Scripting News: Obama's bone-headedness, day 2 (Scripting News)
Karoli
· 1 year ago
I don't understand how his choice of Rick Warren can be such a horrible huge fail and yet, his choice of Joseph Lowery for the benediction doesn't even warrant a blink. Everyone is all about getting on the bandwagon over this, that it's such a slap, that it's so horrible, and yet...I don't hear anywhere near the same outcry from the evangelical community over Lowery.
Both are respected men of faith. Both have different views. One of them agrees with you; one doesn't. But the only focus for you seems to be the one who doesn't.
It's a mistake, in my opinion, to join the chorus of condemnation over the Warren choice without at least acknowledging the balance Obama brought to the entire issue. Expect that to be the case in the future, too.
One final thought: When looking at memorable moments or ceremonies, who is more memorable? The first speaker or the last? Warren is the invocation-giver; Lowery the benediction. Who will stick?
The answer to that lies in what emphasis those who disagree with Warren want to put on things. They could be singing Lowery to the heavens, giving no notice to Warren. Instead everyone is focused on Warren. How we remember will be indicative of how we reacted.
Eric Rost
· 1 year ago
How is your call to silence him any better than his call to exclude gays? Equal protection under the law, such as Freedom of Speech? Why must views other than yours be silenced? Isn't the sign of a healthy democracy and a healthy debate that all sides can be heard in the public square equally?
dave
· 1 year ago
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills a bit there Eric. You imagined this supposed "call to silence him" -- let him speak, say I. But let me speak too. If he's our new President's spiritual guide, then we're all massively fucked.
gsmaverick
· 1 year ago
Isn't Obama about bringing people together. Then this is the first step.
dave
· 1 year ago
What's your race or religion? Where was your mother born? We have to know that in order to decide whether you have a right to exist.
gsmaverick
· 1 year ago
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. Please sort out your words and thoughts and then say something people can understand!
mal
· 1 year ago
...so what's our path to communicate this back to Obama. Anyone in Hawaii?
Boiarski
· 1 year ago
Melissa Etheridge has an interesting take on Rev. Warren at HuffPo. If she can proudly attend the Inaugural, surely a straight man can think twice before mounting his high horse. This is a political chess move, intended to counter what is already a rising tide of right wing manure with a Sister Soljah moment. I don't have to agree with it to understand that he doesn't want to start out like Clinton, with an investigation every week. Obama has appointed an out and proud Lesbian to the cabinet. He has made it obvious that he is pro-civil union and not marriage since early in his campaign. I would think if he can bring Warren to be more accepting, that will be a wedge against such wedge issues. The guy isn't even president yet and the long knives are out.
dave
· 1 year ago
Another stupid silly comment. I read her piece, and I thought "what a fucking sell out" -- she's buds with Obama, and thinks she can have it both ways. She will be disappointed to find out this is not true. Welcome to the next level of cronyism.
Evan Rudowski
· 1 year ago
Dave,
I agree with much of what you're saying here, but . . .
I cannot help recall how not long ago at all you were among those who were so breathlessly in favor of Obama and his supposed message of "Change" while actually knowing so little about him and his agenda.
You and many others were quite eager to trash Hillary Clinton rather viciously in order to support a man who offered what was admittedly a very exciting and inspirational message but one that was quite vague.
Obama's self-described friendship with Rick Warren goes back several years and has been no secret, but this was not an issue to you or to the rest of Obama's rapt audience during the campaign.
So although I largely agree with your points regarding this current issue, I question your standing to make the argument. The time to have exercised critical judgment is now past, and you did not seem to choose to exercise it very thoroughly during the campaign. So now, this is what you get. I guess you will have another chance in 2012.
I did not support Obama during the primary campaign, but I did vote for him in the general election. I wish him well and I hope he will bring a new and more thoughtful approach to governing. But since I was not in thrall to him during the campaign I am less disillusioned by him now.
Kind regards, Evan Rudowski
dave
· 1 year ago
I did not trash Hillary Clinton -- how dare you make such a claim!
I was going to vote for her until she made a pitch to racism in South Carolina.
And I went into this with my eyes open -- I know about politicians Evan. I've been around long enough to know that they say what they want to say to get elected, and what they do is something different entirely.
The commenters in this thread are being silly. If it doesn't get smart soon I'll just turn off comments for this post.
jthrow
· 1 year ago
that's the answer.... If people don't agree then censor them. shall we call you China Dave from now on
dave
· 1 year ago
You can call me whatever you want, in your space. I'm turning off comments here now. I don't see any hope for intelligent discussion here, today. Happy holidays! :-)
Evan Rudowski
· 12 months ago
What can I say, Dave. I just went through your 2008 archives and it didn't take me long at all to find plenty of statements about Hillary that I would describe as "trashing" her. Maybe you have a different definition. That's fair enough. If you would like me to provide examples I am happy to.
In any case, there is no need to argue the Democratic primary again -- it's over, and she lost. Considering the antipathy you expressed toward her in some of those blog posts was it galling to see Obama nominate her as secretary of state?
If you want to turn off comments, it's your blog. People can find other places to respond if they want to. I enjoy reading your blog but I can understand how difficult it can be to accept criticism from random strangers. My blog is not as well visited nor well maintained but I am sure I would not like it either. But since you're such a prominent blogger I imagine that kinda comes with the territory, no? In any case, thank you for allowing me to comment.
Kind regards, Evan Rudowski
jthrow
· 1 year ago
you confuse me on point five.
collecting taxes is an act of government. Should Warren pay taxes? Issuing a drivers license is an act of government. She Warren be allowed to drive? Elections are part of our government. Should Warren be allowed to vote?
dave
· 1 year ago
Of course, you're just being silly.
dongilmore
· 1 year ago
Unification. I know, let's start things off with a prayerful invocation from someone who is anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-science, someone who believes in merging church and state, someone politically active at removing human rights that had already been granted. That should help set the right symbolic tone for unification.
To quote Sara Posner , "Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "
Could Obama have Richard Dawkins do the invocation? Nah, too divisive. Need anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-science unifier.
Spencer Greenwood
· 12 months ago
Hey, Dave. I'm a long-time reader; first-time commenter. I'm pretty sure that I disagree with you fundamentally on some issues, but I want to thank and congratulate you on your long-term commitment to honesty and candidness. I always enjoy your input on political issues.
I have some trouble with your stance on gay marriage. I can't see why anyone would want to get married, personally, but I think that the decision to marry is an individual, moral one, and thus I believe that it should be left to the consciences of individuals. I'm also pretty sure that I feel that none of this is really the business of government. I meant to leave a much longer comment on your Prop 8 post, but I feel that the moment has perhaps passed.
I feel that, on some level, the fact that all of this happened is... a good thing. I don't like to be disappointed by my political leaders, and I perhaps had especially high hopes for Barack Obama, but that's really the point. There is so much enthusiasm and goodwill surrounding Obama's election, and that really scares me as someone who deeply distrusts governments.
Am I alone in thinking that the Wright debacle is one of the best ways we could have been notified of the future President's fallibility? It was only a matter of time before he made a mistake. Better that it be this early, and over something as trivial as this rather than something really monumentally consequential later. I mean, don't get me wrong - I wanted Obama to behave in such a way as to promote unity, "no party"-ness and general inclusion too - but something had to happen to let out the floodwater, or the dam was going to overflow. And when there's a Presidency as promising as Obama's on the horizon, we don't want that to happen.
dave
· 12 months ago
What's your trouble with my "stance" on gay marriage? I'm not standing in the way of it, all I've said is it makes me uncomfortable, it's hard to imagine how you could disagree with it, after all whether or not I am uncomfortable isn't really any of your business. I voted against Prop 8 (as I stated clearly in my piece on Prop 8). What's the problem?
Spencer Greenwood
· 12 months ago
Hey, wow - this conflict is entirely down to my failure to correctly recall your Prop 8 post. Sorry about that. I recalled reading that you voted FOR Prop 8. That confused me a little. Sorry about that.
Evil Monkey
· 12 months ago
First, let me say thank you Dave for making yourself and this space available. I imagine it is at times a thankless task, and personal attacks don't help. So thank you.
Until the day dawns when government is free of the debilitating effects of religion we will continue to bicker amongst ourselves. Until that day when people recognize their own individual responsibilities to shape the world around them, casting off the chains of superstition, we are ensnared by the shamans, enslaved to the oligarchs. How can we not hear the one true voice within us? Care For Each Other. All else is distraction.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and who am I to argue? I too cannot respect an establishment of religion. Rather than boycott the inaugural I suggest a physical gesture of protest. No, not shoe-ing. Perhaps the placing of both hands upon your ears, or turning your back, or both.
But then I would suggest that no matter what religious leader was foisted upon us as a nation at our inaugural. Like fake Santa Claus, they all sit upon a throne of lies, smell of beef and cheese, and disgust me. Beannachtai na feile.
anon
· 12 months ago
Gays might be over-reaching here. They seem to think it a foregone conclusion that the end result will be the same as blacks getting equality and women the right to vote. But I'm not so sure. The problem homosexuality faces is that it is not supportable by either religion or evolution.
Warren was only saying that same-sex marriage is like brother-sister marriage in the simple definition of marriage. That people cannot get that marriage is based on procreation is breathtaking. Civil unions should be sufficient in other cases.
anon
· 12 months ago
If "marriage is based on procreation" should we allow a post menopausal woman to marry?
anon
· 12 months ago
What do you thin?
Bob Gunther
· 12 months ago
Those with more liberal views hate this choice. Those with more conservative views also hate this choice. What this all tells me is that this must be the right choice.
dave
· 12 months ago
Yeah liberal conservative left right. Etc. What are you?
Bob Gunther
· 12 months ago
Dave, I'm someone who hopes and prays for the president, no matter the party because the challenges faced by the person in this role are beyond any one of us.
tomguarriello
· 12 months ago
I saw Warren at TED and found him to be an interesting, intelligent person. That doesn't mean I believe any bit of what he does, but I was impressed with him that day.
Harold
· 12 months ago
Day or two after the election, I got into an argument with two African-Americans on a bus as we were stalled in traffic near UCLA. (This was during the anti-Prop 8 rallies near the Mormon temple in Westwood, very near to UCLA.) We'd been stuck on the bus over an hour. This one black (un)gentleman-child kept getting up and walk the length of the bus, loudly and exclaiming his dislike of homosexuals. "Faggots" this and "faggots" that; real ugly stuff. Real hostile manner, too.
I found myself simmering with anger. I was somewhat surprised by my anger, but I let it take hold. Finally, I couldn't take it any longer. I turned to the woman sitting nearest to me and said in a voice loud enough for the man-child to hear, "Well, Prop 8 probably won't go through anyway, as this morning both the cities of L.A. and San Francisco filed a lawsuit against its constitutionality." This got the man-child's attention, and he responded by trying to assert black civil rights as meaningful, disregarding gays' civil rights.
Here's how I responded. I regret having said this. I really do. In fact, I want to apologize to all blacks for this statement: "Well, I hope Obama doesn't think the way you do." Something like that. I proudly voted for Obama--even though I suspected some measure of corruption in his rise to the top of the Democratic Party. Still, I don't want to be on, as they say, "the wrong side of history". I wanted to have voted for the first black president. I wanted to believe in change (and I mean that without a hint of irony). I also felt some small connection to Obama: he had attended a private college a few blocks away from where I lived at the time.
I don't regret having voted for Obama, but I'm questioning his choice of Warren. I doubt he intended animosity toward gays with that selection, but I think he made a mistake there. It's as simple as that: a mistake, albeit a significant one. He could right this by distancing himself from Warren, right now. I don't think that's asking too much, especially considering that a large number of gays helped to put him into office.
(Epilogue: I do regret having said what I said on the bus. But what I said was nowhere as bad, in my opinion, as the derogatory remarks the man-child was saying about homosexuals. And as I sat there on the bus, I had to then deal with this man and his lady-friend (who decided to jump into the argument), both yelling at me and calling me a racist and getting in my face, physically. (The man kept running up to my seat and feigning to punch me, glancing at the bus driver to see if he was watching...I was sure he was eventually going to hit me.)
Then the police arrived. I don't know who contacted them. Probably the bus driver. She walked onto the bus and asked the driver who was causing the problems. Both, the driver told her, though the one in the UCLA shirt is one who really needs to go. (The one in the UCLA shirt was the man-child.) Before the situation changed anymore, I volunteered to get off the bus. I told her the officer it was both of us--that we were both arguing.)
#3 - Two wars? If you're talking Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. IMO both places we are fighting the same enemy (if that's the right word to use) and thus should be called one war in two countries. World War II had multiple enemies.
#4 - You pretty much summed up where I disagree with you on the entire Warren thing. Look, I do agree with much of what I think you said yesterday - he shouldn't be part of the inauguration. But this is most certainly not a Rove-style wedge issue. Whether it's ill-conceived or not, the intent was something close to 180 degrees opposite of Carl Rove's style. I hope I made sense here.
#6 - I actually believe you since I've been reading this blog since early 2000. If I may offer an outside opinion? In early 2008 you weren't a liberal - but you did become a major Obama fan. You began to believe he could really make a major difference. You began to believe he was totally different than any candidate out there. You did have an awakening of sorts this summer to certain realities - forgive me, I can't remember why. But even then you believed deeply that Obama was not the same as every other politician out there.
He isn't the same. And you, sir, are not liberal. You do seem to be a bit disappointed though. I wish I could help you there.
I'm one to feel that political changes usually happens over years, not days. It takes comprimise, not confrontation. Unfortunately Obama is walking into a firestorm that - other than Iraq - wasn't on anyone's horizon 14 months ago. He doesn't have the luxury of time.
The best I can say is that having Warren give the invocation is a... bold move. It could well backfire. But maybe it won't. You have a right to say "fuck you Obama". But let me ask you this - was there ever a better alternative out there over the last 14 months?
I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I voted for Obama in 2008. Warren, like many on all sides of the political spectrum, has said things and has stances I simply cannot agree with. But he also has a right to say things too. I'll judge Obama on many more important things than his coice for the inauguration invocation. I think history will too.
JMHO. Have a happy! :-)
Craig Jordan
· 12 months ago
Brilliant! That's what I say about the Warren selection. When we the last time anyone cared about who gave the invocation at the innaugural? What a brilliant stroke to spark debate and to make people actually think. We as a country will never crack through the red-blue divide that has utterly paralyzed our political system since the early 90's. We have a non-functioning federal government. It hasn't worked for a long, long time, since long before George W. Bush came on the scene, because each party has been more intent on playing to its base and counting coup on the other party than actually getting things done. I have no idea what Obama is going to do as president or whether he is going to be able to change this pattern, but I think the Warren selection is a step in the right direction.
Extending the olive branch to the evangelical right is not possible if you exclude everyone in that group whose views are unacceptable to one or more constituencies on the left. Leaving them out in the cold just perpetuates the divide that will ultimately destroy us if it is not healed.
This, by the way, is a 2 way street. The folks who are opposed to Warren have to at least consider the positive aspects of his ministry, of which there are many, but Warren and his group have to give new consideration to the folks who oppose him.
Obama has challenged both sides: consider the other person's point of view. You don't have to agree with it, but considering it might help you (and all of us) develop new perspectives and understandings that will help us move forward.
This is a tiny step, but if Obama keeps delivering this message, it might take root and we might all be better for it.
jeremiahsjamison
· 12 months ago
totally 100% agree. i'm as hardcore conservative a reader or commenter as you'll find, and i find the RW choice shameful for the country. i share the hardcore emotional belief on the equal protection clause, as should all americans. i've never really understood why more conservatives don't stand as firmly on freedom and equal protection--the cowardice that leads them to only sanction freedom for those that share the same lifestyle views is shameful.
JpMaxMan
· 12 months ago
You know, this is one thing that really gets me about the left (of which I count myself a member) there is so much venomous disgust over something like this, but lets put this in context. Of course I don't agree w/ Warners position on gays - but, in the greater context of Obama asking him to give a sermon at his inauguration is a pretty minor hit. In the context of what the current administration and their party have done to systematically dismantle our democracy and degrade the rights of everyone, not just gays, the energy seems seriously misplaced and reeks of an easy target. Fight the good fight and remember who has actually setup a secret prison system, subverted due process, pushed for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, etc, etc.
Perspective people.
AJ Fish
· 12 months ago
Rick Warren is a creationist, not a conservative. And say what you will about marriage v. civil unions, if he equates same sex marriage with pedophilia, he equates same sex civil unions with pedophilia.
Glad to see Dave weigh in on this. The WaPo column is spot on, too.
Jay
· 11 months ago
I originally told myself to be patient with Obama and things he might do that seemed against the interest of the democratic base. After all, it is still politics and there are a lot of moves that have reasons we don't know about. I can easily see how allowing a simple speech here or there is a good way to reach out. It's things like the appointment of Vilsack as agriculture secretary despite his connections with agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto that surprise me because he will be making actual decisions that fly in the face of the base.
All Comments
Both are respected men of faith. Both have different views. One of them agrees with you; one doesn't. But the only focus for you seems to be the one who doesn't.
It's a mistake, in my opinion, to join the chorus of condemnation over the Warren choice without at least acknowledging the balance Obama brought to the entire issue. Expect that to be the case in the future, too.
One final thought: When looking at memorable moments or ceremonies, who is more memorable? The first speaker or the last? Warren is the invocation-giver; Lowery the benediction. Who will stick?
The answer to that lies in what emphasis those who disagree with Warren want to put on things. They could be singing Lowery to the heavens, giving no notice to Warren. Instead everyone is focused on Warren. How we remember will be indicative of how we reacted.
I agree with much of what you're saying here, but . . .
I cannot help recall how not long ago at all you were among those who were so breathlessly in favor of Obama and his supposed message of "Change" while actually knowing so little about him and his agenda.
You and many others were quite eager to trash Hillary Clinton rather viciously in order to support a man who offered what was admittedly a very exciting and inspirational message but one that was quite vague.
Obama's self-described friendship with Rick Warren goes back several years and has been no secret, but this was not an issue to you or to the rest of Obama's rapt audience during the campaign.
So although I largely agree with your points regarding this current issue, I question your standing to make the argument. The time to have exercised critical judgment is now past, and you did not seem to choose to exercise it very thoroughly during the campaign. So now, this is what you get. I guess you will have another chance in 2012.
I did not support Obama during the primary campaign, but I did vote for him in the general election. I wish him well and I hope he will bring a new and more thoughtful approach to governing. But since I was not in thrall to him during the campaign I am less disillusioned by him now.
Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski
I was going to vote for her until she made a pitch to racism in South Carolina.
And I went into this with my eyes open -- I know about politicians Evan. I've been around long enough to know that they say what they want to say to get elected, and what they do is something different entirely.
The commenters in this thread are being silly. If it doesn't get smart soon I'll just turn off comments for this post.
In any case, there is no need to argue the Democratic primary again -- it's over, and she lost. Considering the antipathy you expressed toward her in some of those blog posts was it galling to see Obama nominate her as secretary of state?
If you want to turn off comments, it's your blog. People can find other places to respond if they want to. I enjoy reading your blog but I can understand how difficult it can be to accept criticism from random strangers. My blog is not as well visited nor well maintained but I am sure I would not like it either. But since you're such a prominent blogger I imagine that kinda comes with the territory, no? In any case, thank you for allowing me to comment.
Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski
collecting taxes is an act of government. Should Warren pay taxes?
Issuing a drivers license is an act of government. She Warren be allowed to drive?
Elections are part of our government. Should Warren be allowed to vote?
To quote Sara Posner , "Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "
Could Obama have Richard Dawkins do the invocation? Nah, too divisive. Need anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-science unifier.
I have some trouble with your stance on gay marriage. I can't see why anyone would want to get married, personally, but I think that the decision to marry is an individual, moral one, and thus I believe that it should be left to the consciences of individuals. I'm also pretty sure that I feel that none of this is really the business of government. I meant to leave a much longer comment on your Prop 8 post, but I feel that the moment has perhaps passed.
I feel that, on some level, the fact that all of this happened is... a good thing. I don't like to be disappointed by my political leaders, and I perhaps had especially high hopes for Barack Obama, but that's really the point. There is so much enthusiasm and goodwill surrounding Obama's election, and that really scares me as someone who deeply distrusts governments.
Am I alone in thinking that the Wright debacle is one of the best ways we could have been notified of the future President's fallibility? It was only a matter of time before he made a mistake. Better that it be this early, and over something as trivial as this rather than something really monumentally consequential later. I mean, don't get me wrong - I wanted Obama to behave in such a way as to promote unity, "no party"-ness and general inclusion too - but something had to happen to let out the floodwater, or the dam was going to overflow. And when there's a Presidency as promising as Obama's on the horizon, we don't want that to happen.
Until the day dawns when government is free of the debilitating effects of religion we will continue to bicker amongst ourselves. Until that day when people recognize their own individual responsibilities to shape the world around them, casting off the chains of superstition, we are ensnared by the shamans, enslaved to the oligarchs. How can we not hear the one true voice within us? Care For Each Other. All else is distraction.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and who am I to argue? I too cannot respect an establishment of religion. Rather than boycott the inaugural I suggest a physical gesture of protest. No, not shoe-ing. Perhaps the placing of both hands upon your ears, or turning your back, or both.
But then I would suggest that no matter what religious leader was foisted upon us as a nation at our inaugural. Like fake Santa Claus, they all sit upon a throne of lies, smell of beef and cheese, and disgust me. Beannachtai na feile.
Warren was only saying that same-sex marriage is like brother-sister marriage in the simple definition of marriage. That people cannot get that marriage is based on procreation is breathtaking. Civil unions should be sufficient in other cases.
I found myself simmering with anger. I was somewhat surprised by my anger, but I let it take hold. Finally, I couldn't take it any longer. I turned to the woman sitting nearest to me and said in a voice loud enough for the man-child to hear, "Well, Prop 8 probably won't go through anyway, as this morning both the cities of L.A. and San Francisco filed a lawsuit against its constitutionality." This got the man-child's attention, and he responded by trying to assert black civil rights as meaningful, disregarding gays' civil rights.
Here's how I responded. I regret having said this. I really do. In fact, I want to apologize to all blacks for this statement: "Well, I hope Obama doesn't think the way you do." Something like that. I proudly voted for Obama--even though I suspected some measure of corruption in his rise to the top of the Democratic Party. Still, I don't want to be on, as they say, "the wrong side of history". I wanted to have voted for the first black president. I wanted to believe in change (and I mean that without a hint of irony). I also felt some small connection to Obama: he had attended a private college a few blocks away from where I lived at the time.
I don't regret having voted for Obama, but I'm questioning his choice of Warren. I doubt he intended animosity toward gays with that selection, but I think he made a mistake there. It's as simple as that: a mistake, albeit a significant one. He could right this by distancing himself from Warren, right now. I don't think that's asking too much, especially considering that a large number of gays helped to put him into office.
(Epilogue: I do regret having said what I said on the bus. But what I said was nowhere as bad, in my opinion, as the derogatory remarks the man-child was saying about homosexuals. And as I sat there on the bus, I had to then deal with this man and his lady-friend (who decided to jump into the argument), both yelling at me and calling me a racist and getting in my face, physically. (The man kept running up to my seat and feigning to punch me, glancing at the bus driver to see if he was watching...I was sure he was eventually going to hit me.)
Then the police arrived. I don't know who contacted them. Probably the bus driver. She walked onto the bus and asked the driver who was causing the problems. Both, the driver told her, though the one in the UCLA shirt is one who really needs to go. (The one in the UCLA shirt was the man-child.) Before the situation changed anymore, I volunteered to get off the bus. I told her the officer it was both of us--that we were both arguing.)
You're speaking out. Great post. Hope not hate.
Happy Christmas all.
#3 - Two wars? If you're talking Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. IMO both places we are fighting the same enemy (if that's the right word to use) and thus should be called one war in two countries. World War II had multiple enemies.
#4 - You pretty much summed up where I disagree with you on the entire Warren thing. Look, I do agree with much of what I think you said yesterday - he shouldn't be part of the inauguration. But this is most certainly not a Rove-style wedge issue. Whether it's ill-conceived or not, the intent was something close to 180 degrees opposite of Carl Rove's style. I hope I made sense here.
#6 - I actually believe you since I've been reading this blog since early 2000. If I may offer an outside opinion? In early 2008 you weren't a liberal - but you did become a major Obama fan. You began to believe he could really make a major difference. You began to believe he was totally different than any candidate out there. You did have an awakening of sorts this summer to certain realities - forgive me, I can't remember why. But even then you believed deeply that Obama was not the same as every other politician out there.
He isn't the same. And you, sir, are not liberal. You do seem to be a bit disappointed though. I wish I could help you there.
I'm one to feel that political changes usually happens over years, not days. It takes comprimise, not confrontation. Unfortunately Obama is walking into a firestorm that - other than Iraq - wasn't on anyone's horizon 14 months ago. He doesn't have the luxury of time.
The best I can say is that having Warren give the invocation is a... bold move. It could well backfire. But maybe it won't. You have a right to say "fuck you Obama". But let me ask you this - was there ever a better alternative out there over the last 14 months?
I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I voted for Obama in 2008. Warren, like many on all sides of the political spectrum, has said things and has stances I simply cannot agree with. But he also has a right to say things too. I'll judge Obama on many more important things than his coice for the inauguration invocation. I think history will too.
JMHO. Have a happy! :-)
Extending the olive branch to the evangelical right is not possible if you exclude everyone in that group whose views are unacceptable to one or more constituencies on the left. Leaving them out in the cold just perpetuates the divide that will ultimately destroy us if it is not healed.
This, by the way, is a 2 way street. The folks who are opposed to Warren have to at least consider the positive aspects of his ministry, of which there are many, but Warren and his group have to give new consideration to the folks who oppose him.
Obama has challenged both sides: consider the other person's point of view. You don't have to agree with it, but considering it might help you (and all of us) develop new perspectives and understandings that will help us move forward.
This is a tiny step, but if Obama keeps delivering this message, it might take root and we might all be better for it.
Perspective people.
Glad to see Dave weigh in on this. The WaPo column is spot on, too.