Ezra (4.00 / 5)

I like Ezra's commentary on this:

An argument can be made, I guess, that Obama is using Warren to reach his flock. Warren, after all, is the author of the best selling book of all time, and Obama's demonstrated respect for the preacher might build some level of rapport, or at least openness, with that community. But I doubt it. Rather, the benefits probably flow in the other direction. Warren legitimacy as a mainstream figure grows. His status as the country's religious leader is cemented. And he keeps telling his flock that the ideas Democrats hold make them Marxists and child murderers and advocates of the slippery slope to legalized incest.

Obama's embrace of Warren might mean Obama's name is left out of the sermon, but will that be true for the next Democrat? Or the next? And so we'll have a situation where the preacher that Obama embraced is working aggressively to convince his flock to vote against Obama's would-be Democratic successors? There's a difference between reaching out to the evangelical community with respect and surrendering to it. Obama could have called on an Episcopalian or a Methodist or any number of more complicated and nuanced religious figures. Giving Warren this sort of political-religious opportunity effectively codifies his position as America's most politically important, and accepted, religious leader. That seems unwise, and unnecessary.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 18:41:00 PM CST

Can't an argument of this type be made (4.00 / 1)

("Obama's demonstrated respect for the preacher might build some level of rapport, or at least openness, with that community") for every odious personnel and policy decision an opportunistic and cynical politician makes?

---

by: VLaszlo @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 18:47:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not exactly -- warren has a big flock; cheney, not so much... (0.00 / 0)

(please don't mistake this for a defense of obama's choice here -- it sickens me greatly).  

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:02:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So, its all about self-serving political opportunism? (0.00 / 0)

I guess that makes it OK.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 23:00:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Segregated high school for homosexuals? (4.00 / 2)

Really?  That seems too crazy to be real.

---

by: TValley @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 18:50:08 PM CST

It's real .. (0.00 / 0)

after all .. it's Tony Perkins .. and James Dobson we're talking about .. nothing is too low for those assholes

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:02:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it's misleading (what do you expect).... but there is a grain of truth to it... (4.00 / 4)

basically, CPS created a school that was designed to be extra-safe and whatnot for queer and trans students -- students who may not have been safe at their neighborhood schools.  my impression, from having limited contacts with queer and trans youth in chicago, was that the school was generally a success, and was particularly valuable for gender-nonconforming students.

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:05:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ach... apparently this is totally not true.... (4.00 / 1)

the school seems not to have been built.  but i definitely heard about a school where lots of gender non-conforming students went.... maybe i'll ask some of my teacher-friends about this when i visit chicago over the holidays...  

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 20:03:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

New York City (4.00 / 1)

The Harvey Milk Academy, or something like that.  It is a part of the public school system.

Here it is on Wikipedia.

The school is 95% black and Latino, has a 92% graduation rate, and is composed of transfers from other neighborhood schools in New York City's public system.  It is also part of the public system now, though it was started outside it by a nonprofit.

Sounds good to me.  Some of those schools in the tougher neighborhoods have got to be really difficult for gender-nonconforming 14-year-olds.

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 21:29:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To be fair... (4.00 / 1)

I think his heart was in the right place... I think it was supposed to be something to let homosexual teens feel more secure, or free.... something to that affect.  It IS a bad idea, though... and I think it was shot down fairly quickly.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:14:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

do you have a link? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: TValley @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 13:38:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

never mind, it's in another comment (0.00 / 0)

---

by: TValley @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 13:39:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A very disappointing choice (0.00 / 0)

that is the second moral failure by Obama with respect to gay folks: McClurklin and Warren.

And Warren is opposed to women also in that he opposes reproductive freedom.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 18:50:59 PM CST

She's known for a bit more than that (4.00 / 2)

She's also known for trying to straighten out the Chicago school district when teachers were manipulating test score data to increase their bonuses.  She invited statisticians to investigate the district to find irregularities like that, successfully.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but that school was a test program, to see if gay students voluntarily going to an all-gay school would be beneficial to those students.  I did not get the impression that gay students were forced to go there.  Again, please correct me if I am wrong (I hope I am not - segregation of that sort would be a BIG strike).

---

by: GWMustGo @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:02:38 PM CST

High School Musical (4.00 / 3)

Interestingly enough, the gay high school thing is apparently true.

The school in question was not designed exclusively for gay students, but rather, would "cater" to gay students who felt alienated or intimidated at their traditional school. Duncan liked the idea as a way to respond to the growing dropout rate among GLBT students (a study in Chicago in 2003 found that gay students are three times more likely to miss school because they didn't feel safe).

I do think Matt's sarcastic objection is misplaced, though.  No one (reasonable) claims Obama can bring these people on his side on social issues.  The question is whether he can get their support for Health Care and Energy.  The jury is still out, but I don't believe this post gives us any evidence one way or the other.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:03:00 PM CST

Is their a YMCA in this High School. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: nkpolitics @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:34:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're Missing Matt's Point, Mark (4.00 / 3)

This is just another reminder that these folks aren't interested in anything but social issues.

It's only in their minds that any city-wide educational leader anywhere would be "best known for advocating the use of the city's taxpayer funds to create a segregated high school for homosexuals," even if the wording were straightened out to actually be true.

And this is what Matt is pointing to--you can't change these people.  That's who they are--not "Christian" leaders or even "Evangalical" leaders, they are social conservative ideological political leaders. If he wants to reach out evangelicals, fine: reach out to evangelicals, but not to political leaders who falsely claim to speak for evangelicals.  

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 20:13:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this kind of highschool is not new (4.00 / 1)

gay teens are subject to incredible abuse and peer pressure. I know NYC has at least one 'gay' high school which is of remarkable quality. it was established to provide a sanctuary where gay teens could go to high school without a lot of bullshit. the school is not exclusively gay, its just predominantly. I'm sure 10 min of googling would reveal this is pretty common in urban areas.  

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 20:17:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So the support of the left is taken for granted (0.00 / 0)

again.

No reason to "cater" to anyone on that end of the political spectrum, eh?

Of course, the "jury is still out".

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 23:03:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Health Care and Energy (4.00 / 2)

So you don't support Obama's Health Care and Energy proposals?  Or do you think they'll be easy to pass?  Every president for the past 30 years has tried to fix energy and failed.  Almost the same goes for health care.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 00:20:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And playing up to the very same set of people that failed (0.00 / 0)

for the last 30 years is gonna change that?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:05:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Warren?!? (0.00 / 0)

Oh, and there is no excuse for Warren.  

---

by: GWMustGo @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 19:03:19 PM CST

There is an excuse (0.00 / 0)

Gay rights are not a priority for Obama.  He is a center-right president.  He is Cass Sustein as a politician.  

PS: Gay rights groups waited too late to complain.  They gave him a pass on same-sex marriage, which he opposes for religious reasons. How does that differ from Obama's position? See this: New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration

---

by: damitajo1 @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 20:10:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Serious Dividends, Indeed! (4.00 / 2)

Note FRC wrote:

Duncan is best known for advocating the use of the city's taxpayer funds to create a segregated high school for homosexuals.

and not:

Duncan is best known for advocating the use of the city's taxpayer funds to create a segregated high school for Satanic Sodomites.

See?  That's change we can believe in!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 20:06:00 PM CST

5 months ago I could understand (0.00 / 0)

I could 'get' this strategy 5 months ago if the goal was to win over a significant segment of the population to help push through health care or global warming.

but now?

first, when GM and Chrysler go through Chapt 11, and the state pension after state pension after state pension collapse, while state medicare budgets strain budgets, and unemployment measured by the U-6 hits 15%, national Health Care will be is already a Slam Dunk.

second, the Global Warming fight is going to be back burnered. (dont hate the messenger). alt energy technologies were barely financial competitive with Oil at $130. Oil is at $40, I personally expect it to get back up to $60, but even at 60 most alt energy aside from nuclear is not going to be price competitive. People will wisely buy higher millage cars. but people will not be willing to pay a premium (especially in a prolonged recession) for feel-good global friendly energy. yeah, obama might through some money at this stuff in the stimulus, but thats unlikely to be sustainable, especially if this debt spending ever comes home to roost, and it won't make any big difference in habits with oil being half the price it was 5 months ago. basically Global Warming needs oil to be expensive, or american just don't care. they don't really care about melting ice, they don't even care about $24K+ per child national debt obligations.

-

ok - revise, this does make some sense. Obama is going to have a very hard reelection - he's basing out. moving further from the left to prime the small donation pump for next time around. its never too early to plan for tomorrow.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 20:27:33 PM CST