i like it (4.00 / 4)

i like the brainstorming going on.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 15:48:20 PM CST

Progressives as battered wives (4.00 / 1)

One of the front-page posters on OpenLeft totally changed my mind about Rick Warren at the inauguration being no big deal, by asking if it would be sort of okay if David Duke made a little speech there, too.

So now that I finally understand how repulsive Obama's choice really is for gays, we're supposed to express "loving" disagreement?

What role are we supposed to be playing? Battered wives?

"I love you, Barack, with your homophobe bigot on the podium and Monsanto running the Department of Agriculture and the mayor of NAFTA running US Trade and tens of thousands of American soldiers on the way to Afghanistan and the $700 billion useless give-away to the banks that you supported and even if you keep beating me and beating me until I'm dead, I will always love you, Barack!"

It's only a month since the election, and progressives have already developed a full-blown case of Battered Wife Syndrome.

What's next on the progressive agenda?  

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 16:42:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hey, you dont have to convince me (4.00 / 2)

I've advocated throwing eggs at his car until he knocks this shit off.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 16:45:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Because I Want To SUCCEED??? (4.00 / 5)

Is that a good enough reason?

No?  Well then how about this: Digby's posted a number of things relating to how Obama's already been puncked by Warren in the past.  It's pretty darned clear to me that Obama's got a bad case of masochism here.  It's not that he's intentionally acting hateful toward the gay community.  It's more like he's dragging them along for the self-flaggelating ride.

And so there's a double argument that flows from this: (1) Hating someone for being self-destructive and self-hating is simply not cool  (2) When you've got someone in a state like that you have to be loving in your correction.  Even that is an iffy proposition.  But trying to be stern and self-righteous is just totally doomed to failure.

Oh, yeah, and finally, Obama's not the only target here.  There are tens, if not hundreds of people out there who are nowehere near clued into what is happening.  It has to play well to them as well.  They could even be significantly more important than Obama.  So you want to be especially non-threatening to them.  You want to open them up, above all, because the rightwing play is all about shutting people down.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:07:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"...he's dragging them along for the self-flaggelating ride." (0.00 / 0)

I love that picture of Rick and Barack dragging any number of vanilla gays into a bizarro bondage-and-discipline scenario in front of the US Capitol.

Harharharhar!!!

There's a zillion earnest progressive bloggers earnestly blogging away at any given moment, but there's only one Paul Rosenberg!

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 20:18:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pink triangles are NOT a passive symbol (4.00 / 4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

The pink triangle (German: Rosa Winkel) was one of the Nazi concentration camp badges, used by the Nazis to identify male prisoners in concentration camps who were sent there because of their homosexuality.

And if - hope, hope- this catches on, the media will remind people of the historical resonance.

When Yithzak Shamir brought a believer in "transfer" of Arabs from the occupied territories into his government in 1991 (1992?), a woman member of the Knesset held up a yellow Star of David in protest. I can't find a source link, but I will never forget the footage.  

---

by: cool blue reason @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:12:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are looking for the Paul from two threads ago (0.00 / 0)

in which he was having some doing some very aggressive arguing.

Paul - im not sure you can win today - you're too aggressive, you're too much of a pansy.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 18:15:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You'd rather we drop the symbolism and just cry? (4.00 / 1)

 For your entertainment?

Our civil show of displeasure isn't for them, they've made their point-loud and clear.  This is for us.

They're an oppressed minority willing to lay their lives on the line for the sake of all of of us.  Most of us have relatives or friends who've done the same.

Where you sound like the typical white dead-beat Christian male who wouldn't lift a finger for anyone but yourself.
You have NO agenda, that's your problem.  

We do, and we'll take care of it our way

 

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 21:16:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Excellent idea (4.00 / 3)

I wonder if this isn't the likeliest way to get Warren dropped from the invocation gig. All those pink triangles - would they make Team Obama squirm? Maybe not.

But anyway, spot on suggestion. Thank you.

---

by: cool blue reason @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 16:01:29 PM CST

Don't think it would make him squirm. (4.00 / 2)

Although I also think we'd have a very hard time making this happen, especially since a significant fraction of older black people would see this as the gays stealing "their" event.  A gay vs black conflict on inauguration day would be quite the Inauguration.

Back to the point though, I don't think it would make Obama squirm, since he's said he respects displays of political power, and he presumably respects those that allow him to be more progressive as least as much as he respects those that force him to be more conservative.  There's some presumptions built into that second clause, but not so much in the first one, and a large display of political power by/for/onbehalfof the gay movement is likely to be greeted with genuine respect, not a hostile "get off my lawn!"

Reverting again to the difficulty angle, I also think that Rick Warren is probably not a large enough peg to hang this kind of action on.  Among the large majority of the Democratic electorate who are not verysecular and verypolitical, there's going to be a series of reactions, including 1) who's Rick Warren?, 2) he's just giving the invocation?, 3) why again is he a problem?, 4) you want us to protest the prayer?, 5) you want us to protest Obama's prayer?, and 6) wait, Obama picked him, right?, and all six of those mean that we'll have a hard time carrying this particular crusade outside our own base, and into the larger electorate that is Obama's base.  Terri Schiavo, Elian Gonzales, Valerie Plame, Matt Shepard (god bless him) were big enough to organize around.  And there may be an insult to the gay community big enough to organize around in the future.  But I don't know that Rick Warren on Inauguration Day is it.

That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try it though.  I've been wrong before.  ;-)

As a thought experiment, try to imagine Olbermann, Maddow, and Jon Stewart broadcasting your case to their audiences.  If you think they could package your case in a way that 60% of their audience would support you, then you've got a live one.  Alternately, if you've got a case that could command 90% support from MoveOn's email list, you might have a live one.  And, as a nod to social media, if you think your case could go superviral on Facebook, then you've got a live one.  I'm not sure "protest Rick Warren's prayer" by any means suggested (triangles, flags, backs, songs) will reach any of those thresholds.

Although:  protests that will be effective with a lower buy-in rate than this triangles idea should still be considered.  Singing might work, if only because you need a smaller percent of people actively involved to make it effective.  Especially if you plan to have many of the singers clustered in one area of the Mall, you could get a noticeable song going with relatively few people.

---

by: texas dem @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:11:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think people at the inauguration (4.00 / 1)

will be more informed about this than the average rank and file Dem. This crowd will contain a lot of Olbermann/Maddow viewers.

Anyone attending will probably have exposure to handy one-page fliers about Rev. Warren, and plenty of media coverage leading up to the event. The guy was on Dateline last night;)

Oh yeah, and he reportedly said that Jews will go to hell:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs...

---

by: cool blue reason @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:18:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They won't let you bring leaflets (4.00 / 2)

onto the Mall.

Best place for flyering's the lines for the Security checkpoints.

Best spot for signs and banners is the Parade route, as they're also banned on the Mall.

http://www.secretservice.gov/p...

 



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:51:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now that's the stuff (0.00 / 0)

Many of us have been doing this for a long time...

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 18:07:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

pink handkerchief in the pocket (4.00 / 2)

telescoping pen in the jacket.

or just wave the damn thing with your hand.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 18:17:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you sure signs are banned on the Mall? (4.00 / 1)

Prohibited Items: As a security precaution, the following items will be prohibited from Inaugural parade route, the White House reviewing stand or the Inaugural balls: firearms, ammunition, explosives, weapons of any kind, aerosols, supports for signs and placards, packages, coolers, thermal or glass containers, backpacks, bags exceeding size restrictions (8"x6"x4"), laser pointers, animals other than helper/guide dogs, structures, bicycles and any other items determined to be a potential safety hazard. With respect to signs and placards, items should be made of cardboard, poster board or cloth and have dimensions no greater than three (3) feet in width, 20 feet in length and one-quarter (1/4) inch in thickness. Surrendered items will not be returned, nor available for pick-up.

Where does it say signs are banned on the Mall?  

---

by: cool blue reason @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 19:31:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Different document, (0.00 / 0)

1st I saw was from the National Capitol Parks. No longer linked from front page of their site, but re-iterated on the Congressional Inaugural Committee's site here. http://inaugural.senate.gov/20...

Preceded the Secret Service release, so it's possibly no longer operative, but I wouldn't bet.

Litigation in both '89 and '01 resulted in rulings that the Mall was under the temporary control of the Inaugural Committee, a private entity, which could ban signs without running afoul of the 1st Amendment, while the Parade Route sidewalks, other than the last 2 blocks remain public.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 13:25:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

First You Say Obama Won't Squirm (0.00 / 0)

And then you give all sorts of reasons that, from where I sit, would make Obama squirm.

Color me, "confused."

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:41:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, I suppose we'll have to be precise about what we mean by "squirm". (4.00 / 1)

I meant that I don't think the person Barack Obama will experience any significant personal discomfort or displeasure if a successful gay rights protest went down at his inauguration.  I think he'll be interested, I think he'll want to know who did it, if it worked, and how it changes the political space he lives in, including negative ripples in the black or evangelical or media communities.  But I don't think he'll be personally discomfited, or, um, squirmy.

Now, politically it could be significant in ways that would make Political Professional Obama somewhat uncomfortable.  Such as, if the protest opens up a rift between the gay and black communities that he then has to deal with.  Ditto if it makes his relations with the evangelicals or Rick Warren in particular noticeably worse.  So some of the political consequences may include problems that he is forced to deal with, even problems that he doesn't enjoy dealing with.

But I don't think the fact of a protest itself would, on its face, make person-Obama angry or distressed or, that word again, squirmy.  He constantly talked about his time as a community organizer and about people building up power, and this would be people building up power.  He's explicitly said that he welcomes that.

---

by: texas dem @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 23:25:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks. That Does Clarify It (0.00 / 0)

Though I do wonder if he's really as neatly compartmentalized as that.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 00:32:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes. I almost added that. (4.00 / 1)

I have no idea what it is like to have my personal and professional life as fully melded as a successful politician must.  No idea.  Hell, I don't even know what it's like to have my personal and professional life melded in the ordinary way that high-performing (non-politician) professionals do -- the Ari Emanuels of the world.  So the division that I imagine must exist may not actually.

But even if it's not totally accurate in this case, the distinction between Obama-the-person-with-a-personality, and Obama-the-professional-doing-a-job, is at least intelligible.  

Now, I'm the one who took the original poster's idea about "Obama squirming" and heard it as a statement about Obama the person.  It may have been more useful to think immediately of Obama the professional, because the notion that we know anything meaningful about these people's personalities may be false.  Trying to psychoanalyze the president may be a bad habit I picked up from TV discourse.  

Maybe not though.  We do have two years of this guy behind us, two books, a bunch of speeches, a trillion debates, and eight more years of him to come.  We will be able to (and need to) see into his head at least a little bit.  So nevermind!  : )

---

by: texas dem @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:10:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Au Contrare! (0.00 / 0)

So nevermind!  : )

I thought this was most illuminating!

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Grab his attention: (4.00 / 1)

Walk out of the damn thing.
Tune out the t.v.
Sitting there with a triangle is passive passive passive.
It's sitting there while he pisses on us.

We're being spat on.
I don't feel like being loving and tolerant.
I don't need this guy.
He's just another dank pol.
We have work to do.

Instead of triangles, shoes.

---

by: lentinel @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 19:02:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey, if you think enough people feel the way you do that you can be politically significant that way, go for it. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: texas dem @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 23:37:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Paul. (4.00 / 3)

I'm glad you are one of the few leftists who recognize that, as diverse as the progressive coalition is, we HAVE to stick together to win 50% + 1 in ANY election.  WE either hang together or hang separately.

I am a Kinsey 6 on the gay scale and I am die-hard pro-union.  I only wish more blue collar union guys felt the same about me and us, as gay men and gay women.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

---

by: avenged savant @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 16:07:26 PM CST

'destroys his own Presidency'? (0.00 / 0)

Come on, man. Get a grip, for God's sake.  Yeah, Warren is an asshole.  Yes, this whole thing sucks and is basically inexplicable and disappointing to the small number who care.  If this is a Sister Souljah for some reason, it blows even worse.  But please. Let's retain some perspective.  And good luck with the triangles.  Remember that 99 percent of the country doesn't give a shit about Rick Warren, invocations, benedictions, circumcisions or fuckall.  

---

by: Weeferdog @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 16:25:50 PM CST

Reading Comprehension Is Your Friend. (4.00 / 2)

I am very clearly making a point about the need to keep a unified and mutually supportive base--and the fact that Obama himself stressed repeatedly that that's what the election was about, not him.  Thus, by his own logic if he destroys that base, he destroys his presidency.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 16:58:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama doesn't have a base to destroy (4.00 / 1)

The dynamics of his win do not translate into his having a base to destroy by his gaff of inviting Warren.

Obama's whole campaign was a media-based schmooze job that brought in just enough Latinos, African-Americans and 20 somethings to bring the numbers of Independents and Bush rejectors up to what was needed to win. I suspect that once in office he will make bumbling political decisions and policies that will eventually turn most of them off and keep him from actually developing an enduring political base.

What he has done by inviting Warren to give the invocation is to show that he really does not yet know (if he ever will) how to govern the conflict-ridden melting pot that America has become.

What the gaff also does, as do his lack-lustre cabinet picks, is to put everyone across the political spectrum on notice that he may well turn out to be nothing more than a calculating hack politician who can't even put on an uplifting inauguration.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 19:10:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah he's shown that he's totally bumbling! (0.00 / 0)

How silly.  

---

by: illlaw @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 19:45:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pink triangles.... Great! (4.00 / 2)

We're here, and we're all queer for the day.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

---

by: dkmich @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 16:49:09 PM CST

Absolutely! (2.00 / 2)

It's time to go all King Christian X on these assholes:

http://www.ushmm.org/research/...

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 18:21:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why Not Just Turn Your Back (0.00 / 0)

on him as he delivers his hocus-pocus?  Yale faculty did that George W. when he addressed Yale commencement in 2001.

---

by: bob h @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:04:41 PM CST

I thought this was a good idea at first (4.00 / 1)

But it may give Warren a chance to play the "they're so full of hate they won't even listen to me" card. The whole world will be watching. Pink triangles are better, I think.

---

by: cool blue reason @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:08:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Better Visual (4.00 / 1)

C'mon.  How could anyone GLBT turn their back on 2 million pink triangles in favor of just turning their backs on Warren?

Besides, as you say, it's been done before.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:10:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whoa- Not quite! (4.00 / 1)

Having been on the Yale faculty in 2001, I am fairly certain that nothing of the kind happened.

Not that I would haven't been thrilled if it had, but I can assure you that the Yale faculty's reputation as some kind of left wing bastion is mainly a fantasy perpetuated by David Horowitz and his ilk and, on the other side, by a few self aggrandizing Yale lefties.

The fact is that most are Clintonian technocrats, while others such as John Gaddis are virulent reactionaries, and others like Donald Kagan have been central figures in the neo-con firmament and, in this capacity, functioned as Bush's brain trust-such as it was.

If you want more detail on this, I'd be glad to provide it.

---

by: John Halle @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:43:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Amen! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, Paul.

---

by: William Timberman @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 17:35:13 PM CST

I doubt he needs reminding. However, (0.00 / 0)

what about 100000 couples marching hand in hand in wedding gear?

Also, who is the target? Obama can't grant marriage equality. If this is merely a show of force - which seems entirely appropriate - then who can that force be exercised against?  

---

by: illlaw @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 18:47:36 PM CST

IANAL - but (0.00 / 0)

Patterson gave an executive order in NY State that the state would recognize all outside marriages. This practically legalized same sex marriage in ny state - so long as you can get to Canada or Massachusetts for a day. I imagine there are a lot of things at the federal level where Obama could by-pass the legislature to stop the blatant discrimination. like I said IANAL, but I suspect there is a lot he can do.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 18:56:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Perhaps but marriage equality isn't one of the things (0.00 / 0)

in his power as that's a state issue.

DADT he could do away with though.  

---

by: illlaw @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 18:58:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who Says There's Just One Target? (4.00 / 2)

There's at least four that I can see:

(1 & 2) Obama and the Democratic Party--stop messing with your base and start dancing with them what brought you.  We're not powerless, we're not isolated, and we're not going to take this shit, so listen now before it gets really ugly.  And it's going to get really ugly, really soon if you don't snap to.  Inclusion starts at home.

(3) Warren--fuck you!

(4) The American people: GLBTs are us not "them."


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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 23:23:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Which targets get you to you equality? (0.00 / 0)

In the civil rights movement litigation and activism worked in conjunction to get equal(ish) rights for minorities.

Pressure was placed on politicians to not obstruct court decisions and to pass legislation codifying gains made in court.

Obama isn't going to obstruct any court decisions or legislation so that isn't an issue.

The Democratic party isn't going to obstruct court decisions but they'll need to be pressured to pass legislation.

Courts are already siding with the marriage equality movement so it looks like you'll need to force legislation at a state level.

You're not going to change Warren's mind anymore that MLK changed Wallace's mind and as far as the American people go plenty of them saw African-Americans as "them" even after civil rights legislation passed so while you would certainly work to change perceptions (and that appears to be far along looking at the polling) that's really a secondary target isn't it? They're not going to stand in the way of a mass movement either.

But where is the movement? Where is the leader?

---

by: illlaw @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 00:00:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Don't Think That's The Right Question (4.00 / 2)

Or rather, it's not the right question in the right place.

You're asking about this as if it's a movement-building strategy.  It's not.  It's a creative response to go beyond push-back against really stupid, really evil politics, and start taking the initiative ourselves.   It's not limited to gay marriage.  To the contrary, it's much broader.  It's about all progressive forces working in concert together and having each other's back.

Now, should there be movement-building strategies for GLBT equality--not just marriage equality, but the whole shebang?  Absolutely!  But this, right here, is about something more modest, strategically, on the theory that actually pulling something like this off would create a lot of energy, excitment, and creative strategizing to go well beyond what I'm able to come up with on my own as an idea for a creative response.

So, in other words, I think it's perfectly fine to be asking the question in a larger sense.  But it's not about how does this action do X,Y,Z?  It's about, how do we integrate this action into a larger strategy that can do X,Y,Z?

But the first thing we have to do is change the dynamic.  Do that, and then the other things become possible.  We go back on offense.


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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 00:50:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's a great goal for sure (0.00 / 0)

as a start. I just wonder if it's a first shot or the only shot. It seems to me the shots need to be constant. A war not a drive by. No one respects drive by shootings but if you can go to war with them they'll listen.  

---

by: illlaw @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:14:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Push for another religious invocation (4.00 / 1)

As a protest vehicle, I think pink triangles are the best idea yet. I also like the idea of couples in wedding clothes. There needs to be some visible sign not only that protests Warren's bigotry but affirms that gays and lesbians are a vital part of the Democratic and democratic coalition.

That said, however, I wonder if another tack might be to expand the range of religious speakers beyond Warren. I don't know whether this is true, but someone said that in the past Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Moslem (could certainly argue for that as politically beneficial internationally) representatives had given invocations, all at the same inauguration. I would certainly think  black and female preachers would be a good idea too. I doubt if Warren is going to say anything about gays and lesbians, but if we could push for an expanded roster, someone could affirm the dignity of all people and their right to marry. This would be a visible sign of a "broad tent" coalition.

Also, is there a way to use pink triangles now, before the inauguration, to express how we feel to the Obama transition? A pink traingle group on Facebook that is organized around asking for equal time at the inauguration for a broader range of religious speakers? Sending pink triangle e-mails to the Obama campaign asking for a broader range of religious figures and pledging to show up with pink triangles if not?        

I fear that the pink triangle protest, by itself and only at the inauguration, could be ignored by the media, and, as someone said, even become a black versus gay thing. Pushing for more religious speakers would assert the value of inclusiveness; if it did not occur, this would  legitimize the use of protest.

 

---

by: johnraymond @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 19:44:47 PM CST

Test Obama's sincerity (0.00 / 0)

I think Obama's motivation in asking Warren to give the invocation is to enlarge the "big tent," and probably (maybe naively) to bring evangelicals along on such issues as poverty and global warming and reducing the number of abortions. Expanding the big tent only works, however, if you bring along those you already have with you. That's why it's important to assert a larger inclusiveness. I know there are many who will say get rid of Warren because of his views, but Obama's not going to do that. Thus, the call to ask for more religious speakers that represent the full range of religions and religious views.

We are assuming that Obama is doing this to diss us. By making that assumption, we make it come true. That is, we come from a place of protest, and not politics. Obama first needs to be tested to see whether he can stay true to his inclusive principles, his goal of having an expanded coalition. If he doesn't, then protest is the logical and legitimate next step.    

---

by: johnraymond @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 19:55:03 PM CST

The tent (4.00 / 3)

Have you noticed that the "big tent" is full of freaks?

Why doesn't Obama reach out to people like Kucinich and Nader?
You know, thoughtful, intelligent people.

Why does he have to fill the tent with cretins?

---

by: lentinel @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 20:03:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why isn't the tent big enough (2.00 / 2)

for Bishop Eugene Robinson?  

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 20:17:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Only the beltway boys count (4.00 / 2)

That's "why" we are a "center right" country
eaven though the elections repudiate that (the most popular results are left and right and GOP moderates get stomped).  Remember, Bill Clinton thought he won his election but was told in no uncertain terms that Washington was their city, not his.

Obama has spent the whole campaign reaching out to the Broders, not the Naders and Kuciniches.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:04:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A Skunk at a Garden Party (4.00 / 3)

Inviting Warren to give the invocation is not enlarging the tent, it's more like inviting a skunk to a garden party.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 21:03:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great idea...how do we get the ball rolling? (4.00 / 1)

I've been frustrated with people just sitting around bitching about Obama and Warren.  We need to do something!  If we've learned anything from the Civil Rights and Suffrage Movements it's that the majority will not GIVE anything to the minority without protests and civil disobedience.

Living in the South where these anti-gay marriage measures were passed years ago, I'm angry that it's taken the LGBT community so long to get fired up.  There should've been outrage years ago.

---

by: happycozy @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 19:55:15 PM CST

I think the Facebook group suggested up above (0.00 / 0)

would be a great starting point.  It'll snowball.

---

by: by foot @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 20:55:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There already is one. (2.00 / 2)

Here: http://www.facebook.com/group....

It was up to 8,400 members last time I checked.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 21:28:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No one got angry until we lost in California. (4.00 / 2)

We expected to lose the entire South right off the bat.  You win in your strongholds, lose in their strongholds, slowly expand your map, and then go to the SCOTUS.  That's how interracial marriage (the clearest analogue, though sodomy laws are another good one) went.

In fact, if you haven't seen it, you've got to see LovingDay.org.  It's got a map that you can drag though time, showing the laws state-by-state for or against interracial marriage.  It's a great history lesson, watching the flow of justice move through time and space.

---

by: texas dem @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 23:45:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gay bashing and Iran bombing (4.00 / 2)

Of course Warren's violence toward homosexuals (probably a result of his own repressed homosexuality) should be an issue. He should not be anywhere near the inauguration of a president of the United States.

Totally ignored, however, are his bloodthirsty right-wing cries to go after the "evildoers" in Iran. He is using the Bible to support his desire for war with Iran.

This is not the kind of person we want our president to associate with. Hasn't he got anything better to do?

If Obama is featuring a person who is not only a homophobe but also someone who is expressing a fever for violent aggression. The two are possibly two sides of the same coin - sublimation and all. If he can't come, bomb.

I will not be watching this disgraceful spectacle.

I don't know how Aretha and the rest can stand to be on the same program with these fools.

I hope when Warren gets up, those in attendance will get up and leave.
Either that or throw their shoes.

---

by: lentinel @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 20:00:28 PM CST

This is a great idea... (0.00 / 0)

but I suspect it will become clearer that the "us" is illusory.

---

by: EricD @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:30:51 AM CST

Gay Weddings. (0.00 / 1)

If their is a Gay Wedding- Which Partner gets escorted down the aisle?

Which Partner shops a Bloomingdales.  

---

by: nkpolitics @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 16:18:21 PM CST

Missing the point and the opportunity (0.00 / 0)

I find most of the posts here of the "let's bitch about Obama and Warren" variety, and neither informative nor actionable.

Consider this. Whether we like it or not, Warren has been put on a larger stage than he has ever been before. With that larger visibility, comes greater scrutiny and greater sunlight.  Just this weekend, clearly influenced by the recent outcry, Warren re calibrating his public statements on both gays and muslims. See http://www.juancole.com/2008/1...

Obama has said that he supports gay equality, with a large amount of wiggle room.  Now Warren is indicating that he might be changing his tune.  I say act decisively and put pressure on both.  I like the pink triangles campaign, and I'd like to see such a campaign embraced by an articulate spokesperson such as Rachel Maddow.

Most importantly, I'd like to see the campaign directed explicitly at Warren himself, more than at Obama. If Warren changes his position substantially, it's a win. If he hypocritically tries to back pedal out of it, it will be there for all to see. In either case, take Warren's higher profile as a golden opportunity to pressure the most important religious figure in America now for greater gay acceptance, and reap the benefits.  Seize the moment, and put up the pink triangles at every Rick Warren event.

---

by: camilow @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 17:07:29 PM CST

You Wield A Mean Wet Noodle! (0.00 / 0)

Power concedes nothing without a "Pretty please!"

You betcha!

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 18:17:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Will Gay Marriages or Civil Unions. (0.00 / 0)

allow partners of Gay police officers and firefighters who were killed in the line of duty or Gay Military Officials who were killed abroad fighting for our country to recieve Life Insurance Benefits. or is it an attempt for Gay Rights advocate to impose their lifestyle choice on other people.

If a Gay Person Dies. Is his or her partner a Widow or a Widower.  

---

by: nkpolitics @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 18:10:17 PM CST

We put him in the White House? (0.00 / 0)

Until progressives (I consider myself one) stop believing this: "...tell Obama to stop beating up on the folks that put him in the White House", we are in for a long four years.  WE did not put Obama in the White House. Most progressives did not support him in the primary elections. A lot of progressives did not vote for him in the general election. I rarely met a progressive when I was knocking on doors during the campaign. With close to 69 million votes, a lot of people put him in the White House...and we were certainly not the largest group among those millions. We do not own him. He is not beholden to us for his victory. We are not entitled to tell him what to do because we put him in the White House (we are entitled to tell him what we want him to do because we are Americans). It would be nice to drop the rhetoric about us being responsible for him being the president-elect. Can't we just criticize him because we think he is wrong instead of pounding our chests about how WE PUT HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

---

by: royce @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 19:12:01 PM CST

Warren says a prayer <> beating up on progressives (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Royce that its time to stop being surprised that Obama isn't a progressive. Its dumb. Obama's still about the best person it was possible to elect in this country at this time.

I also can't swallow this meme that Warren is a horrible gay basher. About half of the country, Obama, most of the non-Scandinavian world and almost all of history agrees with Warren about gay marriage. This country has made a lot of progress in respecting gays and that will hopefully continue.

Warren is inconsequential to me and the next administration except that he's brought out this discouraging self-centered quality in progressives. Its like people are saying "our disappointment in the rate of gay progress is more important than unifying the country, two wars and economic collapse."

---

by: annzillion @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 20:07:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's Review, Shall We? (0.00 / 0)

Obama's base in getting elected to the Illinois State Senate was a combo of blacks and white progressives.

Obama's base in winning the Democratic primary for US Senate was disproportionately progressives attracted to him because of his outspoken opposition to the Iraq War.  Furthermore, almost the only folks who about him outside of Illinois at the time were folks in the progressive blogosphere.  And they sent money, too.

Then check the Iowa exit polls and you'll find Obama and Clinton ran neck-and-neck among moderate and conserative voters.  It was among the liberal and very liberal voters that Obama blew Clinton away.

So, uh, yes it was progressives who put him in the White House.  They've been his base constituency since the beginning, since the Illinoise Senate.  He added young people at the beginning of the primary season, with Iowa caucus.  And it was only after he showed that white people would vote for him--which was disproportionately white progressives--that a majority of blacks switched from Clinton to Obama.

That's the way it went down historically.

Now, you may think this is chest-pounding.  But I just think it's asking for him to follow one of the cardinal rules of politics: dance with them what brung you.  God knows the Republicans do it all the time.  How come the Democrats never do?

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 20:29:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]