Yay!

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 00:17


Actually the real problem with the Rick Warren pick is that he's actually called for the assassination of the Iranian President.  That's like, a serious diplomatic boo boo.

I suppose my only quibble with this photo is that Obama always promised to throw progressives under the bus.  It shouldn't be a surprise.  But it is!  Through lovely actions like this, Obama is accelerating the process of waking up from the dreamland progressives have been in for years.  There aren't that many lines Obama can cross and actually find his legions of annoying trolls silenced, but attacking the gay community in the wake of proposition 8 is one of them.

Hooray for this kind of throwing us under the bus.  At least no one died and stupid greedy assholes didn't make any money from it.  That's being thrown under the bus I can believe in.

Matt Stoller :: Yay!

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yay! | 73 comments
Meh! (4.00 / 2)
The pick was insensitive to say the least, and I hope that there's enough stink to force Obama to at least address it, but the fact remains... the guy is going to say a prayer and that's it... he's not in the cabinet.... he's not an advisor... he's a bone thrown to the right wing, and one with very little meat on it...

It's not a bad political move, and would have been OK had it not been for the terrible loss on prop 8 in California so recently.... a careless oversight on the OBama team's part...  They are going to have to address it...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

well, you know (4.00 / 8)
It is the second time this happened. So, I can't really defend the Obama people here. It is nice, I suppose, to have these Bush-supporting evangelicals 'neutral' [Warren] or pro-Obama [McClurkin], but it seems to me there had better be some real payoff to the gay community if they are to endure what amounts to an endorsement of these hateful pastors.  Repeal DOMA, as promised.  Allow gays to serve openly in the military.  Etc.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
I think you might get the last one... (4.00 / 2)
...there are a lot of generals openly pushing for it...

We'll see... I do understand the frustration (and it is justified), but I've found that liberals get very upset over symbols...  If there was some significant policy shifting going on or something like that, then there would be serious cause for concern...

The key question is, will life be better for gay Americans in 4 years or will it be worse...  I think that the latter is unlikely.  If McCain were elected, than the latter would be almost definite.

He really should address this, though... he's hurt a lot of people, unintentionally, I'm sure... but, it's still happened... and that needs to be addressed...  These gaffes cannot continue to happen.  At some point, a mistake like this will spill over into policy and then it becomes much more than a symbolic problem.

If he's serious about the big tent, he needs to make sure that those in the tent aren't pushing others out.  That's important, too...


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Unintentionally? .. (4.00 / 7)
You think Obama doesn't know where Warren stands on those issues? .. come on!!
[ Parent ]
Obama certainly didn't pick him... (0.00 / 0)
...'cos he wanted to "stick it" to gay people... I think we can all agree on that... it was careless negligence on their part not to think of the raw and hurt feelings of the gay community in the wake of proposition 8, but I doubt it was deliberate...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
It wasn't meant to hurt us (4.00 / 8)
but it was meant as an indicator that Obama finds the people who want us 're-educated' and devoid of rights important.  

The effing Matthew Shepperd act and a trans-inclusive ENDA better effing be signed before February is over.  

[ Parent ]
No, it was a signal that Obama is more concerned that the religious right (4.00 / 6)
not feel slighted by his administration, than that the secular left feel the same way.

It makes political sense because the radical right have other options in an election, while the left is expected to sit down, shut up, and vote for whomever the Democratic Party deems acceptable. That mechanism is tried and true, but it ain't "Change".

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

[ Parent ]
I don't know that life for gays (0.00 / 0)
compared to others has proved worse generally over the past eight years, so what's your point.

That question doesn't apply here.  Hilary Rosen makes the argument in the clearest way possible.

Roland Martin is a know-nothing homophobe.  

[ Parent ]
We're on the same side here... (0.00 / 0)
...and I agree with Hilary...

What can I say?  The day is spoiled for many people... but, it is only a prayer invocation... it's not the DOMA or something like that...

Apparently, these two are friends... I don't know how that happens... but, maybe that's why Obama has a 79% approval rating and I do not.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
"only a prayer invocation"? (4.00 / 7)
it's also "only mainstreaming Christian fundamentalism"
[ Parent ]
That's the real danger, here. (4.00 / 3)
Fundamentalists like to claim they are the only religious people in America.

This action reinforces that pernicious idea. We get a "nice" fundamentalist to give the closing and a "mean" fundamentalist to give the prayer, and normal religious Americans (mainstream Christians, Jews, etc.) are left out in the cold.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
As a normal non-religious American (0.00 / 0)
This factionalism by you religious folks is meaningless to me.  By now, I feel like I've heard it all, so there's probably nothing this guy can say that will make me feel differently about Obama/jews/gays/fundamentalists/other Christians.

Also, my impression of fundamentalists is that they could start supporting Obama if he plays his cards right.  He's certainly set up as a larger-than-life figure.  Their natural tendency to see things in black and white leads me to believe that Obama needs to kiss up to fundamentalists in order to succeed.  If he can win their support, he can better get things done.

[ Parent ]
Early on when Obama came to the netroots (4.00 / 1)
we attacked him for lack of substance. Then we listened to him and started to believe. Now, I'm probably not alone in realizing that maybe he wasn't talking to us after all.
He was attacked ... (4.00 / 9)
because he thought he could get away with giving the same platitudes the people like Pelosi give ... basically .. they all treat us like we are stupid .. and then they wonder why their approval ratings suck
[ Parent ]
Hear, Hear! (4.00 / 4)
What I hate about Trad Media assholes too.

If I know more than you, you blow dried brain dead teleprompter reading News Actor, remind me why you have a job again dolt.

[ Parent ]
Until we start flexing more muscle, (4.00 / 5)
then the presumption that we're stupid (or more to to the point, I think: powerless) is completely valid.

We keep chasing the new shiny object/outrage. If we want power, we've gotta take power by doing something that hurts Obama. By running a primary (even a failed one, so long as it's expensive) against a special ally of his--_even if not a particular objectionable one._

What price did Obama pay for his FISA betrayal? What price for McClurkin? What for Lieberman? What for telcom immunity?

None, none, none, and nada.

He's not a fool. If we've taught him one lesson it's that we make a great deal of noise, signifying exactly nothing.

[ Parent ]
As I have said before ... (4.00 / 1)
if we are to change anything .. a lot of people are going to end up bankrupt(not because of the markets) ... but because we don't have the money of the "big boys" that control Congress ... while we do have Brookings(and even then .. that is more centrist than liberal) .. we don't have the think tanks .. or the kinds of people that can get on Wolf Blitzer .. or most other shows on TV(besides KO and Maddow) ... we need to be able to raise money the kinds of which will scare the shit out of Washington(because with money .. comes power) .. and that is going to require a lot of people to spend money they really shouldn't .. a lot of rich liberals .. don't spend for the kinds of things that rich Republicans/Conservatives do ... where is our version of wingnut welfare?  There isn't .. just look what it took to take on Lieberman .. someone who was willing to spend a lot of his own money
[ Parent ]
Well, I'm not sure we need all (4.00 / 2)
that much money. Not if we're organized and unified. That's problem, to my mind. We're not great at sticking to a single issue over a long period, instead of chasing the outrage of the day. And we're very not great at following orders! Which makes unified action of the sort I envision difficult.

What I think you'd want to do is pick a fight with, I don't know, Valerie Jarrett (just by way of example), if she's ever up for anything. Someone like that. Someone perfectly unobjectionable in every way. Someone we even like. And try with a singleminded focus to scuttle something for her. And even if we fail, to give her--and Obama--a huge headache.

Because that's power. You fuck us on FISA, we fuck you on Jarrett. Even though we like her!

Trying to screw over Lieberman or undermine Vilsack's nomination doesn't send that message. They say, 'we object on the merits'. Which we do. But that's not the most important message we can send right now.

[ Parent ]
You are right ... (4.00 / 1)
And we're very not great at following orders! Which makes unified action of the sort I envision difficult.

It's part of why wing-nut radio works .. and stuff like Air America can't get off the ground(of course some of Air America's personnel decisions suck .. and that they can't find a station in Philly is just asking for failure) .. I read an op-ed in the Philly Inquirer today .. here:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer...

How hilarious is that?  When is the last time Republicans had a "Big Tent"?  Lincoln?

[ Parent ]
My favorite bit: (4.00 / 1)
Whatever happened to the Republicans' "big tent"? The answer is that the Democrats took it. They unapologetically recruited pro-life and pro-energy candidates.

The Republican big tent = pro-life candidates.

[ Parent ]
I NEVER Accepted Him (0.00 / 0)
I am so happy I was skeptical from the very beginning.  I never accepted him.  Now, I don't have to try.  
[ Parent ]
yes, but... (4.00 / 1)
I knew Obama was a centrist, too.  I'm not proud of having seen the truth before it mattered, I just had enough life experience and, oh yeah, listened to what he said.

Nonetheless, we do have a responsibility to move him to the left.  Everyone, whether you knew he would show us the bird or are just waking up to the fact, needs to be involved in community action.  If there's nothing going on at home, then start something.  Demonstrations around evictions, for example.  Regular pickets of Bank of America?  Obama will have to bend to the will of the people.

I swore off DC demos, but we need an unemployed march.  We need a foreclosure march.

Wringing our hands on line and being satisfied with our prescience will achieve bupkis.

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

[ Parent ]
Forget 1-20-09 Think about 11-4-10 (4.00 / 8)
It is really not productive to get all excited about Obama being Obama. Our screaming is music to his ears. Indifference and redirection of cash and energy would earn more respect.

Many of us started out supporting people other than Obama because he did not sell himself as a progressive. We responded to his campaign rhetoric by getting behind him 200% to stop the Republicans. He will make us all have some regrets.

The following activities might be more useful.

1.) A good video library of Obama campaign promises where we keep track of promises kept and promises broken.

2.) Most of our energy should target Congress and local races to elect "More Better Democrats" in 2010.

P.S. Good cartoon

I'm a defender (4.00 / 5)
Of Obama generally and a long time supporter but I think your video library idea is a good one. I'd be very willing to help out with something like that.

Also on the More Better Democrats front, I think we should in particular try to focus on the Senate where possible. As Chris has noted that's where we have made the least progress. Our best hopes are probably in New Hampshire (Rep. Hodes or Shea-Porter), Ohio (Rep. Betty Sutton) and Iowa (If Grassley retires Rep. Braley). Also if there is a special election in Illinois (Jackson Jr or Schakowsky) or Mikulski retires (Edwards, Sarbanes). Most likely New Hampshire and Ohio would be the strongest targets.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Keeping Jeb out of the Senate should count. (4.00 / 5)
Even if Alex Sink isn't exactly a progressive icon.  Florida is a big enchilada and holding both Senate seats would be a good first step to winning it back at the state level.  And again, putting an end to the Bush family in elected politics.  That's change we can believe in, right?
[ Parent ]
Lets celebrate! (4.00 / 2)
Our hate for the not yet to be president. hold your hands and sing along!~

This message is brought you by:

~Vote Third party 012, coming soon near your blog~

Hate? (4.00 / 5)
Can you get a little bit more dramatic.  This isn't about Obama and hope.  This country is hardly recognizable and the vote was a demand for real change - not change we can believe it.
[ Parent ]
Head spinning (4.00 / 11)
First I get upset that someone like Warren plays a major role at Obama inauguration.  Then people start going all psycho on the subject, and I start getting pissed off at the Obama haters.  Then I hop over to dKos and see idiotic, highly promoted diaries claiming Obama shouldn't be held responsible for his actions or just making fun of people upset by Obama's actions.  Makes me want to scream!

Obama is an ally but Obama is not one of us.  He gearing up to be one of the best presidents we've had in a very long time, but the competition ain't exactly stiff.  There ain't no bus and there ain't no throwing.  Its only when we pretend Obama is something he is not that we all get so disappointed.

this is fine (4.00 / 4)
and i understand where you're coming from to some extent, but you have to admit that campaign slogans in the primary like "change" and whatnot were designed in part to take advantage of progressives' idealism.  it's obviously a politician's job to make you think he's one of you when he's trying to  get your vote (i.e. the primaries) but you can't expect us not to be a little disappointed by the quick volte face (which is what we are supposed to be and should be).  Particularly the 60? 70? percent of progressives (women, lgbt people, anit-imperialists, etc.) who experience such a thing as a direct slap in the face.  If people don't communicate their anger well, that's a problem and it results in the kind of "dialogue" that you're talking about, but I think I guess I want to say that it comes from a real place.  

Honestly, his allegedly superpoliticalpragmateam couldn't find a reverend that is christian and also doesn't believe in an ideology of oppression?  I could have suggested some names from under the very real bipartisan bus.

[ Parent ]
What's Steve Hildebrand got to say to us now, eh? (4.00 / 6)
This would be a pretty brilliant time to extend the "right of response" to Hildebrand.  

(For anyone who might not know, Hildebrand is gay.  That doesn't mean he can't or won't spin this as a positive, but if he tries it should be entertaining to watch.)

He'll call it the first "real" rift (4.00 / 1)
 with progressives, like Sam Stein.

A lot of powerful gays have chosen the triangulator route.  

My blog  

[ Parent ]
He will tell us that (4.00 / 1)
homophobia is the progressive position.  Just because he's gay does not mean he'll date to criticize Obama.

Whatever Obama does is by definition "progressive."  

[ Parent ]
Misleading (4.00 / 4)
Admittedly, I'm somewhat surprised by the choice of Rick Warren delivering the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration.  My knee-jerk reaction to learning of this is similar to the reaction that some have already expressed on this board.  While that reaction is legitimate and valid, I believe once again that it's being taken to the extreme here on OpenLeft.  For example:  

There aren't that many lines Obama can cross and actually find his legions of annoying trolls silenced, but attacking the gay community in the wake of proposition 8 is one of them.

Obama attacking the gay community?  Really?  Attacking?  This exaggerated rhetoric follows a familiar pattern here at OpenLeft.  All too often when an individual is selected to be a part of the Obama Administration, Search Committee, or have some involvement with the Obama team, a small group with never-ending outrage for all things Obama looks at the person's most annoying wart and declares that Obama is personally attacking a particular group.  

Fair enough; attack if you must.  But all too often in these attacks there's no apparent attempt to provide balance.  At times the attacks leave out pertinent and relevant information that would provide insight and understanding into the decisions in which you disagree.  Leaving out such valuable information is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, and it shows a disrespect for your readers and a weakness in your argument.  

For example, would it not be of some relevance to note that the the choice of Rick Warren delivering the invocation was announced by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC), a board comprised of both Democrats and Republicans? And would it not be informative to note that the JCCIC plans and executes all Inaugural activities at the United States Capitol, including the Inaugural swearing-in ceremony of the President and Vice President of the United States?  And might it provide greater understanding to note that along with Rick Warren delivering the invocation, it was also announced that Joseph Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., would deliver the benediction?

Certainly there would still be some who would remain angered over the choice of Warren even with this additional information.  And that's understandable.  However, by providing a more accurate picture, you would be doing a greater service for your readers by allowing them to base their decision on the relevant facts, rather than misleading them by slanting a story to serve your personal agenda.  In addition, by providing a more honest portrayal of the facts, you might find that honesty has a way of silencing the "legions of annoying trolls" and allows for a more educated dialog.


Theres a really good video response to this type of criticism (0.00 / 0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Hating your enemies and dishonestly criticizing your allies is not the only way to do things.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

[ Parent ]
Talk about dishonest criticism (4.00 / 2)
The comparison to Malcolm X, would only apply if we were criticizing Warren for being a Christian rather than being a bigot.

MLK, didn't support mollycoddling bigots or centrism.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
That is exactly what Malcom X was accusing him of (0.00 / 0)
There was absolutely no criticism if MLK being a christian.

All of the criticism was that he was mollycoddling and enabling bigots.

The criticism was wrong of course, but that was kind of my point.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

[ Parent ]
malcolm at the time (4.00 / 2)
was an advocate of black separatism, and thought all whites were bad. MLK was criticizing him for claiming all whites were bad.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
let me ask you a question (4.00 / 7)
if Obama had put up a rabbi who is a right wing likudnik, would you say it's not a slap in the face to palestinians, among others?

If Obama had put up a Hindu fundamentalist, would you not say it's a slap in the face to Indian Muslims, women, minorities, and human rights activitists?

So my point is that the vantage point from which you are approaching this issue - and I'm sure you can think of an anology in the present day that applies to you annd would place you on the other side of the "I need to vent" position - distinctly shapes the way you respond to it.  You can't expect people to always present a lengthy and cogent rational analysis...sometimes we want and need to throw shoes.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, but you're wrong! (4.00 / 4)
You make it sound as if Obama had nothing to do with the choice of Warren.  Wrong.

"The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, today announced the program for the 56th Presidential Inauguration, which will take place on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2009.

The program participants were based on requests from the Presidential-elect and the Vice President-elect."


http://inaugural.senate.gov/me...
[ Parent ]
it is amazing to me (4.00 / 4)
How many Obama defenders have gone from "He makes the policy, everyone he picks just implements!" to "He's not responsible, the inauguration committee did this all on their own!"

It's a quite a 180.

[ Parent ]
Were you ever on the bus? (3.33 / 6)
Stoller,

You were never on the Obama bus to complain about being run thrown under the bus.  I'll admit that Obama has made several less than progressive appointments, but he has done very little that was not put forward or implied by his campaign.

Now I am not saying that you had to be onboard as early as me to have a right to complain, or even that you have to have supported Obama at all to complain about him as president.  This sense of betrayal you have been portraying is annoying and disturbing, you can't be betrayed by someone whom you never wholeheartedly supported.

Your support for Obama has always been tepid based on your writings.  You say you voted for Obama, but wrote about campaigning for Hilary.  During the general much of your effort was directed towards down ticket races (worthy as they were).  Your criticism of him has rarely been productive, and your compliments are usually backhanded.

I am not annoyed that you were a tepid supporter, or that you said mean things about my candidate.  I am offended that you talk about Obama as if you were in any way invested in him.  You speak of betrayal as if you gave enough of your time and money to his campaign that he owes you something.

Keep up the criticism, but cut out the sense of betrayal.  It is patently offensive.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

Did your support for him (4.00 / 2)
betray (to use your word) the rest of us?  Sort of the like the people who voted for Bush.  I hold them responsible for what he did.  He couldn't have done it if they hadn't of voted for him.  One does not have to be on the bus to get run over by it.  In fact, the only safe place is on the bus, which is where Obama keeps putting the people I'd rather see under the bus.  
[ Parent ]
wait (4.00 / 4)
I thought Obama is President of all the people, including those who gave him money and supported his candidacy through volunteering.  Weird how those that did this and are critical don't get to have a President.

I will admit, though, that early on, I was campaigning for Lamont and he was campaigning for Lieberman.  So I guess in that sense I was always a bit tepid.

[ Parent ]
That isn't what I said (0.00 / 0)
I didn't say that you shouldn't have standards by which to judge him, or that he is not your president.  By all means critique, judge, and do your best to elicit your own definition of good behavior.

You are right to point out that Obama is president to all of us liberal activist and tepid supporter alike.  He is also president to the LGBT as well as the evangelicals.

Point out that he is doing stuff you don't like, don't act like he betrayed some sense of standards to which he never aspired and you never though he would reach for.


My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
"you said mean things about my candidate"? (0.00 / 0)
An Obama fundie!!!

Good to see that it's "your candfidate" that maters, not what he does.  

[ Parent ]
B.S. (4.00 / 2)
I feel rather betrayed, as an American, by the actions of the Bush Junta in response to the 9/11/01 attacks. I feel very betrayed by their efforts to actively subvert the US Constitution with regard to torture, wire-tapping, and detention of those at Gitmo (among others).  

Will you now tell me that I have no right to feel that I was betrayed by the Bush Administration because I "never wholeheartedly supported" Bush?

That is patently offensive.

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

[ Parent ]
I agree with Luam (0.00 / 0)
My take on things is that the anger/feeling of betrayal comes from the fact that most people running the progressive blogosphere actively resent the support Obama gets from young people. It's not that Obama betrayed anyone, most people saw Obama for what he was. You can read through Chris Bower's threads during the primary campaign to see that. But the facts are that the progressives as exemplified by the netroots are miffed at the fact that this new generation of democratic voters that have thrown their weight behind Obama. And these voters don't carry the mantle of the traditional progressive. So we see these little temper tantrums and lashing out at "annoying Obama trolls" because there is a sense of a lack of relevance to not just Obama but to Obama's movement in general.

The center has obviously shifted in American politics but there is no real appreciation for that. There is only whining that Obama and the youth voters aren't relying on the "I hate Reagan" playbook of the 30+ crowd.

[ Parent ]
Seriously? .. (0.00 / 0)
My take on things is that the anger/feeling of betrayal comes from the fact that most people running the progressive blogosphere actively resent the support Obama gets from young people.

Why do you think that?  Do you really think they'd appreciate the Warren thing if they knew his positions?

[ Parent ]
Is it OK to feel taken for granted? (4.00 / 1)
I'm not blaming only Mr. O on this point, he's simply following the long line of Democrats that have pretty much taken the votes of the left-wing for granted for decades.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I kind of like to think that those who might be the the left of Obama on one issue, or maybe even all of them, are part of the coalition too, and that we might actually be included when he said he was gonna be the President for everyone.  Since he got my money and my vote, he's played up to the right and the centrists.

Personally, I don't feel "betrayed", just disappointed that "change" was a slogan, rather than a path.


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

[ Parent ]
You have to be on the bus first to be thrown under it (0.00 / 0)
Healthcare Reform and an 800 billion dollar stimulus package is playing up to the right and the center? Only if the center shifted. That's why I say "The center has obviously shifted in American politics but there is no real appreciation for that. There is only whining that Obama and the youth voters aren't relying on the "I hate Reagan" playbook of the 30+ crowd."

The Obama movement has never been about fighting symbolic culture wars that democrats before us were content to lose on. That's not to say there aren't high expectations for repealing don't ask don't tell and the defense of marriage act. But that there is a refusal to engage politics on the same turf progressives seemed to be content to lose on for 2 decades. Treating Warren like he has leprosy doesn't make it any easier to fulfill campaign promises on gay rights.

[ Parent ]
Maybe now you might take the time to read MY comment (4.00 / 1)
and respond to it?

Please point out where I mentioned a "culture war", or "I hate Reagan".  I made not a single mention of "don't ask don't tell".

You seem to be talking to yourself and the image you have projected upon me.


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

[ Parent ]
Egotostical fool (4.00 / 7)
Rick Warren is an egotistical fool and a blowhard and that is obvious from his web site, etc.

Warren claims to have written the best selling book of all time or alternatively the best selling hard cover book of all time.  Coming from a minister that's blasphemous or close to it.  Warren's book sold 30 million copies (about half what the DaVinci Code sold although some of those were paperbacks but hardcover only was the rule for DaVinci for a long time).  The easy all time bestseller, of course, is the Bible with at least 2.5 billion copies.  Number two is Chairman Mao's Little Red Book with around a billion copies.

Warren on his site claims to have written the best book on leadership and management in print.  Yeah, right.  Sun Tsu, Macchiavelli's The Prince, John Wooden's "On Leadership", the Bible and various organizing manuals by the likes of Saul Alinsky come to mind.  If you like it, Napoleon Hill's famous "Think and Grow Rich" would certainly place above Warren.  Are we so sure that anybody will be reading this thing 20 years from now, much less 50.

Catering to pompous fools doesn't deflate the balloon; it let's the hot air expand.  Puncture it.

Freeper quotes from Pandagon (4.00 / 5)
Pam at Pandagon posted the following freeper quotes regarding this incident.

LOL the homo's are taking a right beating lately. This is just great, what is it ah yes change we can believe in have you got that homo's? change you never thought LOL

Since his election to the position of President Elect, Obama has shown increasingly that he may be (emphasis on "may be") a pure old fashioned opportunist. He has betrayed the hard-core left most of all. Does that mean that conservatives can still hope? I dunno.

Disagreement is not allowed. You'd think Obama would know that by now. By the way, they knew Obama's stance on gay marriage didn't they?

Honestly now. Is there anyone abominable sodomites are not "furious" with?

Touchy fags.

we can watch the radical left and homo's get all their knickers in a twist

...

BTW, the most we could hope for is that Obama might turn out to be a pragmatist that would benignly react to events instead of trying to implement a socialist agenda. That said, I will fear him as a possible Manchurian candidate until his last day in office.

I LOVE IT! Nothing so much pleases me as seeing the queerly beloved get angry at Rick Warren over his endorsement of Proposition 8! BRING IT ON!!!

...

great isn't it to see these homo's get done over, the idiots actually thought he was going to give them marriage right off the bat. maybe they never heard Biden or knew in the black community or the area of chicago homo's are not well received. Not only that but did they take no notice of the church he went to for 20 years

obama is actually pissing the left off more than the right and it is great to see

...

So His Majesty is telling the gays to bite him. Sweet.

Is B Hussein telling the rumpriders to pound sand instead of each other?

Did the gays finally realize what Muslims do to homos? Well, they elected a muzzie.

...

This is hilarious! The fags thought when Obama was elected they could shove their gay agenda down everybody's throat. Obama is showing them they don't own him and he has simply used them to get where he is. I think Rick Warren is a good pick but he should council Obama in regards to infanticide.

Obama shouldn't have bothered trying to appease conservative evangelicals. It won't work for the same reason compassionate conservatism (ie: liberal appeasement) didn't work. Meanwhile, he's pissed off a valuable constituency. I'm sure he has the same thought Jorge had, "where else are they gonna go?" but they might stay home next election. See where that got the Republican party?

They still may think he's a Muslim Manchurian candidate, but at least he's making somebody happy with this move.

Apparently, Mr. O reached the demographic he was aiming to please (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
No more Obama-Vegetative State (4.00 / 2)
Thankfully, people are emerging from their Obama-Vegetative State!  It was getting utterly annoying.  
I looked at Daily Kos (4.00 / 2)
this morning.  Nothing Obama does is wrong, say many on the Rec List.  The front pagers are better, and have critcized Obaam for Warren, but the Obama fundies are out in force.

Whatever he does is okay, not just okay, but right and just by definition.  Many are just attached to his person, and not to progressive change.

Well .. (4.00 / 3)
Icebergslim(I think that was the diary telling the Rick Warren complainers to shut up) got troll-rated 10 times(which is technically an abuse) for his/her stupidity .. I am sure he/she would have received a lot more .. except that people paid attention to the rules .. so while there is a lot of blind Obama loyalty at DailyKos .. there are still plenty over there that aren't blindly loyal(as it should be)
[ Parent ]
The diaries there are just sad. (4.00 / 1)
There will be one recommended diary criticizing Obama and the next day there will be 3 or 4 criticizing the original diary. The defender diaries almost never actually address the points of criticism, but instead tell us why we shouldn't be criticizing anything at this point. Why is the need to shout down criticism more important that honest and open debate?  
[ Parent ]
Okay Mr. Smartypants, it's easy (4.00 / 1)
to criticize those 'defender diaries' but maybe you should wait until they're in office, first! Sheesh.

Plus, would you rather be reading RedState? Huh? Huh?

Huh?

[ Parent ]
why bloggers need to calm down: (0.00 / 0)
Does not compute (0.00 / 0)
If Obama put forth a racist preacher instead of a homophobic one, there would be heat from the racists about it (commiserating with the unclean and all that).  Just because the right thinks something is awful doesn't make it awesome.

See: Hillary Clinton.

[ Parent ]
the point is this: (0.00 / 0)
Obama and Warren don't agree on social issues and Obama has made that very clear. BUT that does not mean that two people who disagree on one issue can't come together in a sign of mutual respect and have a moment together. Obama has said that he wants to bring the country together. You people don't want to.  That much is clear. You guys want to be just like George Bush, but from the left. That's pathetic. Symbolic acts like these very well might lessen the amount of hate in our politics. All Warren is doing is praying for Obama. And Joseph Lowery is doing the benediction -- a man who is very pro gay rights. It's like everyone on this site is looking for reasons to complain. He gets no credit for Lowery?

That link illustrates perfectly how both extremes in our politics, the far left and far right, are equally nuts. Purity or else. My way or get lost. People who don't agree with us must be shitlisted. It's small. It's petty. It's George W. Bush. If that's all you guys want to be, the mirror image of Bush, count me out. I'm not interested in seeing another four years that are just like the last eight, but from the left. It's not appealing.  

[ Parent ]
another question (0.00 / 0)
Do you think Warren should not pray for Obama because he's a baby killer? Everyone answer please.
[ Parent ]
Wait which one is the baby killer? (0.00 / 0)
Once more, I pay the Toll Troll.
[ Parent ]
people on the right (0.00 / 0)
consider Obama the baby killer. So, does that make it wrong for Warren to pray for him?
[ Parent ]
I don't think I'm qualified to answer (0.00 / 0)
I worship Dionysus.
[ Parent ]
what (0.00 / 0)
a coward's way out.
[ Parent ]
You know who isn't cowardly? (0.00 / 0)
Dionysus.
[ Parent ]
Dumb question (4.00 / 1)
Do we think Warren shouldn't be given a national platform to increase his (studiously reactionary) profile?

The man can pray for whoever the fuck he likes. But he shouldn't be given a national platform and implicit presidential support for his positions.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
He's not supporting his positions (0.00 / 0)
and that's bullshit and you know it. Is Obama supporting Lowery's pro gay positions then? You can't have it both ways. And it's a good question. It forces you to defend or criticize Warren for agreeing to do this.
[ Parent ]
Nope (4.00 / 2)
They hate Warren because he's not objectionable enough. We hate the pick because that still makes him pretty offensively bigoted.

We're not actually in this just to piss off the lunatic fringe. Bloggers are objecting to Rick Warren because his choice is a slap in the face to the LGBT community, pro-choicers and many others.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
if you view it through (0.00 / 0)
the same us vs. them it is in fact objectionable. If you view it as a means to lessen the hate in our politics, not so much.
[ Parent ]
dsg (0.00 / 0)
From experience, one can presume that the decision to invite Rick Warren was made because (a) Obama likes the guy, and (b) he knows it would send a message to groups like the HRC, and to conservative Christians who might be wary of the new president. Not so much pandering as it is Obama's deft manipulation of the politics of symbolism.  Obviously, Obama disagrees with Rick Warren on important issues. He has said so, many times, and publicly.  And he agrees with him on other important issues. And ignoring something like Warren, a mainstream figure who commands the respect of million of Americans, would be foolish.  Obama's message is: Rick Warren is a part of Obama's America, too.

http://marcambinder.theatlanti...

agreed!

Yay! | 73 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox