Update: I’ll be on CNN with Rick Sanchez discussing this at 3:50 pm ET today — jh
I’ve been mulling over Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give his inaugural invocation. It plugs in nicely to a pattern that is emerging in Obama’s leadership style, which has absolutely nothing to do with cultivating a climate of opposing ideas among a "team of rivals" — and everything to do with silencing dissent among his critics.
The PR spin they have put on Obama’s administration hires is that a group of supremely qualified people from differing ends of the political spectrum will come together with heterogeneous and sometimes contentious positions, and that in their conflict they will challenge each other to greater intellectual heights and supply the country with a wellspring of new ideas.
But look at what happened to Sheila Bair. Nothing could be further from the truth. Timothy Geitner wants her out as head of the FDIC because she’s not "a team player." People familiar with the Treasury transition team say she is universally reviled from within their ranks because she has called for TARP funds to be used to directly aid mortgage holders, while the orthodoxy within the Obama treasury folks is that any mortgage assistance needs to be done by the banks so as not to encourage further default.
As Digby said at the time Geitner publicly attacked Bair, "the media (and even unnamed members of the Obama team) have made a fetish out of the idea of having a ‘team of rivals’ who will hash out ideas from all sides…. the whole thing doesn’t scan politically any way you look at it."
Obama is not creating a climate of intellectual rivalry. He’s pulling his most potentially powerful critics under his political umbrella, where they can — at least in theory — be more easily controlled. The Senate portends to be the biggest roadblock to anything Obama wants to accomplish, and Hillary Clinton (and what’s left of the Clinton machine) may present fewer challenges from within the administration than from without. Likewise, I’m personally delighted that Ken Salazar is out of the Senate — he’s an idiot and the idea that as a "centrist" Democrat he would hold swing vote power over anything gave me the chills.
But one of the byproducts of pacifying your critics in such a manner is that you wind up empowering some pretty unsavory characters. Rick Warren is a bloated, narcissistic egomaniac who got elevated in the last election because McCain and Obama shared the common goal of diminishing the importance of people like James Dobson. Warren is cut from the same mold, with just slightly less offensive packaging. He’s a vicious homophobe who used the political power he gained from the Saddleback event to spread the lies that helped to pass Prop 8.
During the election battle, even McCain strategists had to concede that Obama’s appeal to Christians who wanted to redefine how they exercised their faith in public life was powerful:
"The evangelical movement is changing," says a major McCain fundraiser. "It’s moving to a bigger place—it’s not just pro-life, but includes people who care deeply about homelessness, the environment, Darfur."
"This movement is the next generation," he said. "The question ‘Who is an evangelical?’ involves a much broader picture. And the guy who has been talking about faith is Obama." He predicted that the movement’s transformation would have an influence this election, but won’t fully play out until future contests….
But rather than having faith in his own message of change and believing that the country is at a point where we’re ready to move past Warren’s kind of hate mongering, Obama chose the cynical politician’s move of flattering him and giving him a high profile gig.
So Rick Warren can play Jerry Falwell to Obama’s George Bush. Not so much change after all.
Obama is well aware of the problems that arose when he asked the homophobic Donnie McClurkin to appear on his behalf. He’s too smart not to know what would happen.
The fact that this deeply offends his "liberal supporters" once again is starting to look more like a feature than a bug.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Bingo!! Thanks Jane!! Warren is playing Obama just as much as Obama is playing him. Does Obama really think Warren is going to change his stripes? I find it hard to believe he is that stupid.
It’s not Warren who is stupid, but the people that made him a millionaire.
I don’t think Obama wants Warren to change in the slightest. He just wants him off his back.
Love to hear more about why you think Ken Salazar “is an idiot”. I have not a clue about his history.
On the broader discussion, what is Obama supposed to do? Pretty sound scheme to bring critics in under your tent to initially appease them regardless if they stay long….If he can hit the ground with some early success, that will take him far into his administration, no?
On a less cynical note, perhaps he really does want to pull the polar extremes in closer to the center….
Morning, Jane and firepups! dmac wrote an interesting diary on the topic. I was considering going off the grid for a while because of not being able to stand watching sausage being made until I read dmac’s diary. Would love to hear your thoughts on his perspective.
Thanks Jane
digg
have been awaiting your take on this since yesterday’s announcement – and if I have learned anything from you, it is that these moves do nothing in terms of getting them “off his back”
No, I do not think they will. They’ll just empower people like Warren.
Actually, I am going to appreciate the juxtaposition of Warren and Lowery.
Maybe this is one way of defusing Warren, who, on an international stage, will be hard pressed to not look like a horse’s ass.
He knows whatever he says at the inauguration he can be held to later on.
Jane,
Call me slow on the uptake but had this thought this very morning; Inclusion chops dissent off at the knees. Have thought for some time Obama is a fairly savy operator, perhaps that is selling him short.
I second that comment. His “book” is nothing more than an extended PowerPoint presentation with three bullet points per page. I don’t think these people even bother with complete sentences. He’s just pumping people full of jingoisms and controlling them completely to give him all their money and then go out and spread his version of [slightly more disguised than Dobson] hate.
BTIWB is pretty much all I have ever expected from Obama.
He needs a little time sucking up to the wing nuts just so he can get trustworthy secret service who will actually protect him.
In addition to being a highly corrupt torture state, the US also has certain elements that see a bullet as a reasonable substitute for the ballot when things don’t go their way.
The reich wing Republican culture of corruption will not change overnight.
Mornin’ Jane.
I agree with Digby’s analysis. Warren’s relevance to Obama isn’t to diminish the importance of people like Dobson, but to diminish the importance of people like the intellectuals, the educated, gay activists, environmentalists, atheists and the rest of the so-called “radical” leftists & hippies.
The Warren choice symbolizes what is meant by the description of Obama
as seminar trained… problem with that is Warren’s presence gives the
bigots a seat at the table that will produce the new consensus, even if
only by symbolism. I do not know if the years of upstate/downstate Illinois
politics burned this habit in so deep that the electoral mandate has been
supplanted or some idea of the grand gesture has siezed the moment, but
it is evident this is a pattern that wastes quite a lot of hard earned
political ground for no gain. Warren is the typical ex hippie con artist
selling his brand of contact high to an emotionally disturbed remnant of
a once great people. Meet the new boss…
Please define BTIWB?????
The same thought here, rxbusa. What if on Jan. 20 the good Reverend Lowery ends up making very small mincemeat out of that jackass Warren?
Jane, wow, what an amazing piece you have written. You really are a great writer. I hope that you are wrong, but I fear that you are right. Count me in as someone who will support you 100% if you are right. I will be happy to write every where that can be seen if Obama sells us off to the moderate right. Seriously, let me know where to direct my displeasure and consider it done properly and articulately.
I agree.
Evangelicals thrive on the notion that they’re the “persecuted.”
Not being even remotely religious, I am not familiar with either of their bodies of work, but it’ll be fun to watch anyway. From reading what people on this and the previous thread and dmac’s diary thread had to say about their speaking styles, it sounds like just the juxtaposition of speakers will make a huge point about who is worth paying attention to…and that’s without considering the content.
I honestly think the only purpose to having Warren speak is to allow Reverend Lowery to take the stage. Once that happens he leave no room for retreat. Once people understand who Lowery is I think the tone will change.
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/2512#Respond
Obama offers the epitome of Democratic pragmatism. Pragmatic = go along to get along = Hypocrisy . Welcome to the future.
(psssst-thanks rx–i’m a ’she’.)
Yes, please do! I’ve googled it and tried it at acronymfinder dot com with no luck. What does BTIWB mean?
Yep, Obama is a pol. Who knew?
1,860 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Once again, I am in unhappy agreement with your analysis of Obama’s political tactics. I’m thinkin’ that the only “grand strategy” that could lurk behind this is the announcement of David Bonior’s candidate for Secretary of Labor and now, if he does that, he risks Warren goin’ off like a Mount St. Helens of hate at the inauguration…no, I can’t imagine what Obama’s thinkin’ here…and of course I’m unwillin’ to entertain any thought that maybe Obama agrees with this slimey hate-monger!
Merry fuckin’ Christmas and…
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THE STRUGGLE GOEZ ON AND ON AND…!!!
If the LORD is God, worship him; but if Baal is God, worship him!” But the people didn’t say a word.
Then Elijah said, “I am the only prophet of the LORD still left, but there are 450 prophets of Baal. Bring two bulls; let the prophets of Baal take one, kill it, cut it in pieces, and put it on the wood–but don’t light the fire. I will do the same with the other bull. Then let the prophets of Baal pray to their god, and I will pray to the LORD, and the god who answers by sending fire–he is God.”
The LORD sent fire down, and it burned up the sacrifice, the wood, and the stones, scorched the earth and dried up the water in the trench.
When the people saw this, they threw themselves on the ground and exclaimed. “The LORD is God; the LORD alone is God!”
Elijah ordered, “Seize the prophets of Baal; don’t let any of them get away!” The people seized them all, and Elijah led them down to Kishon Brook and killed them.
http://www.amazingchange.org/s….._profb.htm
I’m an Old TESTtement kind of erson lets TEST Rick Warren to see if he really speaks for the LORD!!
I keep thinking one of Obama’s reasons for doing this was to calm the nerves of white male voters, which giving Warren such a high profile speaking slot will do to a certain extent. This will give Obama some political cover when he starts pushing more a more Liberal agenda than those voters are used (yes, wishful thinking I know….VERY wishful).
If this is true, Obama didn’t seem to account for how much negative reaction he’d get from this. Plus, there are plenty of other speakers who would’ve also related to John Q Nascar as well, without all the blowback he’s getting now.
PBS did a special about Obama and McInsane, and I remember some of the Black students on the Harvard Law Review with Obama saying that he was very frustrating to them by doing this exact same stuff back then. To calm my own nerves somewhat, those same interviewees went on to say that over time, they saw the benefits of Obama’s approach and seemed to agree with it eventually.
I guess one positive out of all this is that the Liberal elements of society, especially the Netroots, will not get complacent like they did in the 1990s. Blue America!
Sorry
I’m an Old TESTtement kind of erson lets TEST Rick Warren to see if he really speaks for the LORD!!
Should be
I’m an Old TESTtement kind of person lets TEST Rick Warren to see if he really speaks for the LORD!!
maybe obama just likes warren – isn’t that a possibility too?
I hope Obama is smarter than he appears. Like to have Clinton as his SOS and then replace her in the second term, so she is out of power politically. That would be great. But more and more appointments and moves like Holder, Warren, and Gates seems that Obama cannot micromanage everything and that some of these guys might actually be able to do as they please, which could be problematic.
He is inviting the most influential Conservative Rev to speak.
He is inviting the real conservatives into the “fold”.
Maybe Rev Warren will learn compassion and truth from Obama.
Instead of the beliefs he holds, he may learn that everyone should be included.
Makes me damned glad I didn’t go out and campaign for him. Gave him a bit of money, but next time I’ll know not to do that.
you got that right.
Normally, I wouldn’t care at all about some preacher’s invocation address, but this is not a normal situation. A presidential inauguration, especially this president elect’s, has very powerful symbolic aspects. To squander this with a hate-mongering, hardly spiritual person such a Warren, is indeed very disappointing, to say the least. Not only does this empower him, it legitimizes his views as well.
Someone said it is really the choice of Congressional Inauguration committee or some such, I am not buying that. I would think a president elect will have a firm hand in who he/she would like to give the invocation.
I am saddened.
I’m intrigued by this action. Does it allow a “Sister Soulja” moment for Warren? If that’s the trajectory for this — and Lowery creates a center of gravity to attract Warren — then Obama has changed the game.
I’m an optimist, and while I find Warren intellectually and spiritually lacking, you can’t deny his appeal. If Obama can move him, and use him to move other people, well, is that a bad thing?
ok.. here’s my compromise suggestion. Out of respect for what I presume the president elect is trying to do – respecting the diversity in the party, etc, etc, post-partisan hogwash, etc, etc., let’s have TWO clerics share the invocation. Warren and, and I’m sure my denomination would be happy to contribute Gene Robinson (openly gay bishop). Make Warren work together with Rev. Robinson collaborate on draftnig the invocation…. that should be fun.
i don’t buy that, obama is a very very good politician. isn’t it more likely that obama either doesn’t care or is actively courting a negative reaction?
I would disagree with this. True, Obama is concentrating power, but these are not “critics”. They are, in fact, part of the same Establishment to which Obama belongs and whose beliefs he espouses.
Oops! Sorry! Great diary! Hope you don’t mind my spreading it around. You really brought me out of the doldrums!
Does Obama really want to push the Gospel of Wealth?
Bingo.
thanks so much. it sure made my day. i was beyond pissed at that point. you should have seen my face when i read Reverend Lowery was doing the benediction. omg. the tumblers all clicked into place.
He wants to push the Gospel of the DLC, Washington Consensus, DINO, center-right Establishment.
Pop always told me, “Keep your movies close but keep your bloggers closer.”
Maybe not a bad thing, but it was clear during the “Values Debate” that McCain had the questions way before the “debate”. He never answered questions so clearly before this so-called “debate” and never again after. I believe Warren is a cheater, a liar and a “phoney”. I think Warren is just like every other phoney christian in it for the money and power. He makes me sick and I would love to see hime taken down eventually, just like the rest.
Citizen dmac:
Great post Sister dmac…ACTION ALERT FIREPUPS: look at Citizen dmac’s link at comment#21.
I think yer on to sumpthin here Citizen dmac and if you are I am again amazed at and humbled by Obama’s political skills…he’s a champion of the tactics of and skills advanced by hundreds of years of stuggle in this country…once again, if you are right Sister, we are all more’n a couple a steps behind Obama in organizin’ and community buildin.
From what I can tell, Mrs King’s statement has been unheeded for the most part. Homophobic attitudes remain very prevalent in the black community.
I will be shocked if Rev. Lowery offers any specific response to Warren’s high profile anti-gay bigotry.
*comment cross-posted at dmac’s diary
Seem to remember there was this parable by…um…I forget. Anyway, it involved needles and rich men and camel’s eyes. Somethin ’bout that. ;)
Your Pop was smart.
The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor’s living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.
Televangelist Eddie Long is one of the preachers of “prosperity Gospel” that Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and the Senate Finance Committee are investigating.
And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Fla., area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinn and a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.
Only the blessings didn’t come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn’t strong enough.
“I wanted to believe God wanted to do something great with me like he was doing with them,” she said. “I’m angry and bitter about it. Right now, I don’t watch anyone on TV hardly.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4057519
Scam artists running religion Cons on the deluded and desperate are not the kind of folks Obama should associate with.
I still don’t get it, but is it likely that, after this “honor”, Warren and whatever batch of fundamentalest followers he has would oppose Obama in 2012 against Palin and the tribe of fundamentalists who love her? I mean, is it possible that it woudl serve to further divide fundamentalists and the Republican Party?
I agree, that’s not quite what I’m saying — they’re not “intellectual” critics (like Sheila Bair is). Their principle “argument” is over who’s going to have power. By elevating Clinton, and making her SOS, he is making her channel her power through him.
The invitation to Warren is clearly not a good thing – especially insulting to the gay community. I have e-mailed the people listed yesterday and Obama and told them in rather harsh terms what I thought about it. However, it’s not as if this an appointment to the cabinet. I doubt that most people have any idea who Warren is or will remember his name after inauguration day. I find him morally repelling. I try not to get overwrought about things I can’t change but I am much more interested in what Obama does AFTER the inauguration.
Levin was on the Maddow show last night saying Cheney ordered the illegal torturing and threatening “indictments” on Cheney. A few days ago Cheney crawled out of his hole to say he knew abt the torturing. There is a huge struggle going on their over the auto loan.
I’m disgusted with the apologists who are claiming that Obama had nothing to do with the decision- that he’s an innocent bystander to the inaugural plans: a victim.
Bullshit. Just like Bush was a victim of faulty Iraq intelligence. He owns the decision.
A question I’ve not seen raised:
Will anyone involved with speech content get to “vet” what warren is allowed to say? Let a fox into the hen house and then tell it it’s not allowed to suck eggs?
Does he really think that following their way will fix the economy or make him popular? The DLC way is just GOP nice and that path has worked so well for Bush in everything/s
Forgot the url to Rachel interview of Sen.Levin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#28286974
I agree.. there’s definitely a design in this. I’m just not happy with it at all. There is no room is any political strategem for fundie appeasement.
Good point this guy screwed Obama by letting McCain listen. McCain was never better at a debate so there is no denying that Warren lied.
Now why is Obama being nice to the guy who wrote a kick me sign on his back?
ok then. i’ll take my comment @38 as a working hypothesis and see where it leads me…
if obama doesn’t care, then that doesn’t leave us with much to work with wrt to influencing his actions directly.
alternatively, if obama is actively courting a negative reaction, then if we don’t give him one won’t he be likely to act more and more outrageously (from a progressive pov) until he gets the negative reaction he is looking for?
.
Yes, it is about divvying up the offices within the club and Obama definitely wants to be its foremost member but it is all about the club, not us.
Exactly so. Obama is proving to be basically a DLC triangulating centrist, not a progressive in his actions (although his opinions may be a bit more progressive.) This is unfortunate, but, of course, the lesser of two evils (McCain); however, aren’t we tired of this disappointing choice, election after election (the lesser of two ‘evils’)? The progressive community is going to have to apply pressure, no doubt during th coming four years. His economic team left me speechless (Bill Clinton neo-liberal team redux, that contributed to getting us in this unregulated mess). We wanted Obama to be progressive, so much that we projected, I’m afraid.
This is the message I sent to my President Elect on change. gov:
The selection of Rick Warren has ruined the Inaugural for our family and friends. Self-grandizing in religion is aberrant to my faith. A quiet activist minister leading a just and peace-oriented community church was a selection I expected- never even thinking a big box evangelical minister was a possibility. The Inauguration has lost an important opportunity to model the public expression of faith in an inclusive and non-political manner through the selection of a person of faith outside the sideshow of partisan religion. I regret this deeply.
I couldn’t agree with you more wholeheartedly!
Exactly! What soul is he selling out?
Yea, you’re probably right. Obama has shown pretty amazing political skills so far.
I mean, he just became the country’s first melanin-enhanced President, took down the Clinton Machine and the GOP Machine when most people at first said it was impossible. He does always seem to be thinking 4 or 5 steps ahead, so yes, he must’ve understood this backlash would happen.
I for one don’t want Obama selling out my soul to Rick Warren.
so none of this is over ideology? – not because it doesn’t matter, but because there is fundamental agreement on ideology among those who’s power base obama is attempting to incorporate into his own?
just trying to follow your thinking here…
Live presser on cable now, Obama answered the Warren question… and brought up Lowery. I liked how he handled the question.
And Why Obama is popular people want change he has the Senate and House he needs enough Senators to bust a filibuster. How does including Rick Warren help him? Rick Warren can’t bring his people to support Obama.
But Rick Warren can help subtract the Gays from Obama.
Rick Warren is a lose/lose
Yes, if you look at Rubin, Summers, and Geithner, they all favor a continuation of Paulson’s policies. The major change is that they are now favoring a trillion dollar stimulus, but even here the details aren’t clear. Is it over one year or two? Big difference. But like Paulson and Bernanke, there does not seem any particular emphasis on helping distressed homeowners, loosening up credit markets, or re-imposing wide ranging regulation.
Particularly since I never got the T-Shirt I was promised for my donation. You just can’t trust anyone…
He basically said his inaugural festivities will represent all of America. We need to focus on the things we do agree on.. Hopefully someone will have youtube later.
Bill Clinton during his first term ran on putting Gays in the military. Then he went back on his promise. That was the cause of the first drop in Bill’s popularity. The GOP saw he was weak and never let up again.
Granted the GOP did overplay their hand.
I think there are two different sets of issues here. First of all, Obama has always been a center-rightist within the dem party (which means dead middle of the road nationally), which is precisely why I did not support him during the primary. I did support him in the general ’cause he’s a dem and better than the alternative, but if anyone expected him to be anything else than a DLCish guy, then I don’t think they paid much attention to either his public speech history or his voting record. We got what we paid for there.
The second issue, quite possibly unrelated, is this whole postpartisan thing (Rahm is a centrist but hardly postpartisan.. you can be a centrist but still very partisan). Postpartisanism is a fundamentally different Obama objective, and basically, I think, stems from Obama’s stated goal of being loved by everybody.. ungendered, unclassed and uncolored America, without solving any of the underlying cultural divisions that make gender, color, and class meaningful issues of concern in the first place. It’s a mood, I think, instead of practical recognition of a desirable political outcome. The Rev. Rick is thing is part of this second game, and, unlike the DLC centrism thing (which is what we paid for when we elected this guy), we should IMO push back hard on this point. If Obama wants a post-partisan world and a less divided America, then he has to work to make that a reality, by reducing the real economic and social divides of inequality, racism and bigotry that rends this country, instead of pandering to bigots like Warren’s followers.
yep, that’s what i’m thinkin’.
thanks.
the cabinet choices–i keep picturing ‘family meetings’ where the parents call everyone in and act like the kids have a ’say’…..then the parents say we’ll get back to you and do exactly what they were going to do anyway, but they’re covered, because they can say we listened to you, you had input. now here’s what we’re going to do.
That is a worry if they get their way the economy won’t get better expect a lost decade for stocks, Obama as a one term President and the GOP to replace him with Reagan version 2.0 which won’t work because the economy will already be in debt when he gets into office.
Jan Williams was just on NPR talking about Warren but mostly talking up Obama’s popularity and how his choices show his emphasis on (Buzz Word Warning) pragmatic, experienced people who know how to get things done, blah, blah, and that given Obama’s approval we would have to wait and see how the Warren choice would play out, as in no biggie.
power politics not my gig (obviously)…. but it occurs to me i probably have something completely wrong. i’ve been assuming that warren actually believes what he preaches.
yeah, how stupid is that?
ok. so let’s assume for the moment that what warren actually thinks has nothing at all to do with what he preaches. he preaches what he preaches because that is how he consolidates his own power base.
in that case, it may be that obama’s relationship to warren is similar to his with clinton – they (clinton and warrent) both have a base of power that is separate from obama’s and now obama is working to incorporate them into his own power structure so that their interests (for power only) are aligned in that clinton and warren will have more power as obama’s power is expanded.
off base? on target?
And if Obama wants him it makes me very suspicious of his (Obama’s) real beliefs. Why use a guy that is so full of crap, as Rich Warren will prove to be.
They screwed up my bumpersticker order too. Shoulda knowed.
I don’t much care for his “pragmatism”, it makes me very annoyed.
Did Wan call us ingrates?
couldn’t they just stick with “bipartisan” and “serious” – so many fine words being ruined.
Doesn’t it suck, if such a thing were possible?
I just wanted to say that you folks are awesome! You make me want to be a better woman!
what troubles me is that the past should tell us that we really can’t deal with them. can’t bring them into the fold. they’ll come into the fold and stab you in the back next election– or before. he’s looking for “centrist” type republicans and they are an endangered species. it’s not going to do him much good politically and won’t quiet his critics. jeez. Mcain was not :”right” enough for these people.
But still. I’m goig to give it a chance.
Jane!
I couldn’t agree more! Why do We need a Rick Warren At All?
I’ve been hoping for Transformational Leadership from Obama, but ‘kicking things off’ with a Card-Carrying Ideologue is hardly a Great Way to step boldly into the future.
Bush’s style of “We’ll tell you what to believe and how to act” as the Definition of Us-and-Them was Decisively Defeated at the Polls in November, and yet here’s Obama giving voice to the same Failed Ideology in the Realm of Religious Belief.
To be Truly Transformational, Obama’s Leadership has to take US away from the Ideology of Exclusion – and Ideologues like Warren – and towards a Pragmatic Vision of Inclusion that Guides All of US through the coming Depression with Care and Concern.
The Truth is We don’t need a Rick Warren in order to come together and work through our problems – including Our Spiritual problems – as a multiplicity of voices, each Free to find their own ‘Truth’ in the open marketplace of Life.
Imvho, the Good We can gain through Sharing, so far outweighs the Suffering of Hateful Exclusion, that the Acts of Sharing transform US into the fullest realization of Our potential as human beings.
It’s Obama’s endorsement of a Religious Ideologue – one who measures ’success’ as Social Control – that is disheartening to those of US who are tired of ‘conflicts over differences in Beliefs’ and wish for an extended period of co-existant Peace, that We may grow in Our Humanity once again. Rationally approached, We’re long overdue to Give Peace a Chance.
Unfortunately, it looks like, to some extent, We’ll have to struggle on through Bush’s Legacy of Hateful Social Control during Obama’s Administration, as well.
But, thankfully, We don’t need Rick Warren.
Oops that should have read Juan Williams in my #79.
I split with Obama over FISA and didn’t vote for him. I think there is an issue of honesty that we have not addressed because while Obama is a DLCer that is not how he presented himself during the campaign. His rhetoric of change is deeply at odds with his actions, and I think this is going to come back and bite him. Also what does this disconnect say about Obama personally? As for Obama wanting to be loved by everyone, I don’t see it. It’s clear he could care less what progressives think of him.
I do believe Obama wants to bring about the sort of change he promised. Because of the last few weeks I don’t think his approach to politics has the merits required to bring about such change. What he’s doing is nothing new, and no matter what people call it the method is not up to the task.
Extremely insightful, Jane. This helped me focus a lot of what I’ve been thinking. There are good features of Obama’s transition. Rick Warren is, well, he’s more like a snake than a person, really.
saw the youtube. didn’t hear levin threaten cheney with anything, although maddow tried to get him to say something of significance. maybe i missed that bit?
You have a great way with words, that I want to follow….
I don’t think its about his beliefs.. its about his whole “post-partisan” big tent mood piece thing, which I happen to completely disagree with. Lee Stranahan’s piece on huffpost I think accurately describes Obama’s motivations http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..1976.html, although I disagree with Stranahan that one should ever include the likes of Warren in mainstream poiltical life.
Politically though, this does kind of neutralize Warren and supporters, though. The real hard right wingnut christianists will hate Warren for agreeing to speak for a man they believe to be a black muslim communist as much as we’re outraged with Obama for pandering to the wingnut christianists. Thus political karma is balanced in the end here, although I still think its wrong to appease the likes of Warren, whatever the politics of the whole thing.
serious question: why do you believe?
i don’t see it, but lots of other people seem to.
All I know is that Cheney admitted to waterboarding, on television, who indicts the bastard, I don’t care… but somebody better do it…
amen.
i don’t have
muchany faith in levin though. :(I believe at the end of the day Obama will be sorry if he uses Warren. Call it crazy prophecy, but I know it will prove to be true. I guess I better tell him…
I am personally tired of having “faith” in anyone at this point, but I say we all e-mail them all to death, if necessary….
The saying goes in politics: What have you done for me lately? Giving Warren a spot in the Inauguration won’t appease or neutralize the religious right for 5 minutes. Also Obama’s postpartisanship has had exactly zero effect on Corker, Shelby, and McConnell in the auto bailout. And this isn’t about having to wait until he’s President because he did already intervene on FISA and the $700 billion bailout. These went through because Republicans were able to successfully play Democrats, getting Democrats to cast bad votes while many Republicans had the luxury of voting against the legislation yet still seeing it passed.
If somebody/all of us don’t let our senators and congress critters know that we want those bastards indicted for war crimes for authorizing torture, we are all just as culpable for allowing it to happen without or with our consent….
he’s not trying to appease the religious right.. at least that’s not what he’s setting out to do. He’s making a statement about the whole post-partisan crap and driving a wedge between the wingnut extremists he knows will be PO’d by his inviting Warren to speak and the wingnut moderates he wants in his big tent. From my perspective, this IS appeasement of a segment of society I personally think are no better than the Taliban, but that’s from my personal perspective (and from the perspective of progressive Dems as a group). But again, we’re not the audience here. I just intend to express my frustration about that fact.
I think you [Jane] have Obama’s number. So how do we hurt him enough so he pays attention? Nothing else is going to work.
I am with you totally on the appeasement crap, and don’t much like to see it myself…..
Yes, this is indeed his Sister Souljah moment — and he isn’t even POTUS yet. Under the bus in record time!
Having been a gay activist for some 39 of my 61 years I’ve seen this before. As Emma Goldman said if elections changed anything they would be outlawed.
Gay politics is from the streets, not the suites.
Straights who don’t understand what I’m talking about should see Milk to get the skinny. Whether it will mean anything to you is entirely up to you. I couldn’t care less.
I really really don’t care about straight people at all. They’ve never given me any reason to do so.
In politics you have to kiss a lot a frogs and you can bet that any successful politician, even the ones you like, have kissed a whole lot.
I also don’t like the role these mega rockstar clerics are starting to play again in American society (this happened once before early in the 20th century, to no good end at all). This isn’t Iran.
Rationalization – (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening.
Rationalization
defense, defense mechanism, defense reaction – (psychiatry) an unconscious process that tries to reduce the anxiety associated with instinctive desires.
Primary Gut reactions are 100% correct so the psyche is then comforted with words to override the primary correct reaction. Also called manipulation.
probably true, but I would rather kiss the frog I like than the frog I don’t.
and my experience is getting my way….
I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about what politicians have to do to get elected and then try to get their programs through. Politics is far from being a debating society. It’s hard slogging work and the politician is always expected to deliver.
And here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..52042.html
Here’s the transcript I wrote. What does it mean?
.
cool. thanks. sounds about right. I think that’s all part of the grand design..the problem is, the moderate wingnuts aren’t much better than the wingnut extremists, among the Christianists. On which side of the divide will the Palinists fall on? I think this is a lose-lose proposition. There’s no reason why anybody should think they have to engage with the Taliban.. split them, don’t split them, PO them, don’t PO them, it doesn’t matter. The best of them are still inimical threats to the very fabric of American democracy.
I think Obama is making a smart play, for manyi of the reasons Jane mentions above. Here’s the point: in the past Democrats have appointed reactionaries to the Defense/Security positions to protect the right flank. Obama is making a big left turn by getting us out of Iraq, even if most of the people want it to happen. There is going to be a Defence Department makeover, and it is going to make a lot of people in that industry very unhappy. Their weapon are the bumf*ks who always vote reactionary but are also religious right. He pacifies the religious right with symbolism — he knows from the Bush/Rove gambit that they can be bought for nothing, because they are rubes — and he gets them a bit off his back in the storm that’s coming.
You got to give people something. At least if there’s nothing in it but hot air, why the hell not? No policy here, just PR. It actually helps him that the rest of us sound off on it.
Warren is not moving anywhere. Just like the rest of them he’s into power and he knows that if he abandons his hideous positions on choice and gays his flock will abandon him.
I’m seeing this as Obama basically telling his base to go Cheney themselves. Of course YMMV but I have no intention of watching this hate monger therefore I guess I’ll not be watching the inaguration. C’est la vie.
Obama will disappoint. Repeatedly. We might as well get used to it. (I seem to remember typing those words a lot last sprint.)
I so hope you are wrong, but so fear you are right.
Why not a neo-nazi, a klansman,a minuteman?
Thanks for that transcript. It sounds like Levin is waffling. OTOH he says he wants to turn over material to the DOJ but on the other he talks about a commission. Now these aren’t mutually exclusive but if you turn the evidence over to the DOJ, that is taking politics out of it or at least would under any other Administration, but a commission to me seems like a recipe for a whitewash. What didn’t get mentioned but should have is a special counsel.
What has he given us?
I think what he is saying is for Bush/Cheney to release the auto loan funds or there will be investigations.
Shorter just to say “WBC”
Levin was a very inarticulate and ineffective supporter of the auto bailout.
I disagree with almost all of this. Please Jane, write 10 more just like it.
First, the notion of the “Team of Rivals” is obviously meaningless. The Obama campaign ethos was to encounter an issue, fight it out behind closed doors, make a decision, and sell that decision with one voice. If they transplant that ethos to government, the outcome will look like first-term Bush. But the people in the room making the decisions won’t be deranged.
Second, I’d rather Rick Warren not be on stage too. But he is the most popular evanelical leader going right now. His presence signals something to his people. Some wingnuts will see him as a sellout, but I bet more will see him joining Obama there as a ceasefire. If I’m right, he’ll have blunted some opposition without compromising on anything substantive. That’s a win.
Third, it seems to me that Obama has managed to create the perception of space with the left without actually selling out. If that makes it easier for him to win on Stimulus, Taxes, and Health Care this term, then I’ll wear being unhappy with the presence of Hillary, Gates, etc. As long as he he seeks what he campaigned on — with the exception of escalation in Afghanistan — I’ll be pleased.
So, the more “The left is pissed” stories the better. So please Jane, write more of these.
thanks for transcript – i was off dealing with the insurance adjuster and related.
A big barrel of shinola is about to hit the fan economically. If you think this economic shite has hit the fan yer head is politely in the sand. Obama is going to need every friend he can get. If you think a bunch of Christians going batshit crazy from economic stress is a pretty picture then don’t reach out and see what happens. I worked with the Carter campaign in 76 and progressively watch him get put into a corner by his enemies. It sucks but it takes time and traction and huge compromise to get this thing going. You have to build power and trust. If you think Obama alreay has tons of “political capital” yer living in la la land. Suck it up folks we didn’t get here in a day and we ain’t gettin out quick. Shoulders to the wheel.
I don’t know if it’s an effective strategy to use Warren or not, but I don’t buy it that it is inclusiveness. Warren himself is the opposite of inclusive. He doesn’t believe in it. Maybe this is meant to distract us from Rev. Wright, who if invited might get up there rail at the warmongers.