Obama picked Warren. It was a good move.

I have spent quite a bit of time on DU over the years, moderating, reading and posting when I had something to say - right now I have something to say.

Does everyone remember how they felt election night when it was announced Obama won? Watching KO's year end special last night, I couldn't help but relive the joy and triumph I had felt - tears welled up all over again.

Ever since Obama announced Rick Warren would be speaking at the inaguration, I have been unable to spend much time on DU, this forum in particular. I understand the hurt feelings by the selection; I understand the need for equal rights for gays in this country. What I don't understand is why Obama has been attacked so ruthlessly by so many here when we worked so hard and endured so much to put him in office. What purpose does it solve other than to vent emotions over a cultural/religious controversy that can't be easily solved? We all need to remember we didn't elect Obama as President for Democrats but as President for ALL Americans, even if we don't agree with a percentage of them. The only way Obama will be successful in office is if he is inclusive of each and every citizen.

I will probably be accused of being anti-gay by writing this post but that couldn't be any further from the truth. I simply know how the average American thinks - how the cultural make-up of this country has condemned homosexuality and that overcoming this won't be easy. Browbeating people into accepting gays as equals; demanding they see the issue as civil rights instead of religious will not work.

So what has happened now since Warren's selection by Obama? Warren has been forced to defend himself and state that he "loves gays and straights". He has also removed the "no gays allowed" language from his church website. He has been forced to move away from a position he has held, closer towards acceptance. His followers are watching; they may start to think and talk about it. They may actually start to accept gay rights once they realize gays aren't scary boogeymen. It's a step - a baby step, but a step nonetheless.

Obama had to have known choosing Warren would stir up a hornets nest. However he also has the bigger picture in mind and if good comes from Warren speaking, if it moves people closer towards accepting that gays deserve equal rights, then what harm was done?

I think it was a good move.

:popcorn:

and pass me that :popcorn:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Look in the mirror.

And the opinion is pretty damned stupid. It's homophobic and bigoted, too.

I have worked tirelessly through the years, developing new treatments and possible cures for HIV/AIDs; I have lost many beautiful souls along the way who were gay; who were very dear to me.

I have watched how these people were treated, how they were unable to discuss their sexuality openly to family, friends and professionals for fear of being judged.

I don't know the answer to acceptance, but putting Warren and his intolerance in the spotlight, further discussion is a good thing. It does not mean Obama is giving him his seal of approval.

You don't point and laugh at someone by giving them the Best Pastoral Gig in Town. It's "good people" who get to sit with the President on Inaugural Day, not jerks. The assembled multitude are there to give the people watching an idea of the direction the administration will take. Unless Obama puts Warren on the platform with a dunce cap and his ass hanging out, he's HONORING the guy.

Your argument makes no sense. And it doesn't matter how many people with HIV you know--you apparently didn't listen to them very closely, or they didn't feel free to discuss their feelings about this matter with you.

This is a body blow to the gay community. It's not a good thing, in any way, shape or form.

Such a statement indicates your emotions are clouding your ability to think, which I completely understand. Just please don't assume you know about the relationships I've had with gays.

I SAID (I am raising my voice because you have comprehension trouble) that Obama isn't inviting WARREN to POINT AND LAUGH at HIM (because he's mean to gays, capisce?).

He is inviting Warren to HONOR him.

Follow along. Go back, now, and read, carefully.

I'm being pragmatic here--you're the one with the emotional issues. Your "love" for the President Elect makes you unable to see that he really shit the bed badly on this matter. You want everyone to pretend it isn't what it is, an affirmation of previous statements he's made on this subject, and to dance happily and gladly at his Inaugural and pretend that it is a new day and a new way, instead of the same old political shit, different day.

You can't Happy-Glad this business away. People are pissed, and they should be. I am not surprised, though. Obama is just doing what he said he'd do. It doesn't make it right, though.

from day one.

:thumbsdown:

You cleverly avoid the no-win subject of "Pastor Rick" and make it all about ME. How very lame.

I am not a "relentless Obama basher from day one."

I acknowledge both his good points and the points where he fails to meet the standard. His cabinet picks were pretty good. This Warren business is one where he fails to meet the standard.

But then, Relentless Obama-basher, to you, = Non-Kool Aid Drinker, apparently.

:thumbsdown: yourself.

since you have been a relentless Obama-basher from day one.

The pieces of this sad and so very stupid puzzle are all starting to come together quite nicely...

A sad and stupid puzzle, indeed. But I'm not the one with the sad and stupid problem here.

Yet another unquestioning lockstepper, convicting people without proof, evidence, or justification. Shoot first, ask questions later. It's pretty fucking outrageous. I always believed my fellow Democrats were more intelligent than that--but apparently, I'm either mistaken, or there are always a few sick examples that disprove the paradigm.

...when you were running around this site calling everybody and their grandmother a homophobe and a bigot? And now you get all upset that somebody is calling YOUR ass out now??! Classic and damn typical...

Go tell it to someone who gives a sh*t.

It is against DU rules to flat out slander people.

Show me where I called "everybody and their grandmother" here a homophobe and a bigot. Go on--show me.

Otherwise, ask the moderators to delete your false and slanderous post.

And I saw no homophobia or bigotry in it, but don't let anything get in the way of your opinion.

All I said, in response to your insistence that a poster was calling a person--a person, mind you--stupid, is that my "read" of the post was that the poster was calling the OPINION stupid.

NOT THE PERSON (that's yelling, and it's for emphasis, so you HEAR what I am saying).

And so long as I'm at it....that I agree that the OPINION is a stupid and bigoted one.

Tolerating intolerant people IS bigotry. Enabling homophobes IS homophobia.

If you have the Klan over for Xmas dinner, I'm gonna have the idea that you aren't liking black people....capisce?

when tolerance becomes bigotry.

"Tolerating intolerant people IS bigotry. Enabling homophobes IS homophobia."

Especially ironic since "intolerance" is one of the parts of the definition of bigotry. Yet I think your definitions there might be widely held with the jihadists. You are either with us or you're an a$$hole.

Please. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. "Tolerance" of HATE is acquiescence. Silence implies consent.

You hang out with haters, and people start to think you're birds of a feather. By one's friends we shall know them, and all...

I do have to agree with the commentary in this link--I am NOT surprised at what's happened. I saw it coming a mile down the road:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/24/obama_and_peeved_progressives/

It's still a crying shame, though.

comparing Rick Warren to the Klan. Well, I am not sure what he does in secret, but in public he gives speeches and writes books. What does the Klan do? I just saw parts of "A Time to Kill" recently, and in that movie, the Klan members 1) started a guy on fire, 2) shot a state trooper, 3) kidnapped a woman and left her in the woods to die, tied to a stake, and 4) tried to blow up and eventually burned down a house. Not to mention the two rapists who were presumably Klan members in spirit.

I am not saying that people like that should be tolerated, although the argument changes somewhat if we talk about Hamas or the PLO or the war criminal Sharon. (or does it?) Presumably they need to be tolerated since the alternative is escalating things into a war to extermination or feeding a cycle of perpetual violence.

Rick Warren does not seem that similar to the Klan to me. He perhaps made a bad analogy, comparing GLBT to those evil pedophiles (although the tape that is always shown is edited, he says "Yes ..." and goes on). Apparently that is a worse crime than, say, comparing Warren to the KKK.

And agreeing with Jeff Jacoby? Ouch. But I agree it was very predictable. It just seemed like the M$M only gave us three alternatives - McCain, Clinton, or Obama and he was the lesser of three evils.

He's not an inocuous speechwriter who writes books. Suggesting that is a bit coy of you. He's got some whacked-out religious views that are based in hatred of people for their biology.

The Klan doesn't run around killing people anymore, you know. They haven't for YEARS. Nowadays, they give speeches and some of them write books...sound familiar?

They wear sheets and PREACH HATRED.

Pssst--"A Time To Kill" was a NOVEL by a prolific attorney-author named John Grisham. The film adaptation was FICTION.

Rick Warren is REAL WORLD, dear. He's a real guy, preaching real hate right here in America....and being embraced by the President Elect.

I had no idea that was fiction.

Presumably fiction is based on the kind of things that have happened or could happen. A bit harder for me to go searching for real examples, no? Particularly for the purpose of conversing with somebody with little respect for me, dear.

If the Klan is only giving speeches, then they may not be so bad either. It depends on the speeches. However, I seem to remember a bunch of black churches being hit by arson back in the 1990s, so it's possible that somebody of that type is doing more than making speeches, and not all that long ago.

Warren may not preach any more hate than the average DUer. I had to watch him on TV last night, although I really wanted to see "It's a Wonderful Life". I think I saw most of Warren's Christmas special, although I jumped to JS on commercials. I did not hear any hate. In fact, he said that God loves everybody, and that we Christians are supposed to love everybody, that Jesus said to love your enemies.

I have almost 19,000 posts on DU. Would it be fair to take the 10 worst and edit them down to their worst lines and then say that I preach hate? How much of his time does he spend 'preaching hate'? This is especially problematic when "We should not change the definition of marriage" is considered to be hatred with the intensity of 1,000 white hot suns, whereas "Rick Warren is an a$$hole, fat, POS bigot scumbag" is just speaking truth to power or justified in some other way.

I think everybody probably has some hate in them, and nobody is perfect in everything they say or do. I think you have to go pretty far in word or deed to earn the Bigot label or the Hate-monger label. I don't see that Warren has done that any more than I thought Jeremiah Wright had done that.

Before boarding his plane, later on September 30, Chamberlain has another meeting with Hitler in which he asks him to sign a joint declaration. This is the document which Chamberlain waves in the air for the cameras on his return to Britain, stating that he has brought back from Germany 'peace for our time... peace with honour'.

The text above Hitler's signature, on which Chamberlain bases his optimism, declares a determination to remove possible sources of difference between countries 'and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe'. Chamberlain's hope is that the sacrifice of the Sudetenland has preserved not only peace but the rest of Czechoslovakia.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=1175&HistoryID=ab07

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought that by reaching out to Hitler, by welcoming him into the tent of civilized nations, that Hitler's ambitions could be limited and peace could be kept. This rose colored glasses trust in the promises made by bigoted tyrant became known as appeasement.

One could argue that Obama is appeasing the bigots that comprise the Rick Warrens and James Dobsons of this world, but like Hitler, they won't change or be moved by Obama's gesture. All Obama has accomplished is to give moral equivalency to their bigotry while offending his progressive allies.

although I would argue with this sentence ,(from a way I believe the terms could be interpreted at least) "Silence Implies consent"(especially if it's argued to imply consent "moreso" than certain alternate hypotheses, i.e. ). One could argue that, the process of implication contains a causal relationship. Hence for one thing to imply another thing, there must be a causal sequence between the two things. It would need to be shown here that there is a logical chain of connection between the silence and the consent. Applying the statement to its logical extreme that , one could say that unless we are not silent about everything (even those things to which we are ignorant of) it can be "implied" to be consent of those things.

You've got to know what's going on, and not speak up. That's the general construct. You can't be blamed for not objecting to something you've no clue about.

When someone tells the racist joke at the office party, and you don't say "Don't talk like that--it's offensive" you're going along, and getting along. You're implying consent.

Not speaking up about this Warren business? Same deal.

Sure, it might not make any difference, but if enough people gripe, it might chip away at what is starting to look like a laissez-fair attitude towards the issue of equal/human rights.

the would need to be taken into consideration, and again I think there are just certain aphorisms that can lend themselves to those question based upon the way in which they are written. Although in the modification that you introduce here that could raise additional questions
For instance what is the person consenting to? What question is being asked, or position being put forth? For example what if the question is “I’m in favor of this bill, if you are in favor of this Bill say “I”. In that case could silence be seen as not consenting to the bill being passed; or perhaps as agnostic to the question at that point in time? (one could ask the question again from the “Nay” perspective, but if the question is left as is then that can be a different issue). Another example is in cases of sexual intercourse; a guy says “I want to have sex” and you do not refuse, is that consent?

The case you mentioned of the party, hypothetically what if the person who used that joke was his/her/their supervisor? Does silence imply consent of what he/she is saying or a fear of reprisal if the boss is publicly opposed. Can the person who makes that joke(if he is designated as doing the implying)be informed as to the degree to which a person at the party is informed about his statement (was the person paying attention, were they inebriated etc.)? Underlying even all of these questions is the question of what “implies” or “informed” mean and who or what is doing which. i.e. is implied taken in it’s “logical consequence” definition.

All that being said, maybe a way to frame it would be that not speaking up, may subject you to greater risk of having motive assigned to you anyway among various people.

The selection is completely consistent with Obama's views. It makes Warren look like the hypocrite he is - puts a spotlight on him.

"Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders

But does the average American? Does choosing Warren and putting him in the spotlight help those who aren't as knowledgeable as us understand they hypocrisy and the intolerance? Yes.

inaugural, giving the kickoff speech to plead for the blessing of the INVISIBLE FRIEND upon the assembled personages....

Please.

There's NO PONY in that pile of shit.

The Warren selection was a SIGNAL to the evangelicals--Don't be worrying about DOMA under my watch!

Then isn't Rev. Joseph Lowery being honoured as well? And Aretha Franklin? Yo-Yo Ma, Gabriela Montero, Itzhak Perlman, Anthony McGill and Elizabeth Alexander? You cannot claim that one man is being honoured over all these other people.

And, of course, the person being given the highest honour - Barack Obama, who is going to be sworn in as President of the United States. That is what people are going to DC to witness - not some dumbfuck making a routine request for blessing from an "invisible friend".

Any one of us would be honored were we invited by Obama to be part of his inaugural. The difference is that I don't think Yo Yo Ma, Aretha Franklin or Itzhak Perlman are ardent homophobes who got out there and told all of their fans in CA to vote yes on Prop 8. I don't think any of them have equated gays with pedophiles. I don't think any of them have called the gay lifestyle "evil."

Rick Warren has. THAT's the difference.

I do not disagree on that. But the implication lately seems to be that the entire inauguration is now The Rick Warren Show. One poster on another thread even said the invocation is the highest honour in the inauguration, and that simply is not true. His being there is a vile thing, I'm hoping every day that Obama rescinds the invitation.

The things that's irking me is that people seem to think Warren is being honoured OVER everyone else. And it my personal opinion that this view is wrong.

it's a matter of him being honored to begin with.

Hundreds of thousands of priests/ministers/rabbis etc to pick from in the country and Obama picks "that one?"

Why?

I think it was intended as a shrewd political move that has backfired in such a way that they didn't anticipate. Someone offered the suggestion of election-fatigue - that after making all the right moves during the GE, then moving straight into the transition full-force, he didn't really think things through as thoroughly as he should have.

He really should have waited until after the vacation to make the decision. Maybe after a week or so of relaxation, he might have thought better. Then again, maybe not. :shrug:

I vote for POLITICAL MOVE.

Shrewd? Hard to say.

Where is the far left going to go? Where are the gays going to go?

To the GOP? Of course not, unless the GOP does a one eighty on social issues.

Lefties, gays, women....they're stuck. They're expendable. They helped him succeed, they brought him to the prom, and now he's dancing with Rick Warren and those other fellows on the right side of the high school gym.

It IS a shitty thing for Obama to do, but the odds are good that he won't suffer any irrevocable consequences from it--he'll get away with not only inviting Pastor Rick to "invoke" for him, but having him over to the White House regularly, if he likes.

I mean....really--what Democrat will challenge him for the Democratic nomination in four years' time? Howard Dean? I don't think so--Howard's organization is being dismantled, his loyal people scattered and disbursed to state party entities, and the key factions of the DNC that were once his domain are being moved from DC to ..... CHICAGO.

I can't think of a soul who has sufficient cachet, youth or money to do it.

Ted Kennedy screwed Jimmy Carter when Carter ran for reelection, but I rather doubt there will be a 21st Century Ted in four years, unless Obama really steps on his crank.

it allows him to move more toward the center, drawing on new political support, while those on the far left (who are generally marginalized by the mainstream media) may begin to abandon him. It may end up giving him a lot of power, but what he does with that power could still be affected by people making their positions known. Barney Frank's voice was a start. That's why I'm not going to sit idly by while the church organ begins to play on the sinking Titanic.

He's being honored WITH these other people. And none of those other people used religion to justify their hatred, or used their fame to spread the hatred, either.

However, if you want to get technical about the two religious events in the program, the Invocation, of the two, is The Big Deal. The Benediction is a great role, it beats a kick in the teeth, but it's second string. If you are in the religion racket, and you are offered a choice between the two, you take the Invocation--it's the better gig, the more IMPORTANT gig. All eyes are on you, the anticipation is HUGE, and people are paying RAPT attention to every word that comes out of your mouth. Why? Because they're on tenterhooks, waiting for The Big Speech by The NEW Guy.

The Benediction is pretty much a "So long, thanks for coming Jesus, and Whoopee, Here's a Blessing for all you fools." And there's no sense of anticipation, because Obama will have already given his speech.

See, after Obama's speech, no one is going to pay as much attention to the clown who hands out the Invisible Friend's blessing and sends him on his way. They're going to be saying "Gee, wasn't that a great speech?" Or, less likely, "Wow, did that suck..." and "Didn't Bush look happy/sick/drunk?" and "Didn't you just LOVE/HATE Laura's/Michelle's hat/dress/coat?" They aren't going to give a shit what the "wrap up" crew does at the end.

The point is, Barack Obama isn't putting Rick Warren up on stage to wag a finger at him. And anyone trying to suggest that is digging for a pony in a pile of manure. He's putting him up on stage to make the gay-hating, dinosaur loving, evangelical crowd feel good about....Barack Obama. And that's just fact. And unfortunate.

many would be complaining that Obama put Warren in that spot "to be the last image of the inaugural that everyone remembers...to have an inclusive inaugural end on a few words delivered by a bigot."

This is a no win for Obama. He should dis-invite Warren and find another solution. This thing is starting to remind me of Reagan/Wiesel/Bitberg.

every so often--that would have been a sufficient dogwhistle to the gay haters, and it wouldn't have pissed off his progressive followers. Giving him a good seat on the platform would have been more than enough.

He really shouldn't have given Warren any speaking role, if he wanted to keep his "activist base" happy. But I think he's looking to expand his base, and he's starting early--he wants to co-opt those evangelicals, and he's gonna use "Pastor Rick" to do it, I think.

If he really wanted to send a "progressive" message, he wouldn't have selected that guy. Why not give the spot to some preacher who takes care of horribly sick, disgustingly filthy, pustule laden, drunken, drug-addled, beyond-hope homeless people? Or someone who runs a hospice for people dying agonizing deaths? Someone who really walks the walk....?

Why this Purpose Driven assclown who is a Commodity, a Business, who is "Rick Warren, INCORPORATED?" It's offensive. But it's part of a larger agenda, I think. It's a "base-expanding" move, IMO.

I also think there's a bit of Quid Pro Quo happening. Pastor Rick was very GENTLE with Obama at that stupid Faith Forum. This is his payback. I would not be surprised if Pastor Rick comes to be regarded as a "religious advisor" of sorts, a Presidential Pastor, a Billy Graham with a goatee and Hawaiian shirt, and this is his debut, the first stage of his "Rebranding."

What's in it for Pastor Rick? More renown, an opportunity to sell more of his books, tapes, and religious bullshit. What's in it for Obama? An "in" with those Fred and Barney and Dino gayhating fundies.

The Reagan-Bitburg business is an apt comparison, BTW. It does smell like that, doesn't it?

But I have seen some posts with people claiming that the invocation is "the most important part" of the inauguration. But it is important to distinguish that he is not the only one being honored; it does a great disservice to them, especially since they are much better people than he is.

Your argument about the Benediction can be made about the Invocation as well, though. People came to see Obama, and when Warren gets on stage, many will be thinking "hurry it up, asshole, I didn't come to see you!"

In truth, the parts that will be most remembered are Obama's speech, the swearing in, and the musical acts (as a sidenote, look up some YouTube clips of the acts I mentioned. Gabriela Montero is phenominal, and Yo-Yo Ma is... well, Yo-Yo Ma). Unless Warren does something truly outrageous, many will not remember him. So while nobody will give a shit about the end, just as many people will not give a shit about the beginning; the meat, as it were, is in the middle.

Yes, putting Rick Warren on stage is a boneheaded move, but I think it's intent was political, as I stated before. We've all heard the arguments that this about unity, so I won't reiterate them, but what I've learned reading about Barack Obama, and listening to him speak over these past 18 months, is that he honestly BELIEVES in the idea that you can work with everyone, no matter how much you disagree with them on certain issues. I think he believes that this move might help his administration pass certain pieces of legislation in the long run. Whatever benefits the move may or may not gain, though, will not make up for the sense of betrayal many have felt over the pick. He's going to have to make some serious moves on behalf of equal rights in order to gain any kind of trust back.

Personally, and this may be naive of me, but I think he will make that effort.

him....if he'd been Pastor Joe Blow, maybe not--the "hurry up" scenario would surely be the case. But this little firestorm has ensured that "Pastor Rick's" words will be weighed and discussed. He's going to have to be astoundingly inocuous to melt into the background!

Obama is going to do what Obama is going to do. People on the left who are mad at him are screwed, in essence. There's no where to go, save the Greens. And one might as well stay home in that case.

I don't see anything wrong with working with Mitch McConnell on a piece of legislation, or even giving the GOP seats at the table in crafting a health care plan. I like that kind of "working across the aisle" and "reaching out." I wish Bush had done more of that shit--maybe we wouldn't have gotten mired in war if he had.

However, I draw the line at "reaching out" to people who have used hate speech in the name of God. Then again, my opinion doesn't matter on this and my opinion isn't Obama's opinion either. He thinks marriage is a sanctified union between a man and a woman. So he's not feeling the agita of our gay brothers and sisters, as it were. He doesn't see Warren as a hater....he sees him as a guy with a religious conviction. He also sees him as a guy who just might help him grow his base.

Oh well. There's not much to do about it. Congress isn't going to pass any bold laws, especially when the President Elect has pretty much told them they don't HAVE to do it. And when Congress goes back to their states and districts and are asked about this issue, the ones who say they're for equal rights can say "Well, there's no sense pushing for gay marriage--the President has said he doesn't agree with the concept." It's a cheap cop out, but I'm guessing at least one legislator will use it.

How on earth can you honestly think he is not being honored?

And as a sidenote, I can't imagine what kind of honour it is for him, after everything he went through in the fifties and sixties alongside MLK.

The reason I said it, though, is that there are a few who have said Lowery is nothing more than a token choice, and that his giving the benediction "doesn't matter". And that is completely and almost offensively untrue.

We shall see about that, won't we.

very EAGER to do that in the biggest spotlight we can get.

Relationships will be broken and formed and out of those relationships will come what happens next.

This REALLY is about us.

calling out Palin about it...

other than her ineptness...
that was the scariest thing about her to me.

I think it was a mistake and an unneccessary one.

I posted this above - Obama has put Warren and what he represents in the spotlight. It's a good thing.

When the dust clears, I think Obama wins and Warren loses. Obama can point to his inclusion. He can weather the attacks from his base, because ultimately they will rise or fall with his governing, not symbolic actions such as this invitation. Whether Obama is good for gay rights has nothing to do with this and remains to be seen.

OTH, Warren is in a position where he must praise Obama, lest he be seen as an ingrate. He has been scrutinized and his dominionism, misogyny, and homophobia, not to mention his medieval thinking, have been exposed and scrutinized and attacked like never before. He has been put on the defensive with the mainstream, and has been compromised with his base. Meanwhile Obama has not had to say anything. This just burnishes his image of cool.

Also, this has served to galvanize and focus the GLBT movement. Obama has created an arena for the battle against the dark forces. I applaud every protest.

The inauguration is to honor President Obama. All the players, including Warren, are there to honor him. Warren's invitation recognizes him as a representative of his ilk. But it is a subordinate role. I don't think we should accord him more importance than what it is. I don't see this as any more honor than being the clown at the birthday party.

--IMM

out there right now: The Black Community.

means he's moving away from his positions. It sounds more like covering his tracks.

And let's not forget his attitudes toward women and people of other faiths - any evidence that he's changed those opinions?

that we want people's minds and hearts to change on these issues. And it would be very, very powerful IF Warren's mind and heart DO change.

He could just be covering his tracks. You're right. But it could be something wonderful happening, too. (No, I'm not naive. I simply know that wonderful things can and do happen on occasion in this life.) If he's covering his tracks, there will be even MORE scorn for him and activism against him and his church. We'll see which walk he walks.

check out this thread about his recently released video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4707422

So everyone will know this so-called man of god is a huge hypocrite. Not just those of us here, who investigate, but ordinary people.

I'm glad you're not moderating here anymore, you're so condescending to gays about how to run our civil rights movement. It's pretty scary that you ever were a moderator, but at least you aren't anymore.

If he's exposed as being the intolerant SOB he seems to be, then that's good, too. Seems like at least half the folks who bought his book have no idea what he's about.

So, if he doesn't change his spots he is exposed for the ugly bigot he is. But I will watch the vid. Thanks again. Gotta find a wireless keyboard for one of my sons.

This was confirmed by someone with the church, and has been linked in multiple Warren threads. It'll go back up with the same message, but worded less inflammatory.

something good that happens because of this. It's too soon to tell but it's a possibility. I can think 2 or more things at the same time and frequently do.

minds in either direction. I just don't get that argument. Obama hasn't done anybody but Rick Warren a favor.

Getting him to move a half-inch from the wrong end doesn't put him on the right end. In fact, it provides a further signal that civil rights are a negotiable item. I'm not convinced that it has moved anyone from the wrong end of history. I'm concerned that it's moved us.

What you are saying is interesting, but I don't buy it... yet.

I see criticism and there has been a lot of discussion. I think there is a lot of talking past each other at times.

I think we are moving to a point finally where we can criticize a decision without being called "attackers".

since the threads get created hand over fist.

Yesterday, there was a poster claiming that Obama took his Hawaiian vacation to "hide" from the Warren controversy.

The other day, another poster clearly stated that they were voting Green or for any other Democrat in 2012. That same poster started up a different thread asking if people shouldn't have voted for Hillary in the primaries instead.

Several posters have said "We tried to warn you" and "I never liked Obama" and "I no longer respect Obama" or "Obama has destroyed my trust and I don't think he'll get it back."

These statements go above and beyond the level of criticism of the Warren pick. If you want me to PM the names so you can find these posts yourself, let me know.

Some people say stuff in the heat of the moment that I don't agree with. I don't think those are representative of all the posters criticizing the Warren pick, but it is tough to accentuate the positive in crisis it is true.

There's no way Warren would have been chosen had his remarks on gays and incest been public beforehand.

I think, at some point, Obama and his team brainstormed all the possible outcomes. And this had to be among them. Think about it. Could nobody have said, "This will lead to a firestorm from the LGBT community."

--IMM

Cuz if you are, that means they included in their strategy a way to tamp down the firestorm (unless you buy into the theory that Obama just doesn't care about the GLBT community).

For example, we may see quick moves to get rid of DADT once Rick Warren has served whatever purpose Obama has for him.

It's Warren who has to compromise. He has already backtracked somewhat.

I agree that Obama has to make some moves. But he has already inferred he would, though not which, with his "fierce advocate" statement. Ending DADT sounds like a good possibility.

--IMM

I think he and his advisors were caught off guard by the reaction. I seriously doubt it was as calculated as you suggest. It makes more sense that it is part of the effort to make a show of "reaching out".

I also think that they stepped in it big-time. Outrageous choice. Dangerous choice per the multiple messages sent and how they will be received - the religiously insane will see a nod approving of their bigotry, the republican right will view it - esp in light of the backlash and the lack of willingness per Obama that this selection won't be hanged - as a sign that the appeasing *them* is more important than serving the progressives in his own party - and will be more likely push the hardest line hardball at the very moment when their electoral losses (presidential and congressional) should make them weaker. And a callous choice in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8.

I still look to Obama's presidency with hope. But I am not going to impugn upon him the type of almost omniscient powers of strategy playing that folks used to impugn upon Rove, nor am I going to try to put lipstick on this particular pig/decision.

Because the country has "condemned homosexuality" (that's not quite true, there) then Obama needs to be "inclusive" of all citizens --and suck up to these bigots?

That's what I'm getting from you.

You won't be accused of being anti-gay. If that's how you feel, you ARE anti-gay.

You're CONDONING bigotry as a means to an end when you say "It was a good move." Sure, it was a good move--for someone who believes that gays don't deserve equal rights.

There are times when it's right to stand on principle. Winston Churchill understood that. Neville Chamberlain did not.

You're smoking crack if you think Warren modified his website or issued his little statement because he's getting more tolerant of gays, or that he was "pushed" in some fashion to so do. He did that because he's ANGLING FOR THE PASTOR TO THE PRESIDENT job. Not because his "heart" is changing. He's got to appear like he's coming from the mushy middle if he wants to be swinging by the White House, increasing his fame and renown, and getting his big fat picture taken regularly.

Sheesh. Billy Graham, the incumbent "Pastor to Presidents," is too old, and his son is a sick fucker who doesn't have the appropriate personality for the task. "Pastor Rick" has a goatee, wears Hawaiian shirts, and has a chubby blonde wife with a stylish haircut. He's the Pastor for the Gen X Club. He looks kinda "cool," and he looks non-threatening. And he doesn't look a thing like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, either.

Obama's selection of Warren was a dogwhistle, just like using McClurkin and Caldwell was a dogwhistle. Just like citing religious reasons for objecting to gay marriage was a dogwhistle.

How many times does Obama have to "signal" that he's not in favor of equal human rights for gays AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL before you start to believe him?

Thanks for considering my point of view (not). If you really believe Obama isn't in favor of equal human rights for gays, then I feel sorry for you.

IF I WERE YELLLING AT YOU MY ENTIRE POST FROM START TO FINISH WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS.

The use of caps for a SINGLE word provides emphasis for that word. It's not a YELL.

I did consider your point of view. I considered it, and I found it not just wanting, but horrifically misguided. Naive. Further, your logic is tortured and pathetic.

You simply are unable to acknowledge that Obama meant what he said when he said "I believe marriage is a sanctified union between a man and a woman."

I believe that Obama is not in favor of the equal, human right of marriage for gays. Why? Because he has SAID SO. (Now, that's not yelling, dear--that is emphasis). If he says the sky is blue, or the grass green, do we doubt him? Why, in tortured fashion, do you try to tell me that he's not a bigot on this issue, when he has plainly stated that he opposes equal marriage rights for gays?

Don't feel sorry for me--save your sorrow for our gay brothers and sisters upon whom Obama and his pal Rick Warren visit their bigotry.

I urge you to study this topic further. Your eyes need opening.

I was slowly recovering from that, hoping that it'll get overturned, and feeling good about Obama becoming president so we can at least not be an international embarrassment. And then he went and picked a right-wing anti-gay con man to give his invocation. It's election night all over again.

We are upset because Obama is selling us out before he even gets into office. With all the ministers or pastors or whatever the hell they call themselves out there, he has to pick of the absolute worst, someone who, regardless of what he's scrubbed from his website to avoid bad press, runs a brainwashing torture camp intended to cure people of "the gay."

I do not think that you are anti-gay for posting this. I simply think you're being a bit naive about Warren. He's not going to change. His entire con is based on his book of magic tricks being infallible. He won't make obscene piles of money by scamming people if he lets up on the hellfire and brimstone. Some people can change, yes, but people who derive great benefit from something are very unlikely to do so.

And finally, re: Obama knowing this was coming, I'm not so sure. There are two possibilities: either he's not as smart as he's made out to be, or he just doesn't care. I'm still not sure whether this was done for political expediency, primarily because if he did it knowing full well what was coming, he's also got to know that appointing Tammy Baldwin honorary co-chair of his inauguration wouldn't detract one iota from Warren's hate being honored, so why bother?

That says more about our immaturity and bigotry as a people and a nation than anything.

What a sad commentary it is that in this day and age the civil rights of our fellow Americans are held hostage to the pathetic and childish myths of religion, the Christian religion in particular.

Those of us who respect Obama's intelligence and believe in his promise to be inclusive - and who praised him for publicly coming out with his support against Prop 8 this past election - are rightfully disappointed in his pick of a hate-mongering knuckle-dragger to give this invocation.

THAT's why it hurts, and THAT's why we've so quickly forgotten "what we worked for" - because it seems that Obama has forgotten as well.

On edit: of course, there is an easy solution: give gays the same rights as every other American as guaranteed in the Constitution. How friggin' difficult is that? Last I looked, religious fantasies (ie: beliefs) aren't supposed to interfere with the Constitution.

Indeed I do.

I remember how the joy was poisoned by the passage of Prop 8 that very night (though the counting would go on for a few days more.)

I remember the sick chill that went through me that night.

I don't think the memory will ever leave me.

I wish I didn't have to relive it on Inauguration Day.

:(

disgusted & disappointed about Warren. And fucking angry.

Thank you. You said it better than I did.

It causes conversation - causes him to be held accountable for his statements.

and I usually laud Obama's decision making process, I'll be really surprised if he picked this guy to make him accountable for his statements. Just sayin'. :) I don't think he was picked to deliberately slap gays in the face either. I welcome the conversation.

Perhaps having Sarah Palin as VP would have put her shortcomings in the spotlight.

Then what?

..and speaks out for gay rights - then Warren will, in the eyes of his flock, cult or whatever we want to call them, have lend credence to that. He cannot disavow it in public afterwards without diminishing his own presence there.

Lowery has spoken strongly in favour of gay rights. And the the whole Warren debacle must make him at least think about doing so again.

Still not saying its a masterful move. But it might well serve to tone down the rhetoric and fervour among the religious groups that don't want to be seen as out of the mainstream - to use a Faux term (since thats their kind of thinking).

Not sure it will. But it very well could.

And yes, it does matter what Warren says in public and it does matter that they remove that sort of rhetoric from their website. It all serves to created a less heated atmosphere for the debates that will come on this. And in a less heated atmosphere logic and reason stands a better chance.

At least I hope that is what will come of it. Because otherwise it could well prove to be a boneheaded move of rather large proportions. I just don't see such coming from the Obama team.

I thought he was there to give the benediction, which is usually short and sweet.

I think you're being irrationally optimistic.

And I might well be.

the uproar about his stance has given him more status and power in the right wing, I fear. Time will tell if Obama is able to neutralize this power or even turn it around to support him. I think he will find the task difficult.

That argument is a fallacy. It's the same stance that people who say gay marriage is a slippery slope to dog-marriage.

In your analogy, you are talking about "gay marriage" and "dog marriage"--in other words, in generalities. I am speaking of a specific individual and how it appears he is using his new-found notoriety. I am not generalizing to anyone else. And who knows? Perhaps Warren will surprise us all and curtail his actions on his own.

You use the word IF in your final paragraph. "if good comes from Warren speaking". We dont have to use the word IF when discussing that many many gays feel used and abused by this decision. So, Obama has taken a "bad" given in the chance of a "good" IF.

This cannot be denied. I do not condone the part of him that believes what we have all been discussing here over the last days.

But this one statement I've made is one I think is overlooked. This is at the very root of inclusion and compromise. And I, of many, don't compromise. But I am trying to. I believe Warren has something worth hearing. I agree that he was, at least in part, a good choice. And I say that because of the huge number of fans his book has drawn.

Not to diminish his faults, but nobody is perfect. Nobody.

I have a bias toward his brilliant side. I guess it's time for me to spend time finding out about his not so brilliant side. Actually I've done that here. But evidently I still don't get it totally.

I put this guy on a pedastal for the writing he has done. I guess a three legged chair works pretty well under limited circumstances.

He's just as transparent as was Falwell. Just because the media seems to think he's smart doesn't make it so.

I'd like to know what you consider brilliant about this guy. He comes off as rather stupid to me, no more so than in the strawman arguments and leaps of illogic he displayed in the Ann Curry interview the other day. A 5th-grade debate student could have shot him down on those bromides with greater alacrity than did Curry.

I swear, his Purpose Driven Life book is one of the best takes on the bible that I've ever read.

But having seen posts on this forum, I am absolutely going to look this man over again. I haven't spent enough time doing that. I'd like to see a link to that video.

Thanks. I need to be upended once in a while. And even though it's threatening in some ways, I love being wrong. It gives me an opportunity to renewal.

....demanding they see the issue as civil rights instead of religious will not work."

Yeah, how dare them goddamn queers want civil rights. Can't they just be happy in their closets. Shit, I thought them people was interior decorators and shit. I mean god damn y'all!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

And so it continues.

The condescension in that line alone is what is so offensive to me.

It is not hurt feelings. It is pain. It is fear. It is dread.

You just do not get it. Maybe when you walk in fear a while, looking over your shoulder.

Maybe if you panic when you inadvertently refer to your significant other with an endearment while in public...

Until then, you do not understand the issue. At all.

It is called perspective. Look into it.

WHAT is OUR responsibility for achieving the goal of Civil Rights for ALL?

Are "we" always and only to REACT to what THEY do?

We NEED to LEAD by BEING the CHANGE WE NEED to see in the World.

Does anyone in this thread ever play Chess? What happens when you never do anything but REACT? What happens when your reaction is ALWAYS and only to get even, always and ONLY to deal pain for pain, instead of winning? Forget Chess, what would happen if that were the way that you functioned in REAL Combat?

It wasn't AUTHORITARIAN to disagree with **** and it won't be AUTHORITARIAN to disagree with President Obama.

We are leading in many ways - it would be helpful to comment on those actions. It would be even more helpful to support them and acknowledge them.

As far as policy and decision making the inaugural committee with PE Obama's approval should have seen in advance that inviting a hate speaker would be an inappropriate symbol for a new start and real change.

was what appears to be the expectation that Obama is the one who will fix everything by doing all things necessary to do so. That is an authoritarian assumption: Obama must _______________, otherwise we're fucked. Whereas I agree that Obama is an important FACTOR in what happens, we are at a particularly nascient stage in which it necessary for individuals to recognize their OWN authority/responsibility for what happens to them and be LESS dependent upon "authorities".

http://senseis.xmp.net/

Although one of the early lessons you learn is that sometimes you have to surrender to avoid further damage.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Ladder
http://senseis.xmp.net/?IfYouDontKnowLaddersDontPlayGo

Funny how we keep losing the game. We will see how all this strategic brilliance works out in congress this year.

and we see some of the old haters here in this thread once again pretending it's all about Warren and not their previously bruised feelings.

That said, I both wish Obama hadn't given Warren and his backwards views such a platform and I understand your strategic points. Clearly, Warren is a guy who imagines himself more enlightened than his predecessors in fundy land, and he has been put on the defensive by all of this. We'll learn later what the real outcome is. I, for one, think Obama has a major new debit to be paid to the GLBT community and I'm hoping he may just have been savvy enough to set it up that way.

That's also what this is about.

And I'm very disappointed with his pick of Warren.

:think:

I think your post was rather off the mark.

It's a mixed bag, at best. It's a dreadful insult to LGBT people and anyone who cares for the feelings of LGBT people.

On the plus side, Warren has had his church's web site scrubbed of anti-gay rhetoric.

It might increase Evangelical support for necessary Obama initiatives. Can we wait a while to decide how good a move it is?

Lovers In A Dangerous Time
by Bruce Cockburn


Don't the hours grow shorter as the days go by
You never get to stop and open your eyes
One day you're waiting for the sky to fall
The next you're dazzled by the beauty of it all
When you're lovers in a dangerous time
Lovers in a dangerous time

These fragile bodies of touch and taste
This vibrant skin -- this hair like lace
Spirits open to the thrust of grace
Never a breath you can afford to waste
When you're lovers in a dangerous time
Lovers in a dangerous time

When you're lovers in a dangerous time
Sometimes you're made to feel as if your love's a crime --
But nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight --
Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight
When you're lovers in a dangerous time
Lovers in a dangerous time
And we're lovers in a dangerous time
Lovers in a dangerous time

I will agree at the risk of being called a Gay bashing Homophobe Obama apologist for doing so....but since I have already been called all of those names, I guess it won’t much matter.

Is being mad and outraged at anyone who sees logic in what Obama is doing really going to help solve the real issue?....which should be the gaining of ground on Gay Rights...shouldn’t it?

or, is the real goal to show everyone else that the Gay Community and her allies are mad as hell and ain't gonna take it anymore? If so, that will only take folks so far.

At some point, the anger has to be transformed into tactics towards a solution, and should be articulated to those who want to support such efforts.

The truth is that unlike the 1960s, when Black people were fighting for their right to vote and against other inequalities, today, the courts no longer play the same role. The courts, these days, pass the buck to the citizenry, hence Proposition 8 was put to the ballot. It is, unfortunately, the majority that now gets to decide......which was demonstrated when California Gay citizens literally lost their right to marriage. Swaying enough persuadable people to cobble a majority could work in making strides, but cursing at them while needing their support ain't gonna sway them.

I agree completely - we need to change the minds of those people who don't feel passionately about this issue one way or the other. Those who don't give it a thought in their daily lives. The only way to do that is to put it front and center and get people talking - like having Warren speak at the inauguration next to Rev. Lowery.

on this issue when he openly supported the defeat of Prop 8.

First, no one asked Obama to "browbeat" people into accepting gays. But there is a pretty wide gap between browbeating people into acceptance and honoring an open homophobe and giving him a national platform and your tacit endorsement.

Second, Rick Warren may be removing language from his Web site, but that doesn't mean he's changed his views. It merely means that he's good at marketing. He will still oppose gays, he will just do it more covertly.

I don't think it's a sign that people on the right are going to move closer to accepting gay rights. In fact, the whole issue had made scores of DUers unmask as homophobes or at least tone deaf to the issue of equal rights.

As someone just posted on Americablog, if blacks hadn't fought tirelessly and uncompromisingly for their rights, Barack Obama would not have been able to vote for Barack Obama.

"Ab queck zenick fesi... hahahaah... Jup col im in na hiz jal, ooh."

:rofl:

or perhaps !!!!!

The LOL Jabba could be an entire new subgenre. (Or is it a LOL Hut?)

thats the part that is so wrong...he actually thinks that what he thinks is absolute...and is willing to lead a flock of those who would rather be told what to think and impose his beliefs on them..which he backs up by his interpretation of The Bible..which was written by a bunch of mortals anyway...not God..its just so backwards...and while I'm ok with others following him...he and they are definitely not leaders in thought and philosophy or any legitimate understand of the nature of the Divine and the universe...its wrong because he thinks hes so right..I've been around long enough to know that he will be handed some wtf challenges..life is like that..no one really escapes the lessons..and he's setting himself up for some interesting scenarios..

I'm all for bridge building, nudging, reaching out, etc.

But my simple question is why Obama did not choose someone who better represents those of us who supported him?

I'm not just talking about positions on gays, but the whole package. Warren is basically a right winger inside a genial exterior. Fine. I don;t hate the guy. Heck I kinda like him even though I disagree with him.

However at such a symbolic event -- and a celebration of a victory by the left half of the country -- it seems to me that rather than placating the right, Obama could have allowed us at least one day of pure cheering and celebration with like minded folks.

community.

But a one minute prayer on inaugural day is not going to take away anyone's rights, or hold up their eventual triumph or implementation by so much as a nano-second.

Much of this wasted anger and rage is largely a cover for not liking Obama, IMHO, since many of the posters I see engaging in it I've never noticed caring one whit about GLBT issues before - but I have noted them attacking the president-elect.

to take away anyone's rights.

He already accomplished that through his endorsement of Prop 8.

Obama is not being "ruthlessly attacked."

No one is accusing people of being "anti-gay," they are trying to demonstrate the practical political effect of some of the arguments people are using.

I particularly resent this falsehood - that people are "demanding they see the issue as civil rights instead of religious." I am one of the people arguing that this is a civil rights issue. I am not "demanding" anything. I say that it is a civil rights issue. I will continue to say that. Those of us who are saying that are not responsible for your discomfort hearing that.

No one is "browbeating people into accepting gays as equals" - that is a stock right wing argument. And no, I am not accusing you of being a right winger or anti-gay, I am not demanding anything, and not browbeating you. I am pointing out that the idea that "the gays" are trying to "force people to accept them" is an anti-gay argument of the religious right.

"We all need to remember we didn't elect Obama as President for Democrats but as President for ALL Americans." There are several things wrong with that argument. First, the debate is not about being "inclusive of each and every citizen" it is about the inclusion of one particular person, not "ALL Americans," and that one particular person campaigns for excluding millions of us. Secondly, if our elected representatives are going to represent ALL points of view, what is the point of elections or politics? We elected Obama to represent the Democratic point of view. If we now must accept the ideas of those we don't agree with, what did we work for, what did we vote for?

It is a smear on the people who disagree with you to describe them as merely having "hurt feelings" and their opinions as
nothing more than "venting emotions over a cultural/religious controversy" and of no value.

Because it doesn't affect you. He hasn't compared your marriage to incest or pedophilia. He doesn't preach that your heterosexuality is a sickness that can be 'cured'. He didn't fight for a proposition to take away your marriage rights.

In the end, this isn't even about marriage. It's about the same old fundie abuse, lies and insults we've had hurled at us all of our lives. Remember how gleeful the 'religious' right was when AIDS began killing thousands of gay men? They loved it. It was "God's retribution" and finally, they could pin hatred of gays directly on God. Nice thing to do to people who were suffering and about to die from one of the most horrible, painful diseases on earth. Then have AIDS funerals picketed all over the country by people with signs saying "God Hates Fags". Or try watching someone from the Family Research Council being given an open platform on cable news to talk about how you want to recruit children and how your entire existence is that of a sexual being. They don't accept that we fall in love. Have you personally been characterized like this, not just once but for every day you've lived?

Warren is of this ilk and I have shocking news for you - there's nothing about him to expose. People have heard this crap for decades from these people and nothing he believes or says would surprise anyone. So what's the point? No matter how you slice it, inviting him validates his bigotry and will do absolutely nothing to change his mind, moderate his beliefs, or stop using us as an ATM for squeezing money out of his sad flock to help him stop the 'gay agenda'.

I'm not writing any of this out of anger, because I think you mean well. But unless you've had the Warrens of the world on your back for a lifetime you can't begin to think this is a 'good move'.

Warren's anti-gay stance is not simply his problems with gay people it is a symptom of a much larger anti intellectualism.


Start by claiming that Biblical Revelation is 'supernatural' to calling Michael Schiavo a Nazi.

He originally thought that evolution was part of God's plan but now thinks that it was all literal, 7 days and all the bullshit.

The most irritating part of his blather is the "Purpose Driven Life" that purports that everyone has a plan and that God is giving all of us our little moment to be apart of his golden plan. How does this square with the tens of millions that died in WWII? Millions of children died without reaching maturity. It is a world view that is dangerous and completely unbiblical.

Reach across the aisle, fine but nobody said we had to include stupid.


There are hundreds of protestant ministers who are not for same sex marriage that are making a real effort to meet halfway intellectually, Warren is not one of them.



Having said that my opinion of Obama has not diminished an inch. He will still be a great President.

Is this the man the OP is defending? Is this the man Obama is defending? We are up in shit creek!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8012686

Warren's statements on Gay issues are simply a symptom of a larger anti-intellectualism.

to advance a stalemate, and it's always from the side that's working for the good; never the opressive side.

Our side made the first move with Obama's invitation. Warren is responding in small ways. Let's see where it takes us (and him).

and that the Bible sanctified slavery, anti-miscegenation, segregation, patriarchy, and women as chattel.

Thank you for you lack of concern about human rights.

as Secretary of Homeland Security

That would be a good move too.

that has caused Warren to back off his hatred a little. It remains to be seen if he will continue that lie after the inauguration. But yes, maybe his followers will start to talk about it, and maybe this enormous black storm cloud will have a silver lining that lasts. Let's hope so.

But let's NOT stop yelling about it. We have that right and responsibility to do that.

It took 30 years for polls on interracial marriage to catch up, but they did catch up.

I also have no idea why people keep defending this choice if they are cool with it.

it absolutely disgusts me

It really is sort of obvious.

And then he went and pulled that shit?

Look, he fucked up. I have my own grasping at long straws rationalizations for it because I want to be excited for his inauguration and his presidency. I want him to do well, I need him to do well, and we all need him to do well. I want to be able to root for that to happen.

He still fucked up.

But that's not the worst of it this past week - it's the uncaring indifference (or hostility) by some DUers to the justifiable hurt and outrage. I think when empathy starts to infect more DUers (the indifferent/hostile ones) we'll calm down and go from there.

Oh, and it was a terrible move.

I'm not gay, and I'm catching shit for being pissed about this. People are looking for ANY excuse (You HATE him! You don't WANT him to succeed!!!) to try to make this crap decision go away or to put it on ME (of all people), like it's MY fault for MENTIONING that I have a problem with this Warren thing.

It's VERY telling. Not all DUers support gay marriage. Not all DUers like gay people, or think they deserve equal rights. Who the fuck KNEW?????

I've got to say, I was a bit surprised at that. And a bit, well, appalled, too.

all over this board. In addition to the 'brilliant chess-jitsu' apology we now are growing more than one 'Warren is quite the swell guy' lines of thought here.

They are digging frantically through this pile of Warren shit, looking for Barack's My Little Pony.

Warren's not a swell guy. He's that pile of shit...and there's no pony, either!

You are right that the move has actually caused Warren to moderate, at least in tone, which is a good thing. The one thing I think you go wrong with is you seem to say that "average American" has a very anti-gay notion. I don't think that's right. What we are, and what those on the far left (and far right need to understand) is that we an overwhelmingly CENTRIST country. Obama won because the R's lost the middle with their far right base. To be successful, Obama MUST govern essentially from the center, and he'll do so with a leftward tilt. The average America has little problem with general equality for gays. What they have a problem with is the specific notion of "gay marriage." Sorry. They just aren't ready for that leap yet. Many WILL accept civil partnership rights of some level. It is MARRIAGE that is the problem. Moderates have no problem with gays in all manner of jobs, being treated fairly in education, housing, the workplace, ... Most have no problem with the notion of "don't ask, don't tell" in the military which is a moderate position for that organization. It is MARRIAGE. They aren't THERE culturally yet. THAT is the issue. As to Warren, the guy is doing an invocation, NOT making policy. Get over this. Gays and lesbians need to see a larger picture, and they need to realize that in Obama they have a HUGE friend compared to the horrid Bush right wing regime. Be HAPPY about THAT for goodness sake.

I agree. I'm spending less time here now after the deluge of anti-Obama posts. You would think Obama has suddenly morphed into George Bush Cheney and the past 18 months have been just a joke and waste of time and effort.

"What I don't understand is why Obama has been attacked so ruthlessly by so many here when we worked so hard and endured so much to put him in office. What purpose does it solve other than to vent emotions over a cultural/religious controversy that can't be easily solved?"

Is it ever easy? When has anything worth fighting for been easy?

I moderated with her, I love her; she and I have some shared roots and connections. But she is way wrong, in my opinion, on this issue. You, Neshanic, are wrong to assume the OP is telling of moderator sensibilities.

Allow people to get married. Simple. Easy.

Only time will tell whether Obama's selection of Warren was a "good move" in terms of moving human rights (known to some here as "gay rights") forward. To say at this point that it was a "good move" is premature at best, and insisting without evidence that it was a "good move" is tantamount to asking our GLBT brothers and sisters to "be patient." They've _been_ patient. They've sat in the back of the bus for all of US history. I'll defer to those who've been marginalized by Obama's choice as to whether this is a "good move."

How in the hell can ANYONE know what Obama is thinking? You can assume but you don't have a clue yet people post their assumptions.

What is that all about. Sounds to me like one of the Obama camp supporters where he can do no wrong and knows everything about everything.

Why not say you assume he did what he did rather than make it appear you know why he did it?

Show me one president who has not make huge mistakes.

In fact, I have to say that I am even surprised by the amount of controversy stirred up over this. However, I think this controversy is great and we need more of it, here's why:

The entire period of the Bush administration has been fueled by the evangelical, fundamentalist and neoconservative movements. I believe that they are responsible for most of the evils that we have suffered through with this administration, and are continuing to suffer through to this day. The gay marriage issue is nothing more than a distraction for them. They love the fact that the American populace is focused on cultural controversy because it keeps us from paying attention to the larger issues.

So why, then you may ask, are people like me helping to stir up this controversy when we understand full well what is going on?

It is because, as you may notice here on DU, we are forming an incredible, truly liberal alliance. I don't know if you have noticed, but there is an incredible amount of support coming from a large number of allies who don't identify as GLBT. This is a golden opportunity to take the debate further, above and beyond gay marriage issues. We don't need to reach out to the Religious Right and adopt or try to understand all of their principles, we need to reach out to them, in open debate as is being done here on DU, and try to shake some sense into them. This will not be done by talking to their leaders or providing their leadership with positions of honor. This will be done mostly at the grassroots level, talking and debating with average people just like we are doing here on these forums. Most of us understand what Rick Warren is all about. Whether Warren can change his mind, act like he is changing his mind, or pull the wool over peoples eyes is not really the issue. What is the issue is making the case for our respective causes and making sure that the individual members of the Religious Right will know for damn sure that we have had just about enough of their shit.

I honestly believe that Obama would agree with this. He doesn't want a cheerleading squad, he wants us to rise up and stand up for our rights, and bring about changes that will mean something positive in the long run.

If you want to understand better where I am coming from, above and beyond the issue of gay marriage, you can take a look at this:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4688251

They jump to the conclusion that Obama is somehow changed by Warren, by asking him to be there. Whereas, Warren, ever the rock of intolerance, could not himself be changed by immersing himself in with people who are of the more liberal persuasion.

Ironic.

the selection is a privilege that should have been bestowed on someone deserving. The ideas that the selection will some how change bigotry in this country is folly. The OP points out changes in Warren already, like changing his website. That's not much change in my book. IMO people like Warren, O'Reilly and Limpballs, are not ideologues, but greedy opportunists. If Mr. Warren was donating all his "earnings" to charity then he might be changeable. But he is doing it for greed. That's an addiction that's very hard to cure.

Although, I was more commenting on the general consensus as of late than this particular instance.

If you can't see that, then you are not my ally.

If you can't see that, then you TRULY don't give a shit about equality.