Obama and Rick Warren

[Michael]

Well, it seems this is a scandal that has legs. President-elect Obama has invited Rick Warren to given the 'blessing' at the Inauguration.

Rick Warren of course is a right-wing evangelist who holds and has preached many controversial views (that the USA ought to assassinate the President of Iran and/or his vulgar comments about gay rights).

Looks like the whole progressive wing of the Democratic party is going to the wall here freaking out. Every word Obama says on the topic just adds gasoline to the public relations fire.

I'm with the critics here. Obama can make all the personal gestures to religious pastors that he wants - but inviting Warren to the Inauguration is symbolically ugly. Obama is pissing in the face of his most ardent supporters here - trying to suck up to a faction that will never support him or his party.

Personally, I don't care if Obama's supporters have their noses out of joint. To me the issue is inviting a preacher of hatred to a public podium is totally unacceptable. Obama is showing that NOTHING has changed in Washington. It is business as it has always been for decades.

Question is, will Obama's high approval rate hold out for the year? The way Obama is going, I don't like the prospects. Seems like Obama keeps making a lot of 'wrong-footed' awkward moves since being elected - all in a desperate attempt to get people to like him more.

I say Obama should forget the political campaign already and start governing.

There is no future for the Democratic party playing religious-cozy games with rightwing fundamentalists. That's just a waste of time and Obama is a fool to even try - and insulting his base in the process. That's bad politics.

[partofme]

I don't like it at all. The idea that a guy that is speaking at a event that is supposed to be for all Americans thinks that so many of them are going to hell doesn't really sit well with me. Non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, and nonbelievers should have a ceremony that represents them as well. I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to make that decision but I for one do not like it.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I'm with the critics here. Obama can make all the personal gestures to religious pastors that he wants - but inviting Warren to the Inauguration is symbolically ugly. Obama is pissing in the face of his most ardent supporters here - trying to suck up to a faction that will never support him or his party.

Two points, here.

First, I do not think that gay rights activists were ever Senator Obama's most ardent supporters. He has been lukewarm at best on the issue of gay marriage-- rhetoric aside, his policy position is identical to Reverend Warren's-- and gay rights supporters have been reciprocally lukewarm towards him.

Second, there are both a number of social conservatives within the Democratic Party that this move reassures, and a number of fiscal liberals-- Evangelical Christians-- within the Republican party that this move appeals to and might consider crossing over if they viewed the Democrats' support of unpopular social liberal issues weakening.

Like it or not, this could prove a very effective move for Senator Obama, and might be a strong step to improving his effectiveness as President.

There is no future for the Democratic party playing religious-cozy games with rightwing fundamentalists. That's just a waste of time and Obama is a fool to even try - and insulting his base in the process. That's bad politics.

Religious fundamentalists aren't necessarily Right Wing. This is the basis of many of Reverend Warren's sermons, and a fact that many politicians forget. Obama's base is ethnic minorities and working-class Americans, both of whom are predominantly anti-homosexual. He is not only playing to his base here, he is reaching out to a powerful potential ally.

[Michael]

Two points, here.

First, I do not think that gay rights activists were ever Senator Obama's most ardent supporters. He has been lukewarm at best on the issue of gay marriage-- rhetoric aside, his policy position is identical to Reverend Warren's-- and gay rights supporters have been reciprocally lukewarm towards him.

Second, there are both a number of social conservatives within the Democratic Party that this move reassures, and a number of fiscal liberals-- Evangelical Christians-- within the Republican party that this move appeals to and might consider crossing over if they viewed the Democrats' support of unpopular social liberal issues weakening.

Like it or not, this could prove a very effective move for Senator Obama, and might be a strong step to improving his effectiveness as President.



Religious fundamentalists aren't necessarily Right Wing. This is the basis of many of Reverend Warren's sermons, and a fact that many politicians forget. Obama's base is ethnic minorities and working-class Americans, both of whom are predominantly anti-homosexual. He is not only playing to his base here, he is reaching out to a powerful potential ally.
Evangelical or religious politics is the death of the Democratic party big-tent. That coalition cannot surivive any pandering to evangelical social conservatives. Civil rights, gay rights and abortion choice movements (along with the union movement) are the backbone of the Democratic party.

Obama can't win a second term with just blacks and non-whites voting for him if he pisses off the huge cosmopolitan white voting block that was the one that put Obama on the map in the first place.

Warren is the symbol of all that is ugly in America. Obama is celebrating that.

If Obama wants to do something for the religous folks, fine. But symbolic pandering to celebrate hate? That's going to backlash against Obama - and rightly so. Obama campaigned on 'change' and he's now delivering 'inside the Beltway' status quo bullshit - and getting into bed with hatemongers.

Lets just say that toxic hatemongering evangelical rightwingers are a dime a dozen in Washington and always have been. Obama is continuing to pander to this status quo tradition.

Al Gore pandered to that same group the same way and it got him and the party exactly nothing.

Obama is risking losing a lot of political capital if he's just going to pander to the Beltway's petty provincialism.

[Americano]

I agree with Michael that Obama made a grave mistake picking Warren for such a high-profile event. If that's an indication of his stated intent to cross party lines for change he'd be a one-term president without the economic and foreign policy challenges. It's an established fact that voters are far emotional than they are rational.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Obama can't win a second term with just blacks and non-whites voting for him...

Blacks, non-whites, trade unionists, and those young people who aren't particularly passionate about gay rights issues? There are plenty of people who support Obama and who support gay rights... but who don't consider gay rights to be a primary issue.

[andrewl]

Well, it seems this is a scandal that has legs. President-elect Obama has invited Rick Warren to given the 'blessing' at the Inauguration.

Rick Warren of course is a right-wing evangelist who holds and has preached many controversial views (that the USA ought to assassinate the President of Iran and/or his vulgar comments about gay rights).

Looks like the whole progressive wing of the Democratic party is going to the wall here freaking out. Every word Obama says on the topic just adds gasoline to the public relations fire.

I'm with the critics here. Obama can make all the personal gestures to religious pastors that he wants - but inviting Warren to the Inauguration is symbolically ugly. Obama is pissing in the face of his most ardent supporters here - trying to suck up to a faction that will never support him or his party.

Personally, I don't care if Obama's supporters have their noses out of joint. To me the issue is inviting a preacher of hatred to a public podium is totally unacceptable. Obama is showing that NOTHING has changed in Washington. It is business as it has always been for decades.

Question is, will Obama's high approval rate hold out for the year? The way Obama is going, I don't like the prospects. Seems like Obama keeps making a lot of 'wrong-footed' awkward moves since being elected - all in a desperate attempt to get people to like him more.

I say Obama should forget the political campaign already and start governing.

There is no future for the Democratic party playing religious-cozy games with rightwing fundamentalists. That's just a waste of time and Obama is a fool to even try - and insulting his base in the process. That's bad politics.


I share your concerns. This gesture by Obama gives credence to some really awful political views. Obama began playing more to the center after he won the nomination, and he has continued (maybe accelerated) that movement towards, and even beyond the center after he won the election. I remain curious as to how he will ultimately lead. Will his administration pursue Obama's goals, or will the goals of others lead Obama's administration?

We will know early in his term, IMO.

Andrew

[Michael]

Obama always says he takes religion seriously. I can respect that. So why didn't Obama invite a pastor from his own Church for the symbolic honor?

Instead, Obama goes out of his way to choose a high profile celebrity preacher who is well known for hatemongering political views AND religious-political activism. One need hardly mention that this fellow is a white preacher for a mostly white congregation. Not one decent black preacher from Chicago available for the honor?

That says to me that Obama considers religion to be something that is to be used for political posturing purposes.

That makes this idiotic decision a 'two-fer' - Obama gets to insult his base AND insult the religious community at the same time.

Lets just say that this American obsession for inserting religion into politics is annoying and dangerous at the best of times. When done for pure partisan political purposes it is downright stupid.

[partofme]

Obama always says he takes religion seriously. I can respect that. So why didn't Obama invite a pastor from his own Church for the symbolic honor?

Instead, Obama goes out of his way to choose a high profile celebrity preacher who is well known for hatemongering political views AND religious-political activism. One need hardly mention that this fellow is a white preacher for a mostly white congregation. Not one decent black preacher from Chicago available for the honor?

That says to me that Obama considers religion to be something that is to be used for political posturing purposes.

That makes this idiotic decision a 'two-fer' - Obama gets to insult his base AND insult the religious community at the same time.

Lets just say that this American obsession for inserting religion into politics is annoying and dangerous at the best of times. When done for pure partisan political purposes it is downright stupid.

When Obama first moved to Chicago he was seen as a outsider that went to Harvard. He gained more acceptance in the black community by joining the church that later got him into trouble because it was large and gave him the opportunity to make in roads. At least that is my impressive from what I have read. To be fair I think that many politicians beef up their religious activities far more than they would otherwise because it's almost mandatory that they do so if they wish to get elected.

[Michael]

We will know early in his term, IMO.
I sent up my first warnings about the nightmare that G.W. Bush's administration was going to be in December 2000. One only had to see the cabinet picks.

This is looking like a disfunctional White House for different reasons. Instead of hard-core ideologues, we have a bunch of professional politicians moving in. That means non-stop media messaging, cabinet-level priorty fights and probably too-many-chefs. The policy implications of this is not good.

Given the nature of US media obsessing over personalities and symbolism, we have a whole White House equally obsessed over personalities and symbolism. This looks like the setup for a messy 1st term.

(In my opinion, I'd much rather see a bunch of no-name policy wonks for most cabinet posts)