Someone want to explain this?

[Cail]

Obama's inaugural choice sparks outrage

Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month.

Warren, one of the most influential religious leaders in the nation, has championed issues such as a reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses and the AIDS epidemic.

But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances -- including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party's most liberal wing.

"[It's] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now," Andrew Sullivan wrote on the Atlantic Web site Wednesday.

People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN she is "deeply disappointed" with the choice of Warren and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who has "consistent mainstream American values."

"There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson," Kolbert said. "The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical."

Dobson, a social conservative leader, is founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for Obama, defended the choice of Warren, saying, "This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history."

"The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues," Douglass said. "But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues."

Douglass also noted that Obama and Warren agree on several issues, including advocating on behalf of the poor, the disadvantaged and people who suffer from HIV/AIDS. Video Watch CNN's Anderson Cooper and his panel discuss the selection »

Warren's support of California's Proposition 8, a measure that outlaws same-sex marriage in the state, sparked the ire of many gay rights proponents earlier this fall.

Warren, who has made it a practice not to endorse candidates or political parties, wrote in October that the issue of gay marriage is not a political issue, but instead "a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."

"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote in a newsletter to his congregation. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population."

Warren also stirred controversy earlier this week when he told Beliefnet.com his grounds for opposing same-sex marriage lay primarily on his right of free speech.

"There were all kinds of threats that if [Proposition 8] did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech."

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights campaign, said Wednesday he feels a "deep level of disrespect" over the choice of Warren and is calling on Obama to reconsider the move.

"By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table," Solmonese said in an open letter to Obama that was released by his organization.

In his recent interview with Beliefnet, Warren also sparked outrage among supporters of abortion rights for criticizing those who have said abortion would be "safe and rare."

"Don't tell me it should be rare," he said in the interview. "That's like saying on the Holocaust, 'Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that -- I'm not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended."

But Warren, whose church attracts more than 20,000 people a week, has widely been recognized for his attempts to expand the evangelical movement beyond socially conservative issues.

In the 2008 election, Warren hosted Obama and Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, at a candidate forum held in his church.

His book "The Purpose Driven Life" has sold more than 20 million copies since it was first published five years ago, and Time magazine named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in 2005.

"Many believe that Warren ... is the successor to the [Rev. Billy Graham] for the role of America's minister," Time wrote in 2005.

[Cybrweez]

Well, the outrage I guess shows how much people really want to be united?

[Cail]

I mean, good on Obama for picking someone who doesn't fall into lockstep with him, but wow..... This has got to really piss off a lot of his base.

[Plissken]

Well, I guess I'm not his base (Middle Aged, White, Blue Collar Men were going to vote for Hil, remember?) but I think I can say - this is a non-issue. Rev Wright would've been an issue. Rev Sharpton would've been an issue. Dobson would've really been an issue (if for no other reason than the rash of spankings I got when he published his 'Spare the Rod' book in the late 70's).

This guy? Whatever the Rainbow Coalition wants to say, he's a more moderate and compassionate face in the Christian Movement. Putting him out front is a good move.

[Brother Charn]

This just proves that you can't please all of the people all of the time - and Obama isn't trying to do that. I think it is a smart move - emphasizing where they agree, and agreeing to disagree on the other things.

The rainbow groups have to lodge their complaints to keep their activist cred, but if they cannot also see and appreciate why Obama is doing what he is doing - bringing together people with disparate beliefs, - then they are squandering whatever mojo they have.

dw

[Cybrweez]

Its been mentioned in the ban gay marriage thread, but the rainbow groups don't just want gay marriage, they want everyone to agree that the gay lifestyle is ok, so hence the outcry against anyone who disagrees. Its not surprising they are outraged.

[Plissken]

They're right to be disappointed. Obama's not going to spend his political capital on them on Inauguration Day. If I was trying to get Equal Rights and acceptance for myself, I'd be disappointed as well. But even if he put that gay Bishop up in this guy's place, all it would do is give everyone something pointless to argue about - and without actually solving anything.

Instead, Obama's made a conciliatory gesture to a group with only a small segment that voted for him. It costs the rest of us nothing, and might create new goodwill. Kind of a reminder of the best aspects of being both a Christian and an American, really. Not a bad trade, since everyone involved could use that reminder a little more often.

[SoulBiter]

Speaking of being conciliatory

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/16/gingrich-to-rnc-drop-blago-video-help-obama-instead/

The RNC hasnt learned a thing

In a nearly three-minute spot entitled “Questions Remain,” the RNC seeks to raise questions about involvement by Obama or his staff in Blagojevich’s alleged plan to award Obama’s former Senate seat in exchange for political favors.

Gingrich calls the video a “destructive distraction” and asserts that the national committee “is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.”

Instead, “Republicans should be working to help the incoming president succeed in meeting” the “real challenges” the nation is facing, Gingrich writes to Duncan. When Republicans believe Obama is wrong, the GOP should “offer a better solution, instead of just opposing him,” Gingrich also wrote.

The letter ends with Gingrich’s suggestion that the RNC “pull the ad down immediately.”

Gingrich’s letter echoes recent comments from Obama’s former rival, Sen. John McCain. In a television interview Sunday, McCain also took issue with the video.

“In all due respect to the Republican National Committee,” McCain said, “right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together . . . on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary.”

[Plissken]

The RNC may not have learned, but their two remaining members who have managed to salvage some personal dignity from its wreckage seem to have learned a bit.

It's an interesting time. Even here in the 'Tank, some of our longstanding Righties are hoping for Obama to be successful. It's quite a step away from where we were even a year ago.

[sindatur]

Speaking as a Gay guy, I don't see why it's a problem, it's not like he's putting the guy in a position to make policy against abortion or Gay Rights, and he's not taking him on as an advisor on those positions.

[Blackhawk]

I have to agree it will accomplish more having this evangelist speak for him than Sharpton or the bishop would. If Obama had Rev Sharpton speaking it would make every extreme and not so extreme conservatives mind clamp shut like a clam who senses danger. at this point he doesnt need to placate the black or the liberal groups as much as he does the conservatives who are still fighting against him, as far as gay marriage and acceptance go that is probably the last thing on his list when it comes to the problems this country is facing, whether he agrees with it or not.

[Cail]

Sorry, I find it incredibly hypocritical that the member of a minority group who was denied their civil rights for so long would be so opposed to granting another minority group their civil rights.

[Lord Mhoram]

Picking Warren is a good political move, which I disapprove of on a personal level.

[Zarathustra]

LM, I've said it before, but once again, I appreciate your consistency.

Why do we have to have a preacher involved at all? I be glad when atheism receives as at least as much respect as homosexuality. The fact that religion must be a part of this process is crazy, to me.

Has anyone noticed how Bill O'Reilly has gone ape-shit over the free speech rights of atheists, lately? Man, my 8:00PM TV viewing choices are starting to look exactly the same. The battle of the "Os" no longer has a clear winner.

[wayfriend]

Has anyone commented that there ARE NO American Christian religious leaders of significance that don't advocate denying one group or another's civil rights?

And that extending an olive branch to your political opposite will OF COURSE be denounced by those who think that you should be more divisive, not less.

Obama's choice allows the right to be represented at the inauguration. That's it. All the hubbub is from the people who think he shouldn't. Or who will invent cold fusion if it is a means to say something negative about Obama.

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

Thank you.

wayfriend,

I dunno about that, man. Obama didn't have to pick somebody so inflammatory. He had to pick somebody, you're right, but he's courting controversy with Warren. Although like I said this will probably be a net gain for him politically.

[sindatur]

Has anyone commented that there ARE NO American Christian religious leaders of significance that don't advocate denying one group or another's civil rights?

And that extending an olive branch to your political opposite will OF COURSE be denounced by those who think that you should be more divisive, not less.

Obama's choice allows the right to be represented at the inauguration. That's it. All the hubbub is from the people who think he shouldn't. Or who will invent cold fusion if it is a means to say something negative about Obama.

Seems to me it's his supporters that are grumbling (IE: Feeling betrayed), not his detractors. Gays and Pro-choice were demographics that were supporters of his.

[Zarathustra]

To me, it wouldn't have mattered if he had picked a liberal or a conservative, as much as it is just assumed that some preacher had to be involved.

However, I have to add Wright would have ticked me off. But not Sharpton. I dislike Sharton, think he's dead wrong, closed-minded, and has done lots of offensive stuff in the past, but I think he loves America. He will at least openly face those who disagree with him, and have an intelligent debate.

I'm honestly impressed that Obama is trying to be inclusive. Let's hope it continues. Sure, some people are going to feel betrayed by this inclusion, but it's impossible to find a human being who won't alienate at least some group. You couldn't be inclusive with any group, if you tried to please everyone.

[sindatur]

To me, it wouldn't have mattered if he had picked a liberal or a conservative, as much as it is just assumed that some preacher had to be involved.

However, I have to add Wright would have ticked me off. But not Sharpton. I dislike Sharton, think he's dead wrong, closed-minded, and has done lots of offensive stuff in the past, but I think he loves America. He will at least openly face those who disagree with him, and have an intelligent debate.

I'm honestly impressed that Obama is trying to be inclusive. Let's hope it continues. Sure, some people are going to feel betrayed by this inclusion, but it's impossible to find a human being who won't alienate at least some group. You couldn't be inclusive with any group, if you tried to please everyone.

Yea, I gotta give him props too. I was a Hillary supporter, until Obama won the nomination, and then I switched to McCain/Palin. But, Obama is certainly impressive so far, hitting the ground running before even taking office. I only hope his policies work as well as his work ethic has seemed so far.

[Cybrweez]

I only hope his policies work as well as his work ethic has seemed so far.

Me too.