How Dare Anyone Celebrate The Election!

Normally I like James Rainey, but he's left something out of this extended whine about the cost of inaugural ceremonies during this economic downturn.

With Obama speaking eloquently about the need for sacrifice in a time of need, it seems only natural people might want to know how that squares with a $150-million party [...]

Six years later, the public overwhelmingly supports the new president. Surveys show that even a majority of Republicans have a positive view of Obama.

That gives Obama tremendous power -- and the press a tremendous responsibility, to avoid being carried away.

It might not be a matter of life and death, but I'd still like to know: What else could we have gotten with that $150 million?

His point about the herd mentality among journalists is fine, but Rainey is acting like public money was put to the food at the Inaugural balls. Well, that's just not true. It was privately funded. You can quibble with who provided the funding, mostly wealthy donors and lots of it from Wall Street (so maybe it's public funding by the transitive property, from the bailout to the executives to the balls), but if there were no inaugural balls more people wouldn't have health care. That's a false impression, and ESPECIALLY considering that Rainey is criticizing the media in this piece, he ought to correct it.

Feinstein Must Answer For The Logistical Nightmare In DC

Go read some of the comments from the Survivors of the Purple Tunnel of Doom, which now has nearly 2,000 members. These were all people who had tickets to the inauguration denied entry to the event because of bad planning by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. The event ended up peaceful and largely injury-free, but it really could have been a disaster, as the scale of the crowds just overwhelmed the planning. That's maybe to be expected in one sense, but one of the cardinal rules of politics is that you take care of the folks who take care of you. Those who were denied access were the activists, staffers and volunteers who helped make President Obama's election successful. As Chris Bowers observes, making their lives miserable is just bad politics.

At the inauguration, thousands of activists and staffers with tickets were unable to get inside the event, and they are not very happy about it. Check out the comments on the Purple Tunnel Of Doom Facebook group for a few couple hundred examples. The problem continued last night, when several thousand more staffers and activists, all with tickets, were unable to attend inaugural balls. This is an epic fail of glue politics, and it could have not inconsequential repercussions.

Even as one of the purple ticket holders who was unable to attend to I don't want to dwell on what happened yesterday. Further, I doubt that this is an aspect of politics that many blogosphere denizens will view as valid, as it hints of patronage politics. However, the simple fact is that if this keeps occurring, it will cause the Obama administration problems in passing legislation, and during his re-election campaign. Simply put, they have to fix their problems in this area. Right now, the excitement over the trifecta is keeping a spirit of forgiveness afloat, but that won't last forever.

When people work their ass for you and your cause, they need to be made to feel welcome. As such, problems like this can be very damaging.

The Obama team put the responsibility for this area of logistics to the JCCIC. And they have put a letter on their website apologizing for the many problems. Dianne Feinstein was the head of that committee, and ultimately answerable to this constituency. It would be very concerning if the anger over bad treatment, because of the JCCIC's inability to recognize the historic nature of the event and the huge crowds exepcted, would have an impact on future legislative and electoral gains. I think people are willing to forgive but are looking for some answers. Feinstein is the one to offer them.

UPDATE: Feinstein has a new statement out:

"I have just spoken with Mark Sullivan, Director of the Secret Service, and I have asked him to convene all law enforcement and other parties involved in planning for this Inaugural to conduct a prompt investigation into two serious incidents that have been reported. These reports have prompted great concern by members of the Inaugural Committee, including Senator Bob Bennett, and by Congress in general.

The specific incidents include the report that a decision was made to cut off access to Purple and Blue standing areas, which meant that a large number of ticketholders could not reach their designated areas.

I am also aware of the incident involving the 3rd Street Tunnel, where thousands of people were stuck for several hours and apparently without any law enforcement presence.

There may have also been other irregularities, but I have heard enough to know that something went wrong and we need to find out what happened. Mr. Sullivan has indicated that he will provide a full report.

I would encourage people who have direct information about these incidents to contact the Secret Service, in addition to contacting the Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural Ceremonies at feedback-at-jccic-dot-senate-dot-gov."

That's a good start.

In

Seven cabinet members confirmed today.

Energy - Steven Chu
Agriculture - Tom Vilsack
Interior - Ken Salazar
Veteran's Affairs - Gen. Eric Shinseki
Homeland Security - Janet Napolitano
Education - Arne Duncan
OMB - Peter Orszag

Robert Gates had already been confirmed as Defense Secretary under Bush and didn't require re-confirmation. This is also why he was left behind today from the Inaugural festivities as the designated "line of succession" individual.

Hillary Clinton will probably be confirmed tomorrow. So at least there's a partial Cabinet in place.

...Obama also blocked every pending regulation from the outgoing Bush Administration until they can be reviewed. This doesn't stop all or even most of the midnight regulations, but it's a good start.

The Address

So after watching John Roberts butcher the oath of office, I had to get to work, so I actually listened to Obama's inaugural address in the car. The text, by the way, can be found here. About five or so minutes into it, I thought, "Wow, this is not very good." It wasn't the delivery, which sounded assured and confident. It was the text, which I felt was kind of clichéd and not very inspirational. Interestingly, it picked up in the middle section, which had more of a policy edge than most Inaugurals. What struck me was the very pronounced break with the policies of the Bush Administration, along with rhetoric of inclusiveness that called Americans to service, but also the very strong tone taken against "enemies," almost a liberal hawk's tone, with language that brushed up against the edge of warmongering. It was an interesting juxtaposition.

Right from the top, Obama sought to capitalize on his hold on America's trust, by bolstering their confidence. He rejected the idea that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights. He was measured, but said that our challenges will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

I think "hope over fear" may be the phrase to come out of this speech (far better than "a new era of responsibility"), and that's not really an original thought. I think "the time has come to set aside childish things," borrowed from Scripture, was strong, but again, borrowed. The whole of the speech defied an easy codification with a turn of phrase or one line, and yet the whole stood up fine. I liked the paean to the "the doers, the makers of things" who built this country and sacrificed for a better future (I thought the inclusion of Khe Sanh was a bit off, and if just focused on service, why not Kabul and Fallujah?). And while policy dryness is not what I expected, Obama really got me when he made the argument against the recent past and toward a brighter tomorrow that recognizes ideals over expediency.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do [...]

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

The look on Bush's face during much of this had to have been priceless. After all the odes to bipartisanship, the calls for civility in the discourse, here Obama reveals his true self as someone who will lead a different path on the economy, on foreign policy, on science, on the environment, on civil liberties. That is what I needed to hear today.

And the elements of inclusiveness were very welcoming, especially given the previous resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

I thought that "your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy" line wasn't necessarily aimed outward.

Obama has a sense of the importance of the moment, that we cannot go forward senselessly, consuming the planet's resources, neglecting the plight of those impoverished around the world who are easy prey for extremism, and that he cannot bring this change forward alone, that he must engage the American people to "have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task." It was a smart speech in that it sought to teach, to invest the country in the progress that needs to be made. The final reference, not to Lincoln or Roosevelt or Kennedy but to Washington, and not President Washington but General Washington, to an edict read to his charges, was one that sought to summon up the courage of a people. That was the goal of the speech, and I think he succeeded.

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

While the modern Presidency has enormous reserves of power and the current time of crisis can only serve to make the office even more powerful, it is to Obama's credit that he feels he must have not just the people's assent, but their engagement in order to succeed. Even though that outsources some power to an unpredictable source. But if the people don't meet this bargain, true progress cannot happen. So let's hope everyone got the message.

Change Has Come

Barack Obama is now our nation's 44th President. More important from my perspective is that George W. Bush is our nation's 43rd ex-President. You could feel that in the crowd, from the NAA-NAA-HEY-HEY-GOODBYE to the burst of exultation after the swearing-in (which John Roberts mangled and the new President stumbled through a little nervously, and wouldn't you be?):



Waiting for the first wingnut post alleging that because Obama didn't say the oath exactly as it is written in the Constitution, he is NOT OFFICIALLY PRESIDENT!!!1!

Still some kinks to be ironed out. The White House's email signup page is broken right now as well. And their RSS feed really should not be partial. But this feels very different. Mainly because of the miscreants that have to scurry out the back door.

America can exhale.

Oh, and Dick Cheney can now get back to closing the Bailey Savings & Loan.

Rick Warren

(Welcome NYT readers! This was kind of an immediate snap judgment, for a more considered view of the Warren invocation, go here.)


First of all, how dare he even mention Martin Luther King. Second, those portions which were not direct quotes from scripture were a mess. He got little more than polite applause and the complete mess he made of the invocation showed that what applause he got wasn't earned. And his presence kind of snapped me out of the spectacle of the whole thing, realized that we still have differences, we still have a lot to fight for, and we still have a long way to go.

Masses On The Mall

I'm watching the inauguration ceremonies from home, and it's far better with the sound off, let me tell you. The scene of maybe a million people in Washington today is a little wild. You don't often see that many Muslim sympathizers in America (tee hee). My Twitter feed is exploding with friends on the Mall providing their onsite reports.

It's not unimportant. This many people motivated to be a part of this event might just be the uniquely American desire to witness history and the ability to say you were there. It also can mean, and I think it does mean, that Americans from all over the world are ready to be a part of their government again. There were many of us the past eight years and longer, who ducked our heads, who disassociated from this country, who failed to recognize it. And while today has a lot of ceremony and symbolism, I look forward much more to tomorrow. There will be a genuinely well-liked man at the seat of power, who ran on a firm break from the current policies, and who is asking the citizens for which he will work to serve. He has told us who he is, a somewhat cautious, introspective, incrementalist moderate, but he has inspired an entire generation of Americans to tell him who they are.

Barack Obama will not be measured by how his initial policies succeed. He will be measured by how he reacts should those policies fail. Will he listen to those screaming for change? Will he take the commitment of millions to heart and fight for them? Will he adapt?

Looking out at the millions on the Mall, I think he can ill afford not to.

Today is about returning power to the people who made this country.

A Blessing

While in exile I missed the whole controversy about HBO blacking out the invocation from gay bishop Gene Robinson at the Inaugural concert on Sunday, but Robinson's words are worth reproducing, especially considering that we're going to hear a bunch of drivel from Rick Warren today that cannot possibly measure up.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

I'm not a religious man, but I can say AMEN to that.

Notes On An Inauguration Eve

Today is not only the observance of Martin Luther King Day, or the eve of the inauguration of our 44th President. It happens to be the 1-year anniversary of the Nevada caucus, and I only remember that because Democrats Work was passing out a shirt that read "Make 1.19.08 more than a one-night stand." As today was a national day of service, with thousands of Americans participating in service projects, that proved fairly prophetic. But 1.19.08 was also the one moment during the primary campaign when it looked like Obama wouldn't win the election. I was in Vegas that day, and after an insane caucus at The Wynn, literally one of the craziest political moments I've ever seen in my life, which looked like Halloween with people yelling "HIL-A-RY" and "O-BA-MA" at each other, I went to the main center for the counting and watched Sen. Clinton win. And this was in the age before anyone paid much attention to delegate counts and the fact that Obama probably got more delegates out of the state. Just a few weeks before that age, but in the age. The takeaway I had from that day was that Obama's vaunted organization wasn't enough to break through the Clinton machine, and since nobody knew yet that Clinton was essentially disregarding the other caucuses, I thought that she'd probably be able to do something similar on Super Tuesday. This was also before the Nate Silver boomlet and the fact that the February calendar looked really strong for Obama. He had just lost two states in a row, and with all the griping coming out of his camp about intimidation at Nevada caucus sites and disenfranchisement, there was at least a hint that he would go into heavily black South Carolina and accuse the Clintons of taking away voting rights, leading to all kinds of ugly racial politics. We had those, but not in the same way and not led by the Obama camp, to their credit.

A year ago today, then, was a time when a Clinton restoration looked inevitable. The cynic could say that the past two months of Obama cabinet appointments confirmed it. But the Obama machine was smarter and sharper than most gave them credit for being, and they eventually pushed forward to tomorrow, and something fairly rare in our politics - a man making a meteoric rise from the State Senate to President in four years, without major connections or a family name. And the fact that people with the same skin color as he were forced through slavery to build the Mall where onlookers will watch his swearing-in tomorrow.

There's probably a lesson there, from Nevada to today, about Obama adapting to circumstances, dealing with pressure, and ultimately succeeding. But ultimately, the lesson is that people wanted to get as far away from the narrow cynicism of a George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, a symbol of a new cultural shift, of a more hopeful tomorrow, of an optimistic future, was exactly that character. People seem to really like Obama, and they believe a politician - after years of being shamed by and wanting to forget politicians - can lead again. They are even willing to wait months, if not years (though that's talk and we'll see if the actions match) for the young President's policies to work and his leadership to actually turn us around from the deep hole in which we find ourselves.

There's of course the hard work of governing to come, and as I alluded to, the patience people are willing to extend to Obama today will be harder to see two and three years down the road if unemployment remains high and nobody can get a car loan and big problems like health care and the environment linger. Obama made politics cool again to many - but only in the context of elections, in the choosing of winners and losers that is easily accessible to any sports fan. And so much of that was a reaction to a reviled President who spends his last night in the White House sleeping like a baby, untroubled by the shame he has brought on a nation. So the question is whether there will be any change, to use an overused word, beyond the cultural symbolism.

It was inevitable that the campaign, victory and inauguration of Barack Obama would be juxtaposed against the life and activism of the Rev. Martin Luther King, but the confluence of events that seem to intersect time and again is downright creepy. 2008 was the 40th anniversary of King's death. Obama's nomination speech at the DNC fell on the 45th anniversary of the March on Washington. And the Inauguration is the day after the observed holiday of Dr. King, celebrating the 80th year of his birth. The parallels almost suggest that King is watching over Obama. But I think anyone who believes that this would represent the fulfillment of King's hopes hasn't paid a lot of attention to King's words. Ideologically speaking, King would probably have been much happier to see the candidacy of Cynthia McKinney this year; this is someone who was far more radical than the narrow confines of allowable ideology in Washington. He preached nonviolence not only in activism but in foreign policy, and he talked of how "America may go to hell" for what it has done in Vietnam. To his great credit, even Obama recognized that King and he may be linked by skin color, but that doesn't mean they would have been linked in all they do. That's not how King operated. From a January 2008 debate:

BLITZER: We are completely out of time, but we have time for one final question that I'd like to ask all three of you to respond and, if possible, within one minute or less, and it's an important question on this important day... If Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, unfortunately, he's not, but if he were alive today, why do you think he would or why should he endorse you?

OBAMA: Well, I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us. I think what he would call upon the American people to do is to hold us accountable, and this goes to the core differences, I think, in this campaign. I believe change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up. Dr. King understood that. (APPLAUSE) It was those women who were willing to walk instead of ride the bus, union workers who are willing to take on violence and intimidation to get the right to organize. It was women who decided, "I'm as smart as my husband. I'd better get the right to vote," them arguing, mobilizing, agitating, and ultimately forcing elected officials to be accountable, I think that's the key.

So that has been a hallmark of my career, transparency and accountability, getting the American people involved. That's how we're going to bring about change. That's why I want to be president of the United States, to respect the power of the American people to bring about change.

The two things I have noticed about Obama over these last two years are this. One, he is unfailingly honest. He has told America exactly how he will govern and he will seek to carry out the policies he expressed, engage with his foes perhaps even more than his friends, and basically institute a somewhat cautious brand of good-government technocracy. The other observation is that Obama is more willing to listen than most politicians, and if the case is made he has no problem changing course. If you put those together and look at the above quote, you can synthesize that Obama is perfectly willing to respond to criticism, to go where those who activate their communities and engage the public demand he take them, and respect the power vested in him by the people to act in the interests of the people. It means that tomorrow, Americans of all stripes will have a unique opportunity to petition their government. There is no real excuse for this. The tools are available.

I don't think the current set of policies that Obama has fleshed out are likely to work right now. The economic recovery isn't big enough. The health care reform won't control costs enough. The war policies continue to hold to a myth that Afghanistan needs more troops to maintain security instead of a regional framework. The policies as a whole reflect an incrementalism that is insufficient for the time. The success of this new President depends not on whether or not these steps succeed but how he reacts should they fail. While Obama's greatest supporters tend to recast everything he does as a self-evidently remarkable step forward (which it isn't), his greatest detractors tend to believe that his entire Presidency would be static, and that the outcomes of events would not inform the newly reset policies to react to them. There is no roadmap for the Presidency, but a mindset of honesty and receptiveness is one that has the greatest capacity to involve people in their government again. And at this moment, a return to civics is the very best we can hope for.

Hoping For A Bank Shot

We're at the part in the Rick Warren controversy where some "good liberals" like E.J. Dionne come out of the woodwork to defend the mistaken decision because, I guess, Warren and his cadres might spontaneously alter their own deeply held beliefs, and then how awesome will everything be?

Liberals who see Warren as a garden-variety conservative evangelical defined primarily by his opposition to gay marriage accuse Obama of selling them out. Gays and lesbians enraged by Warren's strong opposition to gay marriage in last month's California referendum charge Obama with pandering to white evangelicals and fear the president-elect has gone out of his way to offend them in order to curry favor with straight conservatives.

But a more benign view on parts of the religious left casts Warren as the evangelical best positioned to lead moderately conservative white Protestants toward a greater engagement with the issues of poverty and social justice, and away from a relentless focus on abortion and gay marriage.

I mean, this is just a fantasy. I know that Dionne thinks Democrats can crack this Da Vinci Code and get evangelicals to focus on different issues than they historically have, and that may be true at the margins, but for the most part, religious white Protestants care about gay marriage and abortion because that's been the sum total of their political engagement for decades. To ask them to subsume that is to ask them to subsume their personal ideology, and in some respects their morality. I just think it's very naive to believe that will change. Yesterday the Pope called fighting homosexuality as consequential as protecting the rainforest. The E.J. Dionnes of the world would say that I should be thrilled that the Pope cares about the rainforest.

The major political issue that Warren has involved himself over the past half-decade is Prop. 8. That's just a fact. He spent no political capital on extending unemployment benefits or increasing the minimum wage. I appreciate the thought, expressed by Melissa Etheridge, that if gay people just talk to someone like Warren, they can open his eyes, but while I think that is true with the vast apolitical or low-information sections of the country, it's not likely to work with an evangelical leader or his flock.

I fall more along the lines of Katha Pollitt:

To understand how angry and disappointed many Democrats are that Barack Obama has invited evangelical preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural, imagine if a President-elect John McCain had offered this unique honor to the Rev. Al Sharpton -- or the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. I know, it's hard to picture: John McCain would never do that in a million years. Republicans respect their base even when, as in McCain's case, it doesn't really return the favor.

Only Democrats, it seems, reward their most loyal supporters -- feminists, gays, liberals, opponents of the war, members of the reality-based community -- by elbowing them aside to embrace their opponents instead [...]

In a news conference Thursday, Obama defended the choice of Warren: "It is important for the country to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues." That's all very well, but excuse me if I don't feel all warm and fuzzy. Obama won thanks to the strenuous efforts of people who've spent the last eight years appalled by the Bush administration's wars and violations of human rights, its attacks on gays and women, its denigration of science, its general pandering to bigotry and ignorance in the name of God.

I'm all for building bridges, but honoring Warren, who insults Obama's base as perverts and murderers, is definitely a bridge too far.

Hear hear.

Why Invoke?

We're in the phase of the Rick Warren scandal where people dutifully collect all the soundbites of things he's said over the years. And while sometimes this tends to take people out of context, I don't think the media had a problem applying that standard to Jeremiah Wright, so here goes. Warren thinks that gay people are just immature and lack character and if they could only sublimate their desire like, say, a rapist who doesn't assault every woman who walks down the street (which he compares to HIMSELF), or a violent man who doesn't punch everyone he sees, then they could join civil society. As a result, Warren BANS unrepentant gays from membership at his church. And he's apparently sponsored ex-gay "recovery" sessions at Saddleback. And there are probably a dozen other things, but these are the ones that struck me.

Now, the idea that liberals have to accommodate someone like this at the inauguration because we have to be "inclusive," but Rick Warren doesn't need to accommodate a damn thing, is obviously disappointing and maybe shows you where the Obama campaign's head is at. I also understand that this is that thing called politics, and plenty of other execrable fellows are going to be traipsing in and out of Obama's White House, although unlike The Editors, I think you can answer the question of whether this will help Obama with white evangelicals (hell to the no; he got 25% in 2008 after appearing with Warren on stage, offering expanded faith-based initiatives and creating a whole "Matthew 25" movement. This is tribal. It ain't happening).

However, the comment over the last couple days with which I identify the most is clearly from bmaz.

Why is any of this, Warren, Lowery, or any other religious figure, an official part of the inauguration? If a religious aspect is desired for private parties later etc., fine, but why should overt religion be sanctioned as part of the official initiation of a Presidency? No matter how it is configured, it is going to be offensive to many groups inherently; i.e. those whose religions are snubbed, and those such as the LGBT community, for instance in relation to Warren. Probably some groups somewhere will be similarly put off by Joe Lowery; and, of course, the non-believers and/or atheists don't like any of it.

"America" should not have a preacher. If individuals wish to consider religion vis a vis their government, that is most excellent, but it should be and by individual choice only. God is not for a nation to possess, nor claim the mantle of; that is the province of the individuals in the nation to do, or not do, on their own.

Seven percent of the country does not believe in God. They aren't organized or a political force by any means, but they are Americans, and they are certainly not "included" in this civil ceremony inaugurating a President. What's more, 17% of Americans say that religion is "not very important" in their life, and 57% don't attend church weekly. Are they factored into this inclusive inauguration, with its opening invocation and closing benediction? I see absolutely no reason for this to be part of a Constitutional handover of power.

But I'm probably in the minority. However, doesn't that mean that I should be given a platform and that others will have to "agree to disagree" with me?

Meanwhile, the Courage Campaign is proposing a debate between Warren and Reverend Eric Lee of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Todd Beeton has the details:

We can not ignore Rick Warren's fervent support for Proposition 8 or his mobilization of thousands of evangelical Christians to enshrine discrimination into our state constitution.

Harvey Milk did not ignore John Briggs in 1978, when Briggs sought to pass Proposition 6 -- the infamous "Briggs Initiative" that attempted to ban gay and lesbian teachers, and anyone who supported them, from our California's public schools. Milk challenged Briggs to debates across the state.

Sign the petition. Let's have a debate. Maybe they'll even put an atheist on the stage!

Obama: We're Going To Agree That You Disagree With Me

The President-elect's justification for choosing Rick Warren to the deliver the invocation at his Inauguration is kind of a mess.

Let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.

And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery -- who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues -- is also speaking.

Obama is playing it very coy here. If this was mid-May and he stood with Warren at a conference on reducing poverty in the Third World, THAT would be an example of America coming together and finding common ground. Giving Warren a platform not tied to a particular issue just elevates him to the bipartisan face of religion in America, and gives him cover from the leader of the Democratic Party. And what's unsaid is that the compromises and calls to "agree to disagree" only get invoked when dealing with the left. It's seen as a political power play to kick the hippies in the teeth, never the other way around.

*** When liberals attack: Axelrod and Gibbs have to be smiling this morning with the news that gay-rights groups are angry that Obama has announced that conservative evangelical Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Why are they smiling? Because it never hurts -- at least when it comes to governing or running for re-election -- when you sometimes disappoint/anger your party’s interest groups (in this case, People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign). Just asking, but is anyone but People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign surprised that Rick Warren is going to give a prayer at the inauguration? Where was this outrage when Obama appeared at Warren’s Saddleback forum back in August? The difference may be that the forum came before Proposition 8 passed in California. As for the pure politics of this, when you look at the exit polls and see the large numbers of white evangelicals in swing states like North Carolina, Florida and Missouri, as well as emerging battlegrounds like Georgia and Texas, you'll understand what Obama's up to.

Destroying your credibility with your base - always awesome. That shape-shifter Jonathan Alter was on MSNBC right after Obama's remarks saying the same thing, that the "era of Democratic fealty to interest-group politics is over." Nice to know that civil rights are just the issues of another one of them "interest groups."

If these Beltway chatterers really think that evangelicals are going to come around to Obama, by the way, they're crazy and they don't know how to read polls. Church-goers in general moved to Obama in 2008, but not evangelicals - they stuck with their tribe. When you see the Family Research Council tossing out press releases knocking Obama's Education Secretary pick for wanting to create a "gay high school," you can recognize how stupid it is thinking that "making nice with social conservatives" will bear electoral fruit. And I know it's only important if someone in DC says it, but lots of us were protesting the Saddleback Forum in August.

The Obama Administration talking points on this one are that the inauguration is "open and inclusive," and Warren's good on poverty and AIDS prevention and the environment, and hey, there's going to be an LGBT Marching Band, and Rev. Joseph Lowery, a pro-gay preacher, is delivering the benediction. But that misses the point entirely. This is about giving agency and bipartisan cover to someone with loathsome views on gays, on the pro-choice movement, and on the assassination of a foreign leader. There is no way to rationalize this.

UPDATE: I agree that the idea that Rick Warren gave protesters water and donuts kind of doesn't make up for stripping away their fundamental rights. And Jane Hamsher has some more good thoughts.

Neither Kinder Nor Gentler

The news that anti-gay bigot Rick Warren will be delivering the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama really sucks. Not necessarily because I think the invocation is such a great platform - quick, name the last ten people to do it! - but because of the likelihood that Warren will be tapped for other responsibilities when Obama becomes President, and will subsequently become the face of religion in America. And while I don't have a problem working with pastors, even those in the evangelical movement, on the common ground issues like AIDS prevention and poverty, Warren is not the one that Democrats should be elevating. He's a snake charmer who is just as extreme as a Falwell or a Robertson. Here's PFAW's release:

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

I'm sure that Warren's supporters will portray his selection as an appeal to unity by a president who is committed to reaching across traditional divides. Others may explain it as a response to Warren inviting then-Senator Obama to speak on AIDS and candidate Obama to appear at a forum, both at his church. But the sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.

Liberals just aren't going to see eye to eye with Rick Warren. There's no compromise to be made. This is a guy who recently agreed that Iran needs to be "taken out" in language that is not discernible from a mullah. This guy does not need to be made the kinder, gentler face of the evangelical movement, in a cynical play for support that will not be forthcoming. It's a big mistake.