Obama botched this one, plain and simple

[mtnsnake]

After watching him run such a flawless campaign, it's hard to believe he agreed to something like this.

There is nothing to gain from it, not for him or for anyone else. All he got by reaching across the aisle (or into the gutter, actually), are the bases of both parties incensed over this. The assholes from the Right are incensed that Warren will go pray with someone who is "pro-abortion" as they say, and a great deal of our Party is outraged that Barack would choose such an intolerant bigot of all people to pray with him.

This is not a good start to unifying the country, and reaching out to bigots just won't cut it. I hope he learns from this mistake.

[mwei924]

1. Getting both bases pissed off is the way to sew up the middle.

[IndianaGreen]

4. If Obama won't stand for full rights for LGBTs, we won't stand for him

when the inevitable attacks comes from the likes of Warren, Dobso, et al.

Obama is on his own!

[David Zephyr]

50. Yep.

I still can't believe he thought he could pull this shit off.

I will not relent on this.

[bullwinkle428]

7. Sounds like an admission the 2012 campaign has already started?

[crappyjazz]

11. Every politician and I mean EVERY politician

is always looking at the next election

[jonnyblitz]

8. what lame fucking spin. nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. FUCK THE GODDAMN NON EXISTENT DLC MYTHICAL MIDDLE!!

I'm tired of hearing that used as an excuse for the last 28 year continuous slide into fascism. :grr:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. if i could nominate you for stupident comment of the day, i would

[mwei924]

12. You might just need the middle for something like health care..

It's not just about elections, but the evangelical community is not opposed to expanding health care and getting some more support on that issue could actually make a difference.

[jonnyblitz]

23. the evangelicals are NOT the middle, they are the far right,.

the is nothing "middle" about homophobic evangelical BIGOTS.

[mwei924]

26. Some of them are in the middle on health care and econ. issues..

It's not just evangelical= right, atheist= left. There are evangelicals who don't support gay marriage, but who are very concerned about poverty and would like to expand health care to everyone. And there are atheists who are Libertarians. There are more issues that affect Americans than social ones, and the political spectrum shouldn't lump everyone together on everything because of one issue.

[terrya]

13. What a stupid analysis.

[mtnsnake]

16. It goes beyond stupid

Someone needs to invent a new word for analogies like that. Good grief, the logic (or lack of) just astounds me sometimes.

[glitch]

18. ? where does this "logic" come from, other than laziness?

I really would like to know, is that how centrists come to their opinions? Are issues so complex that you can't think them through and come to your own conclusions, you just wait for what the bases think and react to it?

[Bjorn Against]

34. Can you give me some examples in which this strategy has worked?

Maybe you can give me some examples, but I can't think of a single issue in which both the left and the right were pissed about the exact same thing while the middle took the opposite position. Usually the so-called moderates choose one side or the other to support, if both sides oppose it then the middle almost always opposes it as well. If you can name a single example of a case in which I am wrong I would be interested to hear about it, but somehow I don't think you will come up with one.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. Social Security

There were many on the right who opposed it for obvious reasons. There were also those on the left who opposed it as it was proposed because it discriminated against women and minorities. The vast majority in the middle supported it and it was a major political victory for Roosevelt.

Of course that doesn't make the discrimination right, but it's how politics works.

[Bjorn Against]

52. But if I am not mistaken the left did not oppose Social Security they just wanted it to be expanded

The left didn't want the program to discriminate against women or minorities, but they did support the general concept of social security and they just wanted to expand it to cover more people correct? That is different than opposing social security, but even if we were to accept the social security was an issue both the left and right opposed and the middle supported that battle took place well over half a century ago. Is there any examples in modern history of both the left and right being opposed to something but the middle being for it?

[Hippo_Tron]

53. The financial industry bailout is another example

It was opposed by people like Feingold and Sanders on the left and the House Republicans (who represent the far right more than the Senate Republicans) on the right. In the Senate it passed resoundingly with bipartisan support and after some initial squabble it also passed with bipartisan support in the Senate.

[Skip Intro]

39. well, just when you think you've heard it all

thanks for the laugh

[depakid]

40. Like Clinton and the DINO's did in 1994!

That worked out great! For 12 years!

[Two Americas]

46. that is an MSM lie

There is no "middle." There are those who sit in front of the TV screen and are told they are the middle and wish to believe in it.

There is no middle when it comes to income.

There is not middle when it comes to supporting or resisting bigotry. It is one or the other.

There is no middle between the wealthy and powerful few, and the other 90% who has to work for a living.

There is no middle when you are down-sized, outsourced, laid off or fired.

There is no middle. On all of the most important issues facing the country, there is no one who is in the middle on any of them.

[IndianaGreen]

2. And Keith Olbermann pounced on Obama's choice of Warren tonight

LGBTs not welcome at Obama's inaugural, that's the message!

[mtnsnake]

5. I missed it but I'll watch the repeat later tonight

Thanks for the heads up

[gblady]

17. he said that???

[bluedawg12]

27. Shuster and tweety were also in solidarity with gays about Warren.

[polichick]

3. After 8 years of fundies, one of the first voices we'll hear on the first day...

...of the change administration is a right-wing fundie.

(A guest on Keith's show mentioned this.)

[peace frog]

33. Not exactly "change you can believe in"

Bestowing this honor on Warren is a huge misstep, but Obama will not rescind it now.

[polichick]

44. Yeah, that's "Change, my ass!" :)

[gcomeau]

6. You know, I think I'm going to start saving these posts.

Then 2 years from now I'm going to pull them out and laugh my ass off at them.

Yes... reaching out to other people is a horrible way to begin unifying the country. Everyone knows you can only unify the nation by reaching out to your own people and only your own people. NEVER the other side. It's going to be rather fun asking the sarcastically rhetorical "So... tell us all about how much Obama screwed up his attempts to expand the tent" questions later.

[Lautremont]

14. Why can't the reaching out be done in a way that doesn't place this guy front and centre

in literally the first few seconds of Obama's presidency? There are lots of significant ways to "expand the tent" that don't involve alienating and outraging so many people.

[glitch]

25. He should be reaching out to the disempowered middle rather than the far right.

How do you convince people to come in from the fringe when you reward the fringe and ignore the so-called middle? I am thinking of Jim Wallis here, who with courage and at his own risk came out against the extremist evangelicals quite awhile back, and now he sees a fringe creep get rewarded with a plumb national gig.

I really hope you will be laughing in a few years, although I am of sick of the sarcasm and the posters here who think it's clever, so please leave that out.

[gcomeau]

29. This is a moment for symbolism.

And reaching out to the middle to deliver an invocation rather lacks it. "Behold, in the spirit of reconciliation and common purpose I shall invite this rather bland and unassuming and entirely non confrontational chap to say a few words at the inauguration" doesn't quite get the job done does it?

There's plenty of time and opportunity for drawing in the middle when it gets down to the meat of enacting policy. For now, a relatively empty gesture to the right wing gets the job done just fine.

[glitch]

36. Reconciliation only really works when the offender apologizes or at least makes some steps to

redemption, according to Biblical lore anyway (which supposedly this is what invocations from preachers at inaugurations are all about).

Simply forgiving sociopaths isn't all that effective for working together productively in a community, at least historically.

I believe shifting politics back to the true center means exactly that.

[EFerrari]

42. You're right. Where is Fred Phelps or David Duke? We need them.

[Two Americas]

47. Warren is not the "middle"

By what stretch of the imagination could this be called "reaching out to the middle?"

[gcomeau]

49. By no stretch?

That was kind of the point. Who did you think was arguing Warren represented the middle?

[Two Americas]

51. many are

Not sure I understood your post, and was just making a comment.

Explain your post if you would. I think you have a good point there, but I am not quite getting it.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Sure, let's reach out to David Duke and his pals among the Holocaust deniers

Let's put some skin heads on the board of the Holocaust Museum. They must be heard! :puke:

[RollWithIt]

15. Disagree.... Change is also trying to find common ground in the middle....

I'm sorry, but I'd rather Obama have the avenue open to give real interviews to Warren and speak directly to the religious community about why many of their views are shortsighted.

[bluedawg12]

22. People have been speaking to Warren and the religious community for a long time

they are the ones not listening.

[glitch]

38. See? Now Rick Warren represents the middle, apparently.

Certainly not the symbolism for change I was looking for...

[Two Americas]

48. the "middle"

The religious right and extreme political right wing is not the "middle."

Where do these talking points come from? Suddenly we went from "reaching out to the other side" to calling the other side "the middle" and dozens of people are repeating the same line.

[makinguphumans]

19. Spot on mtsnake

[bluedawg12]

20. There is nothing to gain and there is no common ground with bigots

until they change their story then, maybe then, they get a place at the table.

Not before!

[Peregrine Took]

21. Everyone agrees its his first big mistake.

He may have meant well (bring in fundies) but it will take a lot more than that to seduce them over to our side.

A LOT more - if its even possible.

[stevietheman]

24. If Warren's base is incensed, wouldn't that diminish his own power,

as these right-wing fundies never forget when someone goes astray?

[BootinUp]

30. If both the activist left and the activist right are incensed

he might have done something good. Too early to tell.

[gravity]

31. No he didn't

Obama knows what he is doing

[leftstreet]

32. K&R

[oviedodem]

35. I am going to see what your tune is when half of his agenda is put through with the help of

those that hate him but will end up helping YOU, ME, and everyone else.

[depakid]

37. The campaign was hardly flawless

he was actually losing to an incompetent bungler up and until the financial meltdown and Palin fallout- and the tendency to pull stunts like this one was part of the reason.

[Tatiana]

41. Yep. I support Obama, but this was clearly a dumb move.

This decision should have been better vetted.

[1776Forever]

45. I am so with you here - makes no sense to me - Warren is NOT even near being tolerant!

Why pick this man, who called gay members of our party who believe that their rights were invaded by saying that members of his (Warren's) church should vote for Prop 8, because he believes that gay marriage is akin to incest, child rape and polygamy?

Warren goes way over anything near being tolerant of the gay community and that is enough for me to ask why let him have an honored position in Obama's inauguration? I don't get it. Then there is the 14th and the 1st Amendment of course that Warren doesn't even approach! This was a very poor choice in my estimation for these reasons!

[kenny blankenship]

54. The intent is probably to PUSH OUT not to reach out

Out with the Gay!

It may look like clumsy bungling and stepping on toes, but it's probably an opening move to piss off and push out people Obama finds inconvenient, and perhaps distasteful.

[EmilyAnne]

55. I volunteered my ass off for the Obama campaign. I canvassed through three pairs of shoes. I gave

up my weekends and all of my evenings. I got called all sorts of names.

Obama' decision has ruined my excitement about his win. I am so disappointed that I don't want to even hear about him these days. I will no longer be attending the inauguration.

Of course, he will be better than John McCain. Of course, he and Hillary have identical stances on LGBT rights so who is to say that she wouldn't have invited Rick Warren, too? That doesn't matter. The fact is, Obama has the power here and he is letting this happen. After the heartbreaking defeat of Prop 8, how can he not understand how unacceptable this guy's invocation will be.

I am beyond disappointed.
To use an expression that Obama used time and time again, its not that Obama doesn't care about the LGBT community, he just doesn't GET IT.
If he has something up his sleeve, if he has plans to turn Warren's stances into a "teaching moment" that will advance LGBT issues, I'm all ears and ready to accept it. Otherwise, I'm just plain bewildered.

[QC]

56. No, he didn't botch anything, This is some very expert triangulation.

Obama knows exactly what he's doing.