This "Hey look - he's a politician!" stuff is the lamest criticism I've evern heard. He ran for president - of course he's a politician! He never claimed otherwise.

He also never claimed that he'd follow a purely left-wing doctrine. He said he'd reach out to Republicans and try to work with them. I understand why diehard liberals don't like that — but it shouldn't come as any surprise, nor should it be considered "hypocrisy" or "treason" or anything else of that ilk.

(I do think he made a mistake with this Warren thing though — although the seriousness of that mistake is being blown our of proportion.)

 Reply

The problem with this proposition is exactly what Pareene pointed out-- that the selection of Warren, which you admit was a mistake, comes along with a host of other mistakes (see also: DoT pork secretary and Rubinite economic team). As Hydroceph points out, Obama promised CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN. Some of us never bought the schtick, but that does not mean we can't, or indeed shouldn't, hold his feet to the fire when he plays the same Washington game with the same Washington players. What is so perplexing is that despite mounting evidence (and he's not even president yet!) Obama's die-hard fans really believe that this game is going to yield a different result.

 Reply

Yes the people he picked have past political experience. It's pretty impossible to pick qualified people for these positions who don't. But I never heard Obama promise he'd pick totally neophytes who'd never worked in D.C. before - people keep suggesting that he did, but as far as I can tell, that expectation doesn't match anything Obama actually promised.

When Obama promised "change," he was mainly talking about an end to partisan bickering and demonizing of the opposition, and getting to work pulling people together to SOLVE PROBLEMS. And as far as I can tell, that's still exactly what he plans to do.

That's the "different result" I'm expecting. Not "Ralph Nader's Dream Cabinet."

And when he becomes president FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW and gets a chance to actually start doing the job, why don't you take a seat and watch him do it for a while? (And take a minute to actually listen to what he's saying while you're at it?)

 Reply

But as far as a gamble goes? Those are my rights he's gambling with, and maybe yours, too, but it's pretty damned cynical from someone who ran as the prophet of hope.

 Reply

Are you sure you don't have anything to add?

 Reply

True... But at the time I wrote that, my goal was to get a Democratic president, preferably Clinton, elected and it was justifiable to think that Obama was a risk not worth taking. I was wrong and I am glad Obama, rather than McCain, won in the end. Still, that doesn't dilute my ability to enjoy watching the Obamatons lose their rag as it turns out he's not Truth and Light after all. He's a politician and while he may eschew PAC money, he sure doesn't have a problem putting bigots on stage...

 Reply

Dissent is healthy. Hostile attacks are destructive.

Please read the following paraphraph and see which of those two descriptions is the better fit (bearing in mind that it'll be a month before Obama's presidency even starts):

If "no red or blue America" post-partisanship means the explicit endorsement of a bigot pastor, a useless pork-happy Republican heading the DoT as we embark on the biggest infrastructure program of a generation, and an economic team full of the guys who found common ground with the Reaganites back in the day only to then scorch and salt that common ground, the ground we were all trying to grow money in, then we'll take the divisive and damaging politics of bitter partisanship, Mr. President-elect!

 Reply

-Obama is endorsing a bigot pastor by putting him onstage at his inauguration.

-A useless pork-happy republican is going to head the DoT. (Will he believe in public transport-- buses and subways and trams? Probably... not.)

-The economic team is full of the guys who were in part responsible for the current mess.

And while we can hope that it turns out that the policies Obama puts forward are more enlightened, Obama had it right when he said:

"You can't keep playing the game with the same set of players and expect a different result."

I'll take the divisive and damaging politics of bitter partisanship, please.

 Reply

It's funny how the people who are calling the loudest for healing are the ones who lost. Bush came to DC to end the partisanship (HAHAHAHA!!!), but had no problems ruling from the far right. Mush centrism and bipartisanship for its own sake isn't going to work.

 Reply

And rabid evangelicals that hate Warren are probably a smaller percentage of the population than even gay people. My family is full of rabid Christians. They ALL have read his stupid fucking book. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think that most people in the country see anything wrong with Rick Warren giving the invocation.

 Reply

But he could have easily picked a religious figure that wouldn't have offended Evangelicals but also hadn't actively campaigned for Prop 8 (and yes, it was HIS choice, ultimately). I don't think, even, that people would have minded so much if Warren simply opposed gay marriage. Most religious figures do. But Warren's comments and actions were beyond the pale.

Criticizing Obama is not calling his future presidency a failure. It's an attempt to make it better. An attitude like this makes it far easier for Obama to get away with things that will make our country worse.

 Reply

And I'm criticizing all the people who willfully ignore Obama's stated desire to emphasize the ties that bind us rather than the issues that divide us, and see his election as just a shift in the balance of power in our stupid culture war and an opportunity to stick it to those no-good Christians.

And I'm criticizing the "tolerant" liberals who refuse to even admit that Rick Warren has done a lot--and through his public platform, done all the more by proxy--to help ease poverty, fight AIDS, etc. I am the farthest thing possible from an Evangelical Christian but even I can admit that Rick Warren stands for more than simply "Gays are bad." Are these sort of black/white, good/evil distinctions okay only when we employ them? Remember how we all hate single-issues values voters when they only care about outlawing abortion and gay marriage? Why should we tolerate that kind myopia and tunnel vision from "our" side?

My point is: Obama is "their" President too. Rick Warren is a complex figure whom we may not entirely agree with but is beloved by many of "them." The inaugural valediction means absolutely fucking squat. So let them have their fat priest up there for three minutes, in the spirit of kumbayah, because why the fuck not? This is not policy, this not a political appointment, it's one fucking prayer. And it will bring comfort to many who are disinclined to trust our new President.

 Reply

Here is one of the best, least hysterical arguments against Warren that I've read. It states my position in this far better than I'm able to:

[yglesias.thinkprogress.org]

 Reply

A brief point to make is that it's very easy for a person who isn't part of the minority group that's being symbolically dissed to dismiss someone else's concerns as merely symbolic and not that big a deal.

Okay, right, symbology is important. Which is why it is not a terrible idea to give a symbolic inch to Christians who fear we have elected a Muslim terrorist in light of the fact that we will have to go a mile, policy-wise, to the left in order to fix our economic disaster and produce a conclusion to at least one of our current wars. And I say this as a known gay who would like to get married one day.

In fact, symbology-wise, I think reaching out to very influential and relatively moderate (simply supporting Prop 8 does not a rabid fundie make, that's par for the Christian course) religious leaders is actually a good move in the long run. These are the people we need to win over if gay marriage is ever to be instituted as more than a hotly-contested government mandate. For sure, there will never be a total consensus supporting gay marriage. But someone like Rick Warren, if approached in a humble and reasonable way, could go a long way towards mitigating the symbolic stigma around gay marriage if he wanted to (far more than any court case or ballot measure could). At the very least, his followers will be faced with a choice on January 20: Do we reject our pastor because he associates with scary Obama? Or do we consider the idea that Obama is not so scary, if big ol' Rick is blessing his freakin' Presidency?

 Reply

I'll give you both this: it's amazing how this issue has gotten so many people back in primary mode. And by "so many people," I mean "rabid Hillary Clinton supporters."

 Reply

If you can believe it, I supported Obama over Clinton and McCain even though I knew he didn't believe in gay marriage, seeing how he said as much over and over again. Anyone who projected their own agenda onto Obama and is now horrified that he's living up to the promises he made rather than the promises they imagined is hysterical, and a moron.

 Reply

you would know xoxo

 Reply

homosexuality is not protected under the civil rights act of 1964 and are not identified as a discrete minority needing special protection. it sucks, but until these things are changed, any progress made by the courts in certain states can be put to a vote and undone. which would hurt way more than rick warren being at the invocation.

it sucks that civil rights have to be eased into rather than demanded (as they should be) but that's the shitty america we live in.

 Reply

[www.hyperarts.com]

 Reply