Comments on: Why Do We Need a Rick Warren At All?

By: DeanOR

DeanOR — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:10:41 +0000

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.

By: igo2go

igo2go — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:57:01 +0000

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.

By: selise

selise — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:19:31 +0000

thanks for transcript – i was off dealing with the insurance adjuster and related.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:18:49 +0000

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.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:13:59 +0000

Levin was a very inarticulate and ineffective supporter of the auto bailout.

By: JDM3

JDM3 — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:48:55 +0000

Shorter just to say “WBC”

By: sunshine

sunshine — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:43:27 +0000

I think what he is saying is for Bush/Cheney to release the auto loan funds or there will be investigations.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:28:56 +0000

What has he given us?

By: Hugh

Hugh — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:27:52 +0000

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.

By: rayinsac

rayinsac — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:25:15 +0000

Why not a neo-nazi, a klansman,a minuteman?