Don't forget in addition to Warren, Obama has chosen Joseph Lowery to give the benediction...

By bracketing the ceremony with what could be argued as representatives of the most conservative and most liberal religious traditions in the US, Obama is signaling that he will not allow profound disagreement on issues keep him from doing what is in the best interests of the whole country.

Now I am not equating Lowery and Warren in terms of their ethical standing. I believe Warren is a homophobe and sexist. Lowery is a national hero..

But the fact of the matter is Warren is the religious voice for millions of Americans...and as much as we would want them to they are not going away. The only way to make progress is to engage them in some way.

Just as Obama was wrongly criticized for wanting to engage with foreign leaders who in many cases were directly responsible for the murder and torture of their own citizens, as well as the support of terrorists, he is now being wrongly criticized for wishing to engage with religious conservatives in this country.

I have a feeling both our threads on this will sink like stones, though...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7992924&mesg_id=7992924

Boy - was I wrong on that one. He is going to be one the greatest presidents America has ever seen if most of you DUers will allow it.

And still feel the pangs of regret...but Obama is definitely easing any trepidations I had about him...

given, those who already have everything they need PLUS the majority of the power over the rest of us.

...you'll fall for anything.

Bill Clinton was such a failure for progressives (aside from his greatness in others) is because he caved in and did not stand for progressive ideas and did not defend them.

how he ran the campaign, however, you must stand for something and have some real core values and beliefs. This is one of the major reasons sometimes people who are not really republicans vote for republicans because they believe republicans fight and stand for something whether they agree for those things or not.

It is a problem we have with our Democratic political leaders. They don't stand for anything and don't fight for anything. I can problably name one member that does this, Kucinich and Dean.

Which is interesting in terms of their scheduling.

has a different meaning for different people. In my opinion he has put progressives in his cabinet. He has also given a well known progressive one of the top economic posts...

But Obama didn't run as a progressive...and he doesn't owe any faction anything. What he owes is his best judgment on how to get the country on track again....and so far his judgment has been pretty good...

bit confused as to what you mean?

Another piece of information that sank like a stone around here...

progressive?

that climate change is real and needs to be addressed.

The issue of global warming and finding alternatives to fossil fuels is a "progressive" and left notion, is it not? Much of his recent research was involved with doing just that (finding alternatives to fossil fuels).

what you are saying here.

Is the invention of a seat belt progressive? Or is suing the corporations and requiring them to install seat belts on all their products progressive?


Is Chu in favor of forcing people and industry to stop pumping Co2 into the atmosphere? Or is he into a market based model?

What if congress had used a market based model for seat belts? Instead of just requiring that all cars produced or imported came with seat belts? That doesn't seem as effective. You sure couldn't pass mandatory seat belt laws if cars without were still produced and sold.

So I'm trying to figure out why Chu is progressive. Maybe he is. But I'd like to know why.

And I say that it boils down to the difference between what is good for the "consumer" (or the masses or the people) versus what is good for the "corporation" (or the state).

However you attribute a power to a position in the Executive branch that doesn't exist save for following a Congressional mandate to take certain actions. In his case, he is a scientist (and head of a government laboratory) who has already advocated for and directed his laboratory researchers to find alternatives, so this indicates not just sympathy for but actual action in support of an issue that is/has been an important one within a number of progressive agendas. One might whine about greenhouse gases but then won't offer a practical solution to maintain, as much as possible, desired functioning that could be done without the harmful emissions. And in this case, Chu has been trying to come up with solutions.

An interesting aspect that has come up in the whole alternate energy debate is that for decades, the subject has been ridiculed by the right. But now that some in the right see that money can be made, they are jumping on the bandwagon... And I think some advocate justifying allowing any type of means to get to the desired ends (with the philosophy of there being more than one way to "skin a cat" as the saying goes).

Perhaps the better question for you to ask is how progressive Congress is and would Congress promulgate the "forcing"? The Executive branch agencies merely carry out the law and if such "forcing" were passed, I expect that Chu would help to carry out that law.

And finally, your descriptions describes a "supporter" versus an "activist" and if you think that only "activists" should be considered "progressive", then I would disagree. As a chemist myself, the fact is that plants with chlorophyll undergo respiration in the absence of light (UV), and thus "pump CO2 into the atmosphere" as do humans and every other living creature, so based on your argument, you would propose eliminating all life on earth because of the CO2 issue (and I know some kooks out there do truly believe in mass genocide to eliminate overpopulation)... And this is why lay people (if your are a lay person/non-scientist) need to realize that the issue is quite complex and can't be solved with simplistic solutions, but solutions DO need to be worked on.

And with that, I'm going to bed. :hi:

progressive to describe him.

He sounds smart.

But he's what I would call a technocrat, and that's not an insult. It's good to have smart people in high positions.

But why do you call him a progressive?

Mark my words.

It could have been Rich Lowry.

He keeps replaying it over and over and over.

:puke:

Lets see...Warren gets the invocation....and what else? A cabinet post? No...

Major policy advisor? No...

Hmmm...looks like the invocation is all...

I just noticed it too...maybe I am crazy, but I am not too worked up about Warren. As a Jew, I defended Obama for staying in Wright's church even though Wright made some comments that were arguably anti-semitic. I did not take it as an affront because I know Barack does not share those views. If he hadn't disinvited Wright from his announcement in February of 2007 and had had him give the prayer as planned, I don't think it would have bothered me unless Wright used the platform to espouse views that were anti-Israel or anti-semitic. I don't see having someone give a prayer as an endorsement of all of their political views, and I feel like it would be hypocritical for me to get angry about this when I defended Obama over Reverend Wright.

resembling the reach and depth of churches for the Left to organize through. The religious voice in this country is decidedly Right Wing. I live in a community in which politics IS governed by "conservative" churches, even apolitical people say this. My friends have attended church services in which the congregation WAS instructed how to vote.

Voice is also Money and the Left doesn't have any.

So when people tell me how holy and wonderful a pResident who represents all of us is and how our voice is our responsibility, I'm thinking "Yes, I AM doing what I can about our responsibility and, yes, the opposition isn't simply going to die or go away, so they have to be part of this," but I don't see ANYONE handicapping this "game" in any way shape or form other than for THE STATUS QUO. The limitations of the Left (organization and money) will be ascribed as their own shortcomings and, thus, justification to pay just enough attention to CYAes, but not actually deliver anything even remotely resembling recognition of the legitimacy of our perspectives.

I don't attend organized religion anymore but my personal relationship with G-d is still alive and well. I also happen to have several in-laws who are "Rick Warren" people and they listen to him all the time. They've even given my husband a book by him of which we've never read.

Adding to what you have said above, this will make my in-laws feel included and will show them what it's REALLY like to have a seat at the table unlike the Bush administration counterparts have made us feel. I think it'll show those who were so afraid of an Obama administration that they don't have as much to be opposed to as they thought, especially if they (at least) feel like they have a voice.

The worst thing we as liberals can do is act just like our opposition. If we don't include EVERYBODY, then those left out won't be as apt to HEAR and LISTEN to us. I mean, after awhile, I just kind of shut out the Bush administration because I felt like I didn't have a voice nor would they listen to what I supported anyway. I just shut them out and let the opposition grow over 4 years. So do we want to do the same thing? Do we want "them" to just shut up, not be seen, grow in opposition and feel left out? No! I say the opposite! Kill 'em with kindness! Don't give them ammunition!

I think Obama is doing a very wise thing.

Are you that clueless?

If one slaps the LGBT community in the face with his opposition to gay marriage, why doesn't the other, who does support it, offer a hand in friendship?

You cannot play both sides against the middle on this issue, pick a side, and stick with it.

and the NAACP barbershop quartet for one of the parties.

:eyes:

When I first read about Warren, I was a little sick.

But then, when I read about Joseph Lowery, I smiled.

If it was a poem, it would mean to me

Warren: invocation: the beginning
Joseph Lowery: benediction: closing

Warren is where we were - homophobia, anti-women's rights, divisive religion
Lowery is where we are going - tolerance, respect, justice (closing the door on the 8 years *plus* of craziness)

It's kinda beautiful if you can look at it like that.

and.. Obama is just looking inclusive to the fundies

They won't get it.

thank goodness!

shoved down our throats in the last eight years! We need more of that!

I'm the last person who is up for the situation you describe, but it's not like that. People have to get out of the talk radio, black-and-white kind of pop culture we've been living in for the past 20 plus years and actually have a civil dialogue about the things that matter to us.

who are behaving in an uncivil manner. By doing that, you are actually promoting incivility.

Just as you don't reward a kid for breaking a family rule, you don't reward inhumane, discriminatory or offensive behavior without implicitly re-enforcing that behavior.

As I mentioned, I'm the last person in the world who would subscribe to the ignorance of bigotry, but that's probably only one ignorant aspect of this guy's personality, and he's not the only pastor at the party.

Again, it's not either/or. Our pop culture has been programmed to think in those terms, and I have to spend a good deal of my professional life trying to undo the damage of that.

This man is making a lot of money from his horrible behavior to women, gays and even Jews. Rewarding that is clearly wrong.

Rewarding bad behavior is not post-partisan, it is enabling, it's complicity. It may be a good political move for Obama but it's not in the best interest of our culture, of the greater good, no matter how well it's sold to us.

I'm fine with disagreeing with conservatives - I actually miss the time when it was possible to civilly disagree.

But what we blithely now call the "culture wars" have real consequences for real people. Women who can't access health care and hate crimes against gays on the rise. Rape in the military that can't be reported because if you tell, you're out. There is no ambiguity, no gray area there. Those things are wrong. And Warren advocates those outcomes.

I'm fine with debating prayer in school. I'm not fine with negotiating the civil rights of my gay brothers and sisters. I'm not fine with debating health care for women. Taxes I can argue about but it's clearly wrong to promote this hateful man or to pretend that somehow his bigotry is just a different, equally valid viewpoint when his whole culture is corrupt and his livelihood depends upon inciting a group of people to hate another group of people.

Some things really are simply wrong. And no amount of political frosting or feel good framing changes that.

I don't believe in "culture wars"--never have, and it's time for people to renounce that shit. Yes, there's a right and a wrong in most instances, but it's not dictated by popular culture, the media, or politicians.

If you miss the time when it was possible to respectfully disagree and to examine why people disagree, then welcome to the Obama presidency.

The so called "culture wars" are just strings politicians use to manipulate as does the media.

And no, Obama doesn't promise a new civility at all while he continues to placate bad actors. But, that will be his problem.

"you cannot talk to these people, you cannot negotiate with that sort" and now "progressives" want to embrace that same philosophy.

There is no freedom when someone thinks they can control to whom I may talk or listen. I chose to listen to my foes so that I may understand them.

As for the inauguration the only speaker that really matters is Obama.

:kick: