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 are also cheesed about Warren's appearance. Interesting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

Really?

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.