What stings the most is that he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and ALREADY it's Republican Lite

I bet the evangelicals all across the country would've been outraged if an arab atheist lesbian who had an abortion would've been chosen for Obama's inauguration. Their outrage would have been rooted in hate and not anything logical or substantial, but it would've been outrage just the same.

I just heard Obama's statement defending his pick of Rick Warren: "It's impossible for all Americans to agree on everything." I wholeheartedly agree, Mr. Obama. No matter what you do in almost every decision you make, you are going to anger people.

But why, Mr. Obama, are you choosing to slap the very people who helped elect you to office in the face? You're supposed to be the liberal, the left winger, the Democrat, the progressive, the however you want to label it, the NOT REPUBLICAN. Why, Mr. Obama, not even on your first day as the president of the United States, are you pandering to the other side, after having 8 years of their disastrous policies destroy the country?

Why does every single Democratic president, almost every single Democratic congressperson, and almost every single Democratic senator have to be a "moderate" almost but not quite liberal. Why do they all have to be religious, anti gay marriage, pro death penalty, pro gun, pro business? These are not liberals, these are not even progressives. These are conservatives with "D" next to their names.

It would've been nice to have someone like Michael Moore deliver the invocation. But that would've angered far too many people, wouldn't it? Better to anger the liberal base because the Democrats know the liberal base has nowhere else to turn. God forbid you anger the gun nuts, or the warmongers, or the bigots.

Nothing has changed.

eom

Didn't you just post a thread gloating about the fact that nothing has really changed....
That Obama was basically a rerun of Clinton's DLC administration?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8020932

Thought so.

Obama is the president elect of ALL Americans. Even bigots.

like Clinton did, I don't really care who he talks to.

On the other hand, if its perceived that what we're getting is more of the same- then http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html">2010 will look a lot like 1994, as a lot of progressives who made the difference by putting boots on the ground for the Dems- will simply stay home.

therefore you wouldnt mind it if the Grand Dragon of the KKK speaks onstage at Obama's inauguration. right?

That is no excuse for failing to take a stand against bigotry.

I can't believe Democrats are saying this. If Obama is going to represent bigots - because they are a part of this "ALL Americans" he is supposed to represent - while those speaking out against bigotry are going to be seen as a problem, as interfering, whose commentary is not welcome - which could only mean that we are not to be seen as part of this "ALL Americans" he represents - then I can not understand how any Democrat with any integrity could possibly support the administration.

What is the point of electing a Democrat if he is going to represent bigots, and not represent us?

Representing us means taking a stand against bigotry. Representing bigots means showcasing bigots and telling those who object to shut up. All Americans are NOT being represented by that. In fact, we are excluding our own. How could this be any more clear? How can any Democrat accept this?

against my principles since I thought he would be less likely to start a big war than the GOP duo. I probably am on safe ground there. All the rest matters less and less to me since so much is simply not feasible in a semi-fascist country.

I'm upset with this Warren slap in the face, too. Warren, like so many fundies and professional Xtians, wants my uterus to be under his control. So, yeah, he sucks and doesn't deserve a place on that podium on January 20, 2009.

But, please. We fought so hard to win, and now that we've won, let's not fold at the first misstep. Obama's not even sworn in yet, so let's hope this has been a learning experience for him. And for us.

Giving up, though, is exactly what the Other Side would like us to do, proving their point that Obama, the Muslim non-citizen, is not a good person and only some kind of puppet controlled by .......... I forget who he's supposed to be controlled by.

Keep your mind and your heart open, as difficult as that might seem. We need to have some forgiveness for our own, and Obama is one of our own, even though we're not happy with this Warren thing. I'm repulsed, honestly.

But we won.

And it's not even begun, so, please, give the guy a bit of room to make errors. He's only human, despite what the Other Side might say.

Misstep is dropping your chalk in a schoolyard game. Misstep is your foot sliding off your pedal as you wheel away on your bike.

"let's not fold at the first misstep" This is a HUGE deal, not only for the Gay community, it's also a HUGE deal for women who have fought for years to keep mysoganistic control freak fundamentalist men from controlling OUR health choices.

Please don't insult the ones who have been slammed by this arrogant "STFU and sit down" slap against the people who were the driving force to get his behind into office.

Your definition of "misstep" is different from mine. Your misreading of what I wrote is startling, but your anger is palpable.

Tell you what - take it where it might do some good. Anger for anger's sake is a big waste of time and worthwhile only if the individual is in therapy.

If you think I insulted anyone, you're so far off the mark as to be laughable. Now, get your wits about you and try to look ahead. There's a whole lot to do in four years, and no one knows what's going to happen.

As for your characterization of "... the driving force," I can only assume you didn't mean that. If you did, then you're even further off the mark than your post suggests.

A deliberate, cynical ,political stunt to gain negligable advantage at the expense of a smaller weaker group is hardly a "misstep". case in point Donnie McClurkin a proven aapproach

in the hospital and rehab, not seeing any news, lacking Internet access, and I only just learned of the Donnie McClurkin incident when Rick Warren was invited. I was, though, awfully annoyed when Obama chose to accept Warren's "invitation" to what was laughingly called "a debate" at Warren's "church."

I hold strong with the separation of Church and State, and I would have felt much better had Obama declined to participate in that shameless display of pandering.

So far, Obama's fucked up, as I now know, three different times, all of them having to do with rightwingnut fundies. While I bemoan the insensitivity he's displayed, and the pain his choice has inflicted on so many, I choose to believe that he's doing something politically expedient, hewing to the old political reality best expressed by LBJ, who really understood politics, that "it's better to have them inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in," as well as the good rule of life I learned from my Italian grandfather: Hold your friends close and your enemies closer.

Right now, I don't like what Obama's done regarding the hateful fundies, but I want to hold on and not give up. As I said, we fought so hard to win, and he's not even in office yet. We have to hold on and have faith. That's the very hardest part, but, right now, I think it's essential if anything is going to be gained.

What really steams me is that that fat fuck of a bigot is now going to be in all the history books, but I daresay the uproar over his selection will make for an interesting footnote when his presence at the most historic inauguration in our nation's history is written about. And, by that time, I hope my great-grandchildren find it laughable that anyone was upset about gay marriage, which to them will be a thing so taken for granted, no one notices it.

We just have to hang on. I am choosing to trust Obama, trust that he is the good man I believe him to be, a thoughtful man who is also a Chicago pol, and that it's fairly obvious that his approach so far has been successful and good.

Man, I got wordy about this, didn't I? But it matters to me. It matters to all of us. And we cannot give up before it's even begun.

#1.- -"it's better to have them inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in"
#2.--" Hold your friends close and your enemies closer."
#3.--The lesser of two evils is still evil.

My kind (and presumably yours) can never get close enough to the tent to piss in OR out. Caste permanently downwind I oft catch the noxious scent of urine in the air though.
As for enemies, I prefer to know them . . . at a distance, they are dead to me.

Number 3, as a rule of life to live by, wins hands down as it's devoid of ambiguity.

Warren is an insult to all that is good on Earth! In the up-thread mentioned
"semi-fascist country", I am enough of a realist to have cast my vote for the lesser evil with my eyes wide open.
Fair enough?

We are not folding. That is the point.

You fight the other side by taking a stand against them.

"We" didn't win, if that requires us to be silent.

it is divisive and drives a deep wedge between the religious conservatives and the GLBT supporters who will be watching the inauguration. People are not as familiar with Lowery, but they are all too familiar with Obama's performance at Saddleback Church and the concessions he made to the evangelicals there.

Why, Mr. Obama, not even on your first day as the president of the United States, are you pandering to the other side, after having 8 years of their disastrous policies destroy the country?

Hez made in abundently clear that he intends to be the President of all Americans, not just Democrats. That means hez gunna leave a place at the table for the other side whether they deserve it or not, unlike the repukes have been doing all these years.

And so long as it gets him votes from the right and center.

for reaching across the aisle far more principled than simple pandering.

You defend reaching across the aisle to right wingers and bigots - they are to be heard, they are to have access - but then attack people on the Left, and people defending those who are targeted by the bigots - for trying to be heard and have access.

Obama is not the enemy. You may not like tactic of inclusion or his choice of Warren, but castigating 'em for following thru on his word is not in our shared interest. Mebbie he could have chosen a slightly less volatile r/w minister, but whoever it twuz iz gunna be against abortion, women & GLBT rights jus like Billy Graham when he participated in the Clinton inauguration. Allowing Warren to participate izn't gunna do any more damage that Graham.

You know full well I'm not asking you to hold your attacks on Warren as I've already answered this to you once:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8017958&mesg_id=8020923

We have a duty to question our representatives and speak out minds. That is not attacking our allies.

in time, money and labor, are now told that their participation will be limited to cooking, doing the dishes, doing the flowers and table settings, and providing the entertainment.

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

Last I checked, a proposition in California was voted on and passed that actually took the rights of a minority group away.

That's not a victimization card, that's actual victimization.

And now the president that owes the same minority group for being elected is allowing the man who played a role in taking away their rights to have an undeserved spotlight.

You people just don't get it, do you?

I get it perfectly. As he promised during the campaign Obama is reaching across the aisle to a religious vein in our society whose positions used to include support for slavery and racism and still support misogyny and homophoby. Itz a victimization card cuz you had every reason to know he was going to include these citizens despite hiz and yer disagreement with their positions.

as long as you don't go more than halfway - any further and you've crossed the aisle and joined the other side.

Any conservative counterbalance to Lowery is gunna be someone who holds some positions antithetical to ours. Yes? The only things in the middle of the road are yellow lines and armadillos. I sure you can imagine the memez originating from the right if Obama had broken his promise of inclusion and chosen two liberal ministers.

:eyes:

--then we can talk reconciliation.

Makes perfect sense. Thatz certainly what MLK & Gandhi did.

If he is going to be President of bigots, and if people opposing bigotry are to be quiet and so therefore not represented, then he is not being the President of all Americans.

Back to your regularly scheduled, done-to-death, discussion.....

Julie

Is your argument that he couldn't've solved the economic crisis without rallying the German people around a scapegoat? Guess what? My bet is that you CAN solve economic problems AND not ostracize minorities.

Whatta concept!!!!

Oh, and I'm not so sure he's going to stop people from being cold, hungry, sick, and homeless by choosing Warren. Since almost half the homeless kids in NYC are LGBT, I'm guessing that stoking the flames of hatred against gay people is exactly what they DON'T need to stop being cold, hungry, and homeless.

I was actually taking aim at the percentage of attention such dire issues are getting compared to this inconsequential event. Just sayin'.

But you do win points for bringing Hitler into it. The other day I referred to the near hysterical rhetoric that has flown around DU on this topic and someone actually brought the Magna Carta into it.

*sigh*

Julie

I doubt it.

Imagine being a second class citizen. Imagine having people vote on something that doesn't affect them at all, but affects you in every way, and having it pass by a narrow margin. Then imagine the president of the United States giving credibility to a man who not only supports taking away your human rights, but actually actively pushed for that vote to go through.

So imagine how I feel that we even have somebody addressing their invisible friend in the sky during this state event. I won't even try to explain how it feels to see so many Progressives spending countless hours fighting over who in particluar will be the person to do the invivsible friend routine when there are so many suffering life threatening situations (like the homeless in Michigan--a growing number--during this brutal weather).

I myself am fortunate enough to have generous friends who I stay with or I too would be out there, possibly freezing to death.

So no my friend, I am not gay but I am a one-small-step away from deathly homelessness. Pardon me for not seeing an asshole giving the invocation as the end of the world.

Julie

.

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

A country that can't manage to give rights to a minority is probably not going to be very successful at solving other problems.

One group is being isolated, marginalized, and dismissed. If we allow that, then we are all at risk. That is what will also happen to other groups if we do not take a stand.

Can you not see that the same thing being done to the GLBT community can and will be done to the poor, to the homeless, to the unemployed, to the hungry?

Justice denied anywhere is justice threatened everywhere.

who helped Obama achieve history, it would have been nice if he had chosen some obscure member of the clergy from among them rather than the controversial Rick Warren who already has a place on the national stage.

I am not pleased with this choice at all.

Signed,
Resigned

it's been quite apparent for some time now

How about NO invocation? This is a state function. No prayer, period!

yeah, right.

that is what they would like us to think, because that is how it has been in the past.

however, we have been thrown under the bus repeatedly for so many elections that this is probably the last.

we can always opt out, and we are watching closely at what president-elect obama does before the election, and will watch even closer afterwards.

if he doesn't walk the walk, he won't get a second turn.

we have had it.

if there is no real "change", an alternative option will surface. if it doesn't, then we will sit home.

we will be taken for granted no longer.

just see if you can win an election without us...

Why NOT throw a bone on something as meaningless as this, which will have no bearing on policy or procedure WHATSOEVER?!!

Its show. Its politics. Its not government.

Does it really have to be 4 or 8 more years of "us" vs "them"?

when the auto bailout came up. The question is, will the Democrats continue to roll over and let the minority party run things?

Therefore, :nopity:

No choice.

It is not a battle of our choosing. We have two choices - roll over or fight back.

Our grandparents fought this battle. Our great-grandparents did. Too many have sacrificed too much for us to be too tired to carry on the work. Had those who went before us not made such tremendous sacrifice, we would not have the luxury of seeing the battle as not worth the effort, or as too much of an inconvenience.

If you do not think that the people have been under relentless assault for the last 8 years you haven't been paying attention. If you think that those who have been assaulting the people have any intention of surrendering or changing, you are putting your faith in wishful thinking and believing in false hopes.

Turn hate radio on any day of the week and then tell me that the other side is about to embrace "unity" or "post partisanship." Hatred is pouring out across the airwaves and into people ears every day, 24 hours a day, in every corner of the country. Hatred for us. There is absolutely no hint of any moderation there. None.

It's a god-damned prayer not policy making! Stop with the drama!

If Obama is "reaching out" to those who disagree with him then why is there going to be no open racist on the podium?

I predict that you will not answer this question either.

Same reason he didn't invite Fred Phelps. Even Barack has limits and also, No open racists invited Barack to address their congregations.

That is SO much better.

:eyes:

RL

So you are saying Barack tolerates some bigotry as long as it is not directed at him and his own?

You aren't being very complimentary to Obama, are you?

Rick Warren was one of the driving forces behind proposition 8's passing. He actively worked to take away the rights of people, and he succeeded. And now he's being given credibility. To you it's just "drama" because it wasn't your rights that were taken away.

Because you don't get it.

Wasn't that supposed to make all the difference?

supporting Bush. He said that Democrats in America are just as Right Wing and conservative as Tories, and that we simply don't have a left wing political party over here. "Of course, we don't have anything as far Right as your GOP. We don't consider them conservatives. We just think of them as scary". How right he was!

but that doesn't mean he's full of shit. He's followed through on his word to be bipartisan. I feel sorry for anyone who thought him other than a centrist... I'd feel very let down as well.