"A VOICE" and "A CABINET POSITION" are TWO SEPARATE THINGS!

I Hate Rick Warren.

But, I think Obama made a great choice by allowing him to speak at the Inauguration.

Imagine.. just for one moment back Inauguration Day in January, 2001 that Obama had allowed someone like Al Franken or Michael Moore to speak. Think about how much you hated Bush. Would hearing that Bush was trying to be "sincere" in his quest to reach across the aisle and unite the country seem a bit more realistic if one of those men were listed on the agenda for the day? You can say no now - but you'd probably tune in and be a bit curious. You may also have softened your hatred for the guy.. even if it was just for a day or a week.

This is what Obama is doing. Only he's WALKING THE WALK. He said that he wants to bring Change. Well, having your party's #1 nemesis showing up to speak on Inauguration day certainly is CHANGE.

Obama isn't putting him in a cabinet position. He is not saying or even IMPLYING that Warren will be lending his opinion to Obama on future decisions. He is merely saying to the Religious right.. "I hear you". Not that I agree with you, or I will do what you ask me to do - but I hear you.

If that gets even 1% or 2% of the Religious Right to now look at Obama through a different set of eyes, then it can only be good for the country. Months down the road when Obama needs support for Health care or Education reform, and he has 2% of the Religious Right calling up their Republican senators to ask them to vote for Obama's position.. THAT IS CHANGE.

I do not agree with Warren's abortion or gay rights polices. Frankly, neither does Obama.. but this is about the bigger picture, and I think Obama is playing it right.

There are plenty of conservative clerics who aren't anti-science and aren't condemning Catholics, Jews, Quakers, and pro-Choice people to hell.

A large percentage of my friends are conservative Republicans and many are religious. They think this guy's a creep.

However to many, if not most in the LGBT community, having a vile homophobe like Warren speak isn't reaching across the aisle, it is slapping them in the face.

How would you feel if he had put David Duke on the stand instead, or Jerry Falwell(if he were alive)?

who David Duke is frankly. And, Bush putting any GLBT person up there would have been viewed as a "slap in the face" to anyone on the far right as well, but does that mean that Bush shouldn't have done it? But, he certainly didn't have the balls to do it - and that's where Bush & Obama stand. 100% of the far right still love & support Bush.. but he's got nothing to show for it except for a couple of flying shoes. If you only pander to your far base.. you have thier love & admiration, but you actually don't have any political clout to do anything for them. Do they hate abortion? Yup. Is it still legal? Yup. Obama can put 100 GLBT people up at his inaguration, and run things the same way that bush has, only to the far left. And he'll have the same results.. the GLBT community will LOVE him, but they will still have no right to marry, no right to make decisions for their spouses in hospitals etc.

Obama is looking at this in bigger picture format IMO. In order to advance any GLBT agenda, he's going to need the opposition to not be so opposed. And, he's also going to need many of those same people to support other issues he wants to push that affect everyone - NOT just the GBLT community - things like healthcare, energy, etc.

Do you want Obama to act like he likes the GLBT community, or just get things done that will actually help them out? If Warren is allowed to talk, but ultimately it's one of the tactics that allows gay marriage to spread to additional states, wouldn't ends justify the means? THAT is my point.

OOOOK, that says more about your beliefs and where you stand than anything about where Obama is coming from. Far left eh? I suppose that back in the days of the Civil Rights marches you probably would have thought that MLK and Malcolm X were far left too:eyes:

I said: "Obama can put 100 GLBT people up at his inaguration, and run things the same way that bush has, only to the far left."

I never said a word about GLBT BEING the far left. I said that he can only put up gay people and he can only cater to the far left, and it will get him the same results as Bush.

I find it hysterical that the only line out of that entire post that you pulled was that one. Nothing else to refute, eh? Just drawing imaginary lines between my words to make it a bit more devicive?

It's OK to toss them under the bus if it furthers something else along.

Read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x100204

He has other options. Why wouldn't he excercise those?

because Warren is the most popular pastor in the country, and is loved by many (not all) on the far right. He's not doing it because of Warren's stance on the issues.. he's doing it IN SPITE OF his stance on the issues. He's trying to get support from those who completely oppose him.

Getting a Pastor like the one in your link won't get the same reaction. THIS REACTION is what is causing the republicans to scratch their head.. and possibly become more agreeable down the raod.

I know we disagree on this - it's just my opinion that Obama is taking 1/2 step back in order to gather many more people to help him take 10 steps forward into the future.

"You can say no now - but you'd probably tune in and be a bit curious. You may also have softened your hatred for the guy" - RoadRage

So this is about getting better ratings on the backs of gays and our fight for civil rights?

It's called pandering.


And it's disgusting no matter who does it.

line in my post that you read, then you're only seeing trees.. and not the whole forrest.

My point was if it gets some right wing fundies to tune in and actually listen to Obama - they may be less opposed to him down the road when he's actually trying to do things. That's always helpful.

He could be JUST like Bush.. pander to only the far left base.. tell the GLBT community that he loves them.. push legislation now that will immidiately be shot down, but hey "he tried".. and so he's still loved by this group, but in the end he has nothing to show for it.

That's exactly what Bush did. The far right LOVES him.. and they hate abortion, but guess what, it's still legal. They like the guy 'cause he said all of the right things - but in the end, he's not been able to do much to actually move their religious political agenda.

Obama's trying this from a different spot.. start in the center.. get a majority to agree with you and your viewpoint - and then push through your agenda. It's the smarter way to go.

Like I said (if you had read my entire post) - if he actually starts pushing for a constitutional ban on marriage.. then hate the guy and i'll be standing next to you. But, give him a moment to actually get into office.. and try to push through what he said he'd try to push through before you throw him under the bus.

Over half the population is female. A decent percentage is GLBT, and an MUCH bigger group ate GLBT-friendly.

WHY would you say "SCREW YOU!" so loudly and so definitively?

He will have others that are GLBT friendly at the inaguration as well - are all of their voices mute? Why are you giving credit to the only one you dispise?

This isn't about allowing Warren to talk to show that Obama wants to piss off the GLBT community. He's trying to say to the far right, "I hear you".. even if I don't agree with you. He's on record many times for saying that he doesn't agree with Warrens views on abortion or GLBT issues.

I'm VERY VERY PRO CHOICE. I HATE WARREN. I've stated that.. this guy is a pathetic horrible loser - but many on the far right like him, and having them give Obama a shot when he tries to push something through is going to be benificial.

My in-laws love the guy, and they were happily shocked when Obama announced Warren. You may think "well screw your in-laws". I see it as an opportuinty for Obama to get them to listen to his ideas when they never would have before. When he said he was going to reach across the aisle - they didn't believe him.. Bush said the same thing.. then ran as far right as possible. No one in recent history HAS actually said they'd reach across the aisle, and then done it.

Allowing Warren to talk doesn't imply Obama is allowing him to influence decisions. If it softens the hatred from the right to help push through the agenda on the left - that's brilliant politics in my mind.

Oh.. And I HATE RICK WARREN.

I'm not gay - so I understand that this is probably very very personal to those who are. I personally see it as brilliant politics, but i will conceed that if I was GLBT perhaps I would see this differently.

We agree to disagree on this - and no matter what, I hope Obama does do what I think he will, which is make life better in the long run for the GLBT community.

being nice on these boards is getting more difficult.

A couple of the cabinet are shaky choices in my view, but I can see his reasoning and willing to give him a benefit of the doubt, but having this bigot at the inaugural is just plain wrong and stupid. I hope the PE will see the outrage and revoke the invitation.

To those on the left, they're not going to say "Oh, OK.. well now I like him again". The damage is done. The those on the right who we might actually get a positive gain out of from this.. that would just tick them off more and push them further away.

At this point, let it happen. It will be forgotten about once he does things POLICY wise that actually help the GLBT community.

They are both against it.

But Obama is for Civil Unions, which most Christian Conservatives are totally against as well. I realize that Civil Unions are not as good - but it's better then where we're at now. And, it's also the platform that Obama ran on when he was campaigning.. it's not as though he's changed his stance on it since he became elected.