doesn't stop them from occassionally dragging them from the back of a pickup truck when nobody is watching.

My opinion is that it is better in the long run to try and change minds through dialog, rather than force because only the former results in true change.

Edited to add: And even using force to change things requires every vote we can muster. And the ones that already agree with the cause simply don't have the numbers yet. Changing people one at a time becomes even more vital when it comes to the bigger fight. There is simply no way to get this legislation passed unless a significant amount of people on the opposing side can be convinced to change their vote. Calling them names, yelling at them and boycotting their weddings simply isn't going to accomplish that. Anger rarely changes anyone's mind, which was my original point.

[Not Afraid]

My opinion is that it is better in the long run to try and change minds through dialog, rather than force because only the former results in true change.

I would agree that change happens through dialog and experience however it becomes a dialog as a result of the issue being on the front of people's minds - and public protests are a way to keep the issue in the forefront and therefore extremely necessary.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I would agree that change happens through dialog and experience however it becomes a dialog as a result of the issue being on the front of people's minds - and public protests are a way to keep the issue in the forefront and therefore extremely necessary.

I don't disagree at all. The problem is that those who used the occasion to ridicule people with religious beliefs aren't doing anyone any favors. You don't want a protest to insult the very people who were willing to vote "no" even when their church said to vote "yes." I don't want those people rethinking their support because of a sign that insulted them. We need every vote we can get if we are going to be successful next time, because this time we were clearly outnumbered.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Let me be clear.If Obama said, "I've invited Warren and other community leaders from a around the spectrum on the issue to begin a dialog," I'd have no problem with that. But selecting him for a position of honor in a public ceremony is beyond simply having a dialog.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Let me be clear.If Obama said, "I've invited Warren and other community leaders from a around the spectrum on the issue to begin a dialog," I'd have no problem with that. But selecting him for a position of honor in a public ceremony is beyond simply having a dialog.

And I don't disagree that, on the surface, it is insulting, especially to the people who have worked tirelessly for this cause. I just think there is a bigger picture at play here. I understand the immediate reaction of "how dare he?" but I surely don't think Obama did this for the purpose of insulting people, do you? I think he sees this as a small but important first step towards breaking down the ideological barriers that have divided this nation. Weaken those barriers a little and you might actually have an opportunity to get things done.

Upon further reflection, that round table discussion isn't even possible, as long as people are so entrenched in their positions that they are unwilling to even take a seat at that table. Perhaps this move gets them to consider taking that seat.

[JWBear]

People like Warren have no desire to compromise on gay rights. It's foolish to think you can ever change minds that are set in concrete.

[Alex]

Just going in circles of course, but I have no problem with "a dialog." This is not a dialog or even really an opportunity to start one.

There is a big difference between "hey, I'd like to talk to you about how we can go about getting you some reasonable religious opinions" and "since I hope someday you'll be a preacher that's a bit less of an ass I'd like you to officiate my wedding."

Of course, I'm still peeved that religion is being brought into a civil governmental event to begin with (and yes, I know it hardly the only religion stuff that will be on display that day).

[Motorboat Cruiser]

People like Warren have no desire to compromise on gay rights. It's foolish to think you can ever change minds that are set in concrete.

I would say that you are right. I'm not so sure that his followers as all as set in concrete though, although every attack causes that concrete to thicken just a little more.

Besides, who cares, in the grand scheme of things, if his mind is changeable? Change enough people's minds in his congregation and it really doesn't matter.

[Morrigoon]

Yeah, but you don't see Obama inviting David Duke to speak

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Just going in circles of course, but I have no problem with "a dialog." This is not a dialog or even really an opportunity to start one. I disagree there there in no opportunity here.

"since I hope someday you'll be a preacher that's a bit less of an ass I'd like you to officiate my wedding."
I don't think that Obama is that naive.

Really, what is the alternative here? That he choose a mainstream religious leader that supports gay marriage? Is there an abundance of those that I'm unaware of? But, assuming one exists that carries even a fraction of the same influence that Warren does, let's say that Obama chooses this person. Those who already support gay marriage might be pleased, but it further alienates Obama from the opposition that he is trying to reach. There is no advantage that I can see because the divide between the two sides only widens.

Of course, I'm still peeved that religion is being brought into a civil governmental event to begin with (and yes, I know it hardly the only religion stuff that will be on display that day).

On this at least, we agree.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Yeah, but you don't see Obama inviting David Duke to speak

I would argue that, not only is Duke not a minister, but he has pretty much been made irrelevant over the years. The difference is influence - like it or not, Warren speaks to millions of Americans who follow his every move. And as no surprise, many of his followers are also upset that he chose to accept this. Why do you suppose that is?

And if both sides are upset, I tend to think Obama is on to something.

[Morrigoon]

I suppose you have an argument there. But Obama cannot be ignorant of the extremely raw feelings following the November election, so it does smack of a stab in the back.

[Alex]

I don't think that Obama is that naive.

I'm confused, because I can't read anything else into what you've said. That is was a political choice, that this doesn't directly address the issue, that it merely opens the door a sliver that maybe someday down the road an opening will arise to sway Warren and/or his followers.

But anyway, let's move on since Obama's choice of poet for the event has been announced.

The presence of poetry really offends me.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

But Obama cannot be ignorant of the extremely raw feelings following the November election, so it does smack of a stab in the back.

I highly doubt that Obama is ignorant of this fact. But the sting from that slap in face is going to fade pretty fast, if he is able to do something substantial to heal the divide that is truly tearing this nation apart. And the alternative is to simply appease his base. I don't know about you but I've had enough of that route in the last eight years.

[Alex]

If the gay lobby will be mollified when Obama ends Don't Ask/Don't Tell, won't the anti-gay people pleased by Warren's praryer be similarly put aback?

In other words, doesn't this invocation by Warren really only have a chance of working at gradually changing minds if Obama chooses to NOT do anything of significance to advance gay issues in the near future?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm confused, because I can't read anything else into what you've said. That is was a political choice, that this doesn't directly address the issue, that it merely opens the door a sliver that maybe someday down the road an opening will arise to sway Warren and/or his followers.


I don't think that Obama is so naive that he thinks this gesture is going to change any of Warren's beliefs or that someday he will be less of an ass. But this gesture does show quite clearly that Obama meant it when he said that he was going to try and bring both sides together. "You are wrong and I am right" rarely accomplishes that.

[Alex]

Again, I'm not opposed to that (reaching across differences). I just don't think this is the correct forum for it. The inauguration is not a dialog it is a elevation of honors (to Obama and to the people he selects for it).

But despite our arguing I do think we agree in most other respects.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Again, I'm not opposed to that (reaching across differences). I just don't think this is the correct forum for it. The inauguration is not a dialog it is a elevation of honors (to Obama and to the people he selects for it).

I suppose time will tell if it was a waste of time to try something like this. I just have a feeling that seeing Obama surrounded by only those that agree with him would have left a pretty bad taste in my mouth as well.

One of my biggest pet peeves about our government is that nobody ever really tries to do what is right anymore, they simply do everything they can to win the next election, and that usually means appeasing their base no matter what. And I don't like it, even if I happen to be on the side now that would benefit from the appeasing. And this "party before country, we're always right and you are always wrong" crap will continue until someone actually has the courage to put a stop to it. I'm hoping that day has come and I'm even willing to take a slap in the face for the cause.

But despite our arguing I do think we agree in most other respects. I suspect the same.

[€uroMeinke]

The inauguration is not a dialog it is a elevation of honors (to Obama and to the people he selects for it)

I'm not so sure about that - this is all part of the political dance and display of symbols. Perhaps not a dialog in a literal sense, but certainly a semiotic conversation is happening.

[JWBear]

Hatred is wrong. People who preach hatred shouldn't be appeased or honored, they should be opposed and marginalized.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Yeah, even though this time it's my turn to be appeased by my president, and I'm glad he's not doing it, does he really have to go that far over to the other side? I want to trust him... but ... ugh.

Do what's right... I know, I know. But why is "right" feeling so repugnant? Isn't doing right supposed to feel good?

[JWBear]

To me, what's "right" would be Obama telling Warren that homophobia has no place in his inauguration.

[Gemini Cricket]

So much to say about Warren at the Obama block party inaugural bash but no time to do it. Will post later.
:)

[Morrigoon]

Isn't doing right supposed to feel good?
Rarely. Or people would do it more often.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That he choose a mainstream religious leader that supports gay marriage?
No, he could have chosen one of a billion priests that do not support gay marriage and have proven themselves to not be attention-grabbing blowhards. If you want reasonable discourse, you don't need to be dealing with the people directly responsible for the unreasonable discourse.

That's why I brought up Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Can you imagine the response from the right if he had selected either of them? It would make this reaction seem tame. And rightly so, those two are attention-grabbing blowhards. I do not subscribe to the belief that being tolerant means respect every person with an opinion willing to shout loud enough.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Hatred is wrong. People who preach hatred shouldn't be appeased or honored, they should be opposed and marginalized.

With all due respect, your opinions seem as firmly cemented and unswayable as his and that line of thinking brings any hope for change to a halt because you cannot marginalize him without also marginalizing all of his followers, some of which voted against Prop 8.

It sounds good to state that hatred is wrong (and clearly it is) but it is also clear that you don't understand that they don't see what they do as hatred, which is much different from the civil rights movement where people hated and were damn proud of it. And until these followers of people like Warren can be convinced that they are hurting people rather than helping people, nothing changes. Sure, you are unlikely to sway him away from his convictions but the same is obviously not true of ALL of his followers, otherwise people wouldn't have taken a different course of action in the voting booth - and I personally know people from his congregation that did not vote "yes" on Prop 8. That is where the focus needs to be.

So marginalize them all as haters by proxy at your own peril. You just might get your wish and change their minds back before the next time a proposition comes around. Do you honestly think we can afford to lose votes from the "opposition" at this stage of the game? Because that is exactly what is going to happen by continuing to demonize him, refusing any sort of dialog, and thereby turning off those that were on your side to begin with. It is already happening.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

If you want reasonable discourse, you don't need to be dealing with the people directly responsible for the unreasonable discourse.


Actually, I think that is exactly what you need to do. You need to take on the unreasonable, with the understanding that the result may not be to sway the person being unreasonable but those who follow him. Do you disagree that there are people in his congregation that are reachable? And if you don't, which do you think is more effective, demonizing the person they follow or having a reasonable discourse with them?

A member of my family might be in the wrong about something, and you might be able to convince me of that fact through reasonable discourse, but if you start out by insulting them and demonizing them, then right or wrong, you are going to bring my defenses up because they are still my family. And the likelihood of you swaying me from that point on has just diminished greatly. Telling me that you are concerned about my father's drinking and telling me that my father is a no good stinking drunk are going to be met with very different reactions, even if the latter holds more actual truth than the former.

[Ghoulish Delight]

A member of my family might be in the wrong about something, and you might be able to convince me of that fact through reasonable discourse, but if you start out by insulting them and demonizing them, then right or wrong, you are going to bring my defenses up because they are still my family.
1) Start out? Rick Warren didn't just appear. He's been preaching his hate for years, has built an empire on it, and has shown no capacity to listen to reason.
2) For the zillionth time, this isn't about completely ignoring Warren and never speaking to him and never including him in the conversation. It's about the choice to honor him. Alex nailed it perfectly with the wedding officiant analogy.

I don't expect Obama will completely shun Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I know for sure he's still meeting with them, listening to them, and taking what they have to say into consideration. But boy am I glad he chose Lowrey instead of either of those two egotitstical blowhards. THAT'S the change I wanted from Obama. To stop using the extremists as symbols. To stop the lie that "If I show that I'm honoring loud mouths from both sides, then I'm being inclusive and fair." It's a charade and it doesn't help, it continues to validate the loud mouths.

[JWBear]

With all due respect, your opinions seem as firmly cemented and unswayable as his and that line of thinking brings any hope for change to a halt because you cannot marginalize him without also marginalizing all of his followers, some of which voted against Prop 8.

It sounds good to state that hatred is wrong (and clearly it is) but it is also clear that you don't understand that they don't see what they do as hatred, which is much different from the civil rights movement where people hated and were damn proud of it. And until these followers of people like Warren can be convinced that they are hurting people rather than helping people, nothing changes. Sure, you are unlikely to sway him away from his convictions but the same is obviously not true of ALL of his followers, otherwise people wouldn't have taken a different course of action in the voting booth - and I personally know people from his congregation that did not vote "yes" on Prop 8. That is where the focus needs to be.

So marginalize them all as haters by proxy at your own peril. You just might get your wish and change their minds back before the next time a proposition comes around. Do you honestly think we can afford to lose votes from the "opposition" at this stage of the game? Because that is exactly what is going to happen by continuing to demonize him, refusing any sort of dialog, and thereby turning off those that were on your side to begin with. It is already happening.

I completely disagree. The vast majority did not hate blacks back then, but they still supported discrimination. Many had religious objections to the races mixing. If blacks had done as you suggest back then, they would still be riding in the back of the bus and drinking from separate drinking fountains. Appeasement gets you nowhere.

If those in power treat hate and discrimination as something normal (and honor those who espouse it), then it is given validation. If those in power treat hate and discrimination with contempt, people become shamed into ending it.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

You're all right.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The vast majority did not hate blacks back then, but they still supported discrimination. Many had religious objections to the races mixing.

You do realize that the vast majority don't hate gays, don't you? But they still support discrimination based on religious objections to them getting married.

If blacks had done as you suggest back then, they would still be riding in the back of the bus and drinking from separate drinking fountains. Appeasement gets you nowhere.

As I suggest? I voted against Prop 8 (and convinced as many people as I could to do so) because I want the law to step in here as well. Do you honestly think I would have done that had I thought appeasement was the answer? But those civil rights laws were not passed because people of color wanted them. That wasn't enough; they also needed the support from a heck of a lot of white people. And we need the support from a heck of a lot of straight people, if we want anything remotely similar to occur. And this vote made it crystal clear that we aren't there yet. And what you call appeasement, I call reaching out to as many of the very people that opposed it as we can muster, because until we change enough of their minds, we aren't going to get very far.

If those in power treat hate and discrimination as something normal (and honor those who espouse it), then it is given validation. If those in power treat hate and discrimination with contempt, people become shamed into ending it.

Obama has made it perfectly clear how he feels about discrimination, and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so. You and I simply have a difference of opinion as to whether or not offering a role in the inauguration to this Pastor is validation for those who discriminate. I don't see it that way.

I heard someone yesterday say that Bush would have done the exact opposite - give someone completely innocuous the role of performing the invocation, then putting a raging homophobe in a position of power in his administration. And, in fact, he tried his best to do so with regard to the Surgeon General. I much prefer Obama's tactics - let the bigot have his 3 minutes of prayer time (perhaps to lessen the approaching sting?) and then put openly gay people in positions of power. Which way do you think has more damaging repercussions? Would a perfect world mean that Obama did those things and also didn't give Warren this role? Perhaps it would. But Obama doesn't strike me as someone who makes decisions lightly and without forethought, and I have to believe that there is a bigger picture here.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

1) Start out? Rick Warren didn't just appear. He's been preaching his hate for years, has built an empire on it, and has shown no capacity to listen to reason.

Sigh. I wasn't referring to Warren in that statement. I was talking about insulting the very people we are trying to reach, with signs that are insulting and demeaning to followers of Christianity. I don't think Rick Warren has the capacity to listen to reason either, but I do think there are many of his followers that do. But the more you attack the man they follow, the less likely they are to listen to reason - even if he is totally wrong, and he is.

2) For the zillionth time, this isn't about completely ignoring Warren and never speaking to him and never including him in the conversation. It's about the choice to honor him.

So let me ask you the same question I asked above then. Does Obama truly strike you as someone who makes decisions without considerable forethought? And if he does, as he has stated many, many times, believe in gay rights, why on earth do you think he would do this? Don't you think the possibility exists that there is more here than meets the eye? Or do you have such little regard for him that you think he is just flailing around blindly here, and completely disregarding those that he says he supports? I refuse to believe that.

And if this is such a grand and meaningful honor, can you tell me (without looking it up) who the last three pastors were to give inaugural invocations? In my opinion, this is nothing but a token gesture that, in and of itself, is relatively meaningless. And had Warren not been given all of this wonderful press exposure leading up to this day, I suspect it wouldn't have been very long before everyone forgot who gave this particular invocation either. Doesn't sound like much of a meaningful honor to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I understand WHY he thinks it's a good idea. I do not agree with the reasoning. He's smart, he's not infallible.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To elaborate, the reasons that have been given in support of the decision are the same reasons that have been given for the last decade+ that have resulted in more and more polarization. They're the same reasons that allow the loudest, most radical representatives of a given position be the ones that are given the most credence. And they're the very things I voted for Obama to get away from.

He had the opportunity here to put on the national stage a religious leader who is against gay marriage but has been reasonable in their actions and their discourse. THAT would have been real change. THAT would have been progress towards resolution. He chose instead the status quo. Feeding the cycle by propping up the one of the key figures responsible for the divisiveness, based on the flawed logic that appeasing a vocal minority is the way to mend bridges.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

To elaborate, the reasons that have been given in support of the decision are the same reasons that have been given for the last decade+ that have resulted in more and more polarization. They're the same reasons that allow the loudest, most radical representatives of a given position be the ones that are given the most credence. And they're the very things I voted for Obama to get away from.

I think our biggest disagreement is on the amount of credence this gives. I also don't think that Warren is "the most radical" by any means. He may be the most popular and powerful though. He was voted one of the 100 most influential people of last year.

He had the opportunity here to put on the national stage a religious leader who is against gay marriage but has been reasonable in their actions and their discourse. THAT would have been real change. THAT would have been progress towards resolution.

Here, you lost me because I don't find being against gay marriage to be a reasonable position, regardless of who the leader is. Real change would be doing away with this religious invocation altogether. And progress towards resolution will come from real policy, along with the changing of minds - not from choosing a different pastor who is also against gay marriage but less influential. All in my humble opinion, of course.


He chose instead the status quo. Feeding the cycle by propping up the one of the key figures responsible for the divisiveness, based on the flawed logic that appeasing a vocal minority is the way to mend bridges.

I don't see it as appeasement, but rather representation - not of a vocal minority, but a vocal majority. It's easy to write this guy off as a blowhard nutcase, but I suspect he represents far more people's views than you realize - people, who in my opinion present the most formidable obstacle we face. Polarization comes from simply writing them off as unimportant. Changing their minds is incredibly important. And again, I don't think this is about trying to reach or change Warren; I think it is about opening the door to reaching his followers. We obviously have differing views about that approach and about its effectiveness, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

[Strangler Lewis]

So let me ask you the same question I asked above then. Does Obama truly strike you as someone who makes decisions without considerable forethought?

To throw in something new, I don't think this is a helpful viewpoint from which to analyze Obama's decisions. He is not God or Deep Blue or some super rabbi. Over his presidency, he will have to make too many decisions for any one person, most with the advice of other voices that will probably conflict. I don't think we can rule out that he may fail to give something sufficient thought or, alternatively, that he may overthink something and come out looking too clever by half.

He did after all, nominate an Attorney General who was heavily involved or, more accurately, insufficiently involved, in the Clinton decision to pardon Marc Rich. We'll certainly hear more about that in the confirmation hearings.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I'm certainly not trying to suggest infallibility. I'm just saying that he doesn't strike me as someone who made this decision without giving it some thought first. And based on what I've seen from him so far, I've been pretty impressed. So I'm willing to cut him some slack and see where this leads. Time will tell if the positive outweighs the negative.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Hey Christophobes! I've got your most recent installment of Pastor Rick's News and Views (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=8789&page=61) over at the Prop 8 thread.

Thanks, Americablog (http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/in-new-video-rick-warren-accuses-gays.html)!

[mousepod]

FYI, Gene Robinson: Gay Bishop Giving Obama Inauguration Prayer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/12/gene-robinson-gay-bishop_n_157076.html).

[Moonliner]

FYI, Gene Robinson: Gay Bishop Giving Obama Inauguration Prayer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/12/gene-robinson-gay-bishop_n_157076.html).

At the Lincoln Memorial inauguration kickoff on Sunday.

I'm debating weather to go down for this one or not....



(Yes, that was an intentional use of the word 'weather'. January means something in these parts...)

[flippyshark]

At the Lincoln Memorial inauguration kickoff on Sunday.

I'm debating weather to go down for this one or not....



(Yes, that was an intentional use of the word 'weather'. January means something in these parts...)

But was it an intentional use of "go down?" (sorry)

[Kevy Baby]

January means something in these parts...In these parts too. Its just there here, it means 87 effin degrees!

[alphabassettgrrl]

Hey, don't bash on my warm weather! The warmness is why I put up with the expense and the crowds!

[Alex]

I was going to make a joke (but not a good one) about Gay Bishop being a better choice than Joey Bishop. But he's dead and that would be disrespectful.

[Snowflake]

I was going to make a joke (but not a good one) about Gay Bishop being a better choice than Joey Bishop. But he's dead and that would be disrespectful.

VAM

:D

[Kevy Baby]

Hey, don't bash on my warm weather! The warmness is why I put up with the expense and the crowds! I know, but 87 in January?!?

[Moonliner]

They posted the performers (http://www.pic2009.org/blog/entry/initial_talent_line-up_released_for_lincoln_memorial_event/) for the Lincoln Memorial event...

Anyone ever heard of this "Garth Brooks" fellow?

[Kevy Baby]

Anyone ever heard of this "Garth Brooks" fellow?I think he used to be in one of those 'boy bands' but hasn't found much solo success.

[JWBear]

He's still alive? I thought he was dead...

[alphabassettgrrl]

I know, but 87 in January?!?

Absolutely! Where else can I be warm in January? I guess in the Caribbean, and I suppose Brad's pretty comfy in Hawai'i, but somewhere I can afford to live? SoCal.

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama's speech today at the Lincoln Memorial. Short, sweet and powerful.
He's amazing.
:)

[Alex]

The Arizona Cardinals in the Super Bowl.

Obama really does bring change.

[scaeagles]

Four years ago when the economy was fine, there was expressed disgust at some 40 million being spent on the inauguration activities. This time around, with a horrid economy, why is 100 million considered OK?

[€uroMeinke]

Bread and Circuses - during bad times no one wants to be reminded they're in bad times

[Snowflake]

Four years ago when the economy was fine, there was expressed disgust at some 40 million being spent on the inauguration activities. This time around, with a horrid economy, why is 100 million considered OK?

Does not entirely answer your question, but here's a portion of an article. For the record I donated to help fund the party (about a couple of light bulbs worth)


The good news for taxpayers: Inaugural celebrations are paid for by the inaugural committee — and Obama has, once again, been a very successful fundraiser — at least $35 million by recent counts. Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, told the New York Daily News:

"We're always very budget conscious. But we're sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don't want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is."

full article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl204)

[Alex]

I have no idea, I expressed no disgust last time.

But I suspect it is the same "my **** smells like roses but yours smells like ****" thing that's pretty standard. Were you bothered by the expense last time that it bothers you now or are you just expressing upsettedness on behalf of others?

[scaeagles]

Really, it's more criticism of the media than anything else. It's not anyone here - I don't recall much about it if anything posted here. The NY Times, BBC, and AP all had stories ripping the expense of it in 2004, but I haven't read any distress about this now.

I don't really care - he won, let the party go on for those who want to celebrate.

Edited to add:

To be fair, I did just come across an AP article in which I found something amusing -

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

[BarTopDancer]

They posted the performers (http://www.pic2009.org/blog/entry/initial_talent_line-up_released_for_lincoln_memorial_event/) for the Lincoln Memorial event...

Anyone ever heard of this "Garth Brooks" fellow?

Who?

[Alex]

Is it criticism you noticed on your own or criticism you're echoing from the link on the front page of the Drudge Report?

I ask because so far I've seen several articles criticising the cost of this inauguration, though in Op-Ed form (just as, if it was criticism, it must have been in the NY Times, BBC, and AP) from those ideologically opposed to the person spending the money. The complainers seem to have switched sides as so often happens.

That said, the article linked from Drudge is from the AP, so presumably they should be off your list of potential hypocrites. Though it only names two people who criticized the 2005 inauguration (and a quick search to find articles from 2005 also only ever name the same two people as complaining about the cost) and doesn't seem to make any attempt to get their opinions this time around to see if they are being inconsistent.

[Stan4dSteph]

Loved the performance by U2!

[scaeagles]

Is it criticism you noticed on your own or criticism you're echoing from the link on the front page of the Drudge Report?

Actually I googled something to the effect of "inauguration cost 2005" and also for 2009 because in my various radio listenings I had heard of numerous op-eds disparaging the cost of the 2005 and that they same op-ed writers were strangely silent about this one.

What I found was relatively consistent with what I'd heard, but figured I should give full disclosure and cite one I had seen in the search since I had been critical of the AP.

[Strangler Lewis]

As I told my mother, who gets all of her issues, good and bad, from conservative talk radio, this is one of those issues on which Obama would be dumped on no matter what he did. If he had put on a low frills bash, he'd have been criticized for demeaning the high office of the presidency and bringing down the morale of the country at a difficult time.

[Alex]

So is the criticism about money or about putting on a big party while at war? (I just noticed you added to your post while I was responding to it, but the segment you quoted is about extravagant displays during war.)

[scaeagles]

Please be clear I have no criticism of the events, as I think I stated. I have always (as is known here) seen the mainstream media as having a left wing bias, and i think the lavishness of the Obama inauguration - now thought to be almost 4 times as expensive as the 2005 - being given not nearly the same scrutiny as a President they all despised (well, most of them did). It's "we like Obama, so spending lot of money is OK".

I fear that no matter what happens during the Obama administration will be glossed over as acceptable becuase they like him.

Another example is whomever his choice is for Secretary of the Treasury...the man did not make honest mistakes, IMO. He dodged paying taxes. However, I am not aware of calls for him to withdraw the nomination.

Strangler, politics is such that of course that will happen, and it happened to Bush all the time.

I've been withholding numerous ciriticsms of Obama and the dems at present....this is just fluff, and a jab at the media and particular elected members of Congress who were so vocal in their opposition to the money spent in 2005, not Obama.

[JWBear]

I fear that no matter what happens during the Obama administration will be glossed over as acceptable becuase they like him.

Just like the "liberal" media glossed over every wrong doing by Bush?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Please be clear I have no criticism of the events, as I think I stated. I have always (as is known here) seen the mainstream media as having a left wing bias, and i think the lavishness of the Obama inauguration - now thought to be almost 4 times as expensive as the 2005 - being given not nearly the same scrutiny as a President they all despised (well, most of them did). It's "we like Obama, so spending lot of money is OK".
Bush all the time.



Actually, according to this article (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top) at least, the mainstream media's math is a little off. It would appear that they included all of the security costs into the 2009 number, but failed to do so in the 2005 numbers. Do that and it turns out that this event didn't cost anywhere near four times what was spent in 2005. But those fair and balanced folks at the NY Daily News weren't quite so interested in accuracy when they first broke this "story" which everybody picked up without checking the facts.

[wendybeth]

Thanks for the link, MBC. :snap:

[Alex]

Yes, thanks.

So current estimates are that the Obama inauguration will cost $3 more than Bush's. I guess we're just left with the hypocrisy of two congressional Democrats not complaining about it.

[Morrigoon]

Well, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Is he wasting money, or pouring money into the economy? Six of one these days...

[Gemini Cricket]

Gene Robinson's invocation:

Following is the text of the invocation given by Bishop V. Gene Robinson at the opening ceremonies of President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration Sunday, January 18th. Robinson delivered the prayer at the base of the Lincoln Memorial facing a crowd nearly a million people strong that filled a stretch of the National Mall all the way to the base of the Washington Monument.
Good afternoon,
Before this celebration begins, please join me in pausing for a moment to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.
Oh God of our many understandings, we pray that you will bless us with tears, tears for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women in many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die a day from malnutrition, malaria and AIDS.
Bless this nation with anger – anger at discrimination at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants; women, people of color; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort at the easy simplistic answers we prefer to hear from our politicians instead of the truth about ourselves and our world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be fixed any time soon and the understanding that our next president is a human being, not a messiah. Bless us with humility, open to understanding that our own needs as a nation must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance, replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences.
Bless us with compassion and generosity, remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the ways we care for the most vulnerable. And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office fo the president of the United States. Give him wisdom beyond his years, inspire him with President Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for all people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our ship of state needs a steady calm captain. Give him stirring words, we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color blind reminding him of his own words that under his leadership there will be neither red nor blue states but a United States. Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him strength to find family time and privacy and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods. And please God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents and we’re asking far too much of this one, we implore you oh good and great God to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand that he might do the work that we have called him to do. That he might find joy in this impossible calling and that, in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.
Amen.

:snap:

[PanTheMan]

Four years ago when the economy was fine, there was expressed disgust at some 40 million being spent on the inauguration activities. This time around, with a horrid economy, why is 100 million considered OK?

There are also the numbers to consider. 4 years ago the crowd was estimated at between 300,000 and 400,000. 8 years ago the numbers may have been higher due to protests. This time around 2 million may be an underestimate.

and a bit off topic here, but did anyone see the sunset tonight? Most beautiful one i have seen in 8 years ;)

[scaeagles]

Yes, thanks.

So current estimates are that the Obama inauguration will cost $3 more than Bush's. I guess we're just left with the hypocrisy of two congressional Democrats not complaining about it.

No - not entirely. Even if the cost was exactly the same (which I don't necessarily subscribe to - I admit to not having read the media matters article, but I regard them in a similar fashion to how many of you might view Nation Review Online), there is still the issue of what was indeed a general feeling of disgust by many in the media that so much was being spent on the festivities. What it comes down to is simply that those members of the media are happy this time and wish to celebrate and cover celebrations, and in 2005 they did not.

[Alex]

You're moving the goalposts. If you said it so simply to start, I'd have no real issue. I still don't think you're quite accurately describing the objections over cost (they weren't simply financial). But it is the inclusion of fraudulent supporting facts that prompted argument.

Also, I have no issue with National Review nor Media Matters nor Fox News nor Instapundit. When they present sourced facts they present positions that can be rationally debated. When they don't, then they can't be. But simply being from one of those sources does not make facts any less. I'm sorry you filter yourself only to sources you perceive will slant the facts to your preference.

[innerSpaceman]

Gene Robinson's invocation: :snap:

Thanks for posting that. HBO failed to broadcast that part of the Lincoln Memorial kick-off festivivites. A "snafu" in communication with the inauguration team about what to include in their coverage.

Pfft. Ha!



The new conspiracies start. :cool:

[scaeagles]

Also, I have no issue with National Review nor Media Matters nor Fox News nor Instapundit. When they present sourced facts they present positions that can be rationally debated. When they don't, then they can't be. But simply being from one of those sources does not make facts any less. I'm sorry you filter yourself only to sources you perceive will slant the facts to your preference.

I never claimed that you have problems with any source per se. However, many posters call Fox News Faux News because of they perceive a bias. I am letting it be known that I have always felt the same about Media Matters. In the same way that anything that comes from Fox is doubted by many here, I admittedly have the same doubts about MM.

[Alex]

I'm apparently feeling harsh today. The fact that I have twice posted and then felt I should come back and remove or soften what I've said is strong indicator that today shouldn't be an internet day for me.

So I'm pancaking this and will move on.

[Kevy Baby]

Wolf Blitzer and Keith Olbermann are locked in a fierce battle to show who is the bigger idiot.

Right now my money is on Wolf for "And to all a good night" as Bush's helicopter was circling.

[Tom]

You know you've wanted it. Now it's here:

Chia Obama (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001PKU2OI?ie=UTF8&tag=youwonnowwhat&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B001PKU2OI)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Wolf Blitzer and Keith Olbermann are locked in a fierce battle to show who is the bigger idiot.

Right now my money is on Wolf for "And to all a good night" as Bush's helicopter was circling.I believe that was Keith, actually.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

You know you've wanted it. Now it's here:

Chia Obama (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001PKU2OI?ie=UTF8&tag=youwonnowwhat&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B001PKU2OI)Heh, looks more like this Obama:

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4404/barackobamajl4.jpg

[Snowflake]

You know you've wanted it. Now it's here:

Chia Obama (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001PKU2OI?ie=UTF8&tag=youwonnowwhat&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B001PKU2OI)

OMG, I'm so ashamed, Joseph Enterprises is one of our long standing clients. :blush:

Happily, I do not do their work, but UGH, that's just awful and silly and more than a little creepy.

[Betty]

I think I want to call it Chibama.

[Deebs]

Ch-ch-ch-chia!

The effrontery! It doesn't even look like him.

[bewitched]

OMG, I'm so ashamed, Joseph Enterprises is one of our long standing clients. :blush:

Happily, I do not do their work, but UGH, that's just awful and silly and more than a little creepy.

Yet strangely, I kinda want one. :D