Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Ted Haggard to promote documentary about his downfall Previous entry: Bush administration embraces anti-contraception agenda

The voice that will erase the sad bigotry of Rick Warren

I want to turn your attention to the man who will make Rick Warren look very, very small at the inauguration—the civil rights giant who will deliver the benediction, the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery. On February 7, 2006, the pro-equality Lowery bid farewell to Coretta Scott King, another icon of the civil rights movement who was a long supporter of LGBT rights.

The video and transcript:

REVEREND JOSEPH LOWERY: What a family reunion. Rosa and Martin reminiscing, they had just begun to talk, when Martin seemed not to listen. He started to walk. The wind had whispered in his ear. “I believe somebody is almost here. Excuse me, Rosa,” Martin said as he did depart, his soles on fire, he just couldn’t wait. His spirit leaped with joy as he moved toward the pearly gates. Glory, glory, hallelujah. After forty years, almost forty years, together at last, together at last, thank God Almighty, together at last!

  Thank you, Coretta. Didn’t she carry her grief with dignity? Her growing influence with humility? She secured his seed, nurtured his nobility she declared humanity’s worth, invented their vision, his and hers, for peace in all the Earth. She opposed discrimination based on race, she frowned on homophobia and gender bias, she rejected on its face. She summoned the nations to study war no more. She embraced the wonders of a human family from shoulder to shoulder. Excuse me, Maya.

  She extended Martin’s message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance, poverty abound. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.

  Well, Coretta had harsh critics. Some no one could please. But she paid them no mind. She kept speaking. As we get older, or so I’m told, we listen in to heaven like the prophets of old. I heard Martin and Coretta say, “do us a favor, Joe, those four little children I spoke of in 1963, they are fine adults now, as all can see. They already know but tell them again. We love them so dear. Assure them we will always be near. Their troubles to bless and sanctify to them their deepest distress. Tell them we believe in them as we know you do. We know their faith in god and their love for each other will see them through. Assure them at the end of the tunnel awaits god’s light and we are confident they will always strive for the right. Tell them don’t forget to remember that we are as near as their prayer—and never as far and we can rest in peace because they know who and whose they are.”

  What a family reunion. Thank you, Lord. Just the other day I thought I heard you say Coretta, my child, come on home. You’ve earned your rest, your body is weary. You have done your best. Her Witness and character always strong. Her spirit, her melody from heaven’s song, her beauty warms like the rays of the sun. Good night, my sister. Well done, well done.

Tim Russo underscores just how badly Rick Warren will clearly be out of his league once Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery takes to the microphone.

If I were Rick Warren, I’d have the nuts to turn down the invitation to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, simply based on decency.  But even further, if I were Rick Warren, in the interests of my own ego, I’d be smart enough to avoid comparison of my Celebrity Driven Life with that of the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who’ll be giving the benediction after Barack’s speech.

...Rick Warren will never be the man that Joseph Lowery was 50 years ago, when he founded the SCLC, or the man who marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge 43 years ago, let alone the man Lowery is today.  Rick Warren would never have the courage, the stature, or the righteousness to sit across from George Wallace and demand a jelly donut, let alone his own civil rights. 

...Rick Warren is about to get steamrolled, like a gnat against a windshield, on the biggest stage of the last 50 years by a man who helped shape those 50 years, and to whom a guy like Rick Warren is lint on his suit.

More after the jump.
Tim has the video of what happened on the Edmund Pettus bridge.

In 1965, King named Lowery to deliver the demands of a planned Selma-to-Montgomery march for voting rights to then-Alabama Governor George Wallace. In an event that shocked the nation, police tear-gassed and clubbed the peaceful marchers at Edmund Pettus Bridge. The brutality of what came to be known as “Bloody Sunday” focused the nation’s attention on the extreme measures used to prevent black citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote, leading Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Rick Warren with his bigotry, small-mindedness and downright ignorance isn’t fit to be anywhere near the podium where Lowery will speak.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 10:07 AM • (59) Comments

I haven’t commented on this issue yet, but I’m probably not alone in thinking how wonderful it will be to have a bigot look small and ineffectual when among so many greater men and women.  While the Religious Right will be searching for Teh Outrage, they’ll have one of their own sitting idly by while others—and I’m going to assume Obama himself—speak out for the things the wingnuts oppose.  I see little reason to be hateful for Obama for this.

His decency can win America over in ways a snub of Rich Warren couldn’t.  Patience, I say.  Patience.  Obama is commited to the right things, not the Right things.

Comment #1: jon  on  12/19  at  10:18 AM

With all respect to Lowery, there’s only one person who can make Warren look small: the man who invited him, either before or at the Inauguration.

Comment #2: Gracchus  on  12/19  at  10:26 AM

I’m a transwoman, and much as I loathe Warren on almost every level, you have to admit that the contrast with the Rev. Lowery , to those watching, will be unmistakable—perhaps there will be converts made. And the headliners *always* go last, anyway.

(I should here admit that this is part of my remaining “hope” thingy…that Obama’s taking the transition of power nice and slow, but will begin moving in the other direction upon beginning his presidency.)

Comment #3: Anna Granfors  on  12/19  at  11:04 AM

Rick Warren ought to figure out that he is the token clueless white person. He will, of course, talk about defending “innocent life” and reducing HIV/AIDS in Africa without understanding that he and his ilk, by getting all moralistic about condoms and legal abortion, have done as much as Mbeki and other deniers in helping kill Africans.

Comment #4: NancyP  on  12/19  at  11:53 AM

Thank you for sharing this.  Widest possible dissemination.  Kudos to the comment that mentioned the proper slap down of Warren should come from Obama.  Weapons of misdirection over here…s..w…e…e..t!

Enjoy.

Comment #5: The Tim Channel  on  12/19  at  12:05 PM

Perhaps Rev. Lowery can teach Warren a wee bit about the bible which, as I understand it, has much to say about helping the poor and downtrodden and has almost nothing to say about The Gay and making millions preaching to bloated, wealthy congregations in So. Cal.

Comment #6: pennylane  on  12/19  at  12:13 PM

I can’t help but wonder if the whole thing is some sort of symbolic ploy, Warren representing what was, and Lowery representing what will be.  I hope so, and I hope it’s made explicit, b/c that’s about the only way this mess is redeemable in my opinion.

Comment #7: Em  on  12/19  at  12:14 PM

Obama is going to do a hook-line-and-sinker on the religious right by using Rick Warren as a bait?

Please make it so. They so need a good verbal spanking.

Comment #8: MarkusR  on  12/19  at  12:29 PM

His decency can win America over in ways a snub of Rich Warren couldn’t.

Not inviting somebody to speak at your inauguration is not a snub.  Or if it is, the list of ‘snubbed’ Americans runs well over 300 million names.

Comment #9: libdevil  on  12/19  at  01:17 PM

so i’ve read elsewhere that mandela triumphed by seeming to stand with those who were bigoted and even evil - and eventually he co opted their hate. seems like a plan.

but i’m looking for that doma-killer or the end of dadt.

e~

Comment #10: eridanis  on  12/19  at  01:18 PM

So, if Obama were to disinvite Warren (or if he all of sudden said he couldn’t do it due to “scheduling conflicts” or some other face saving move) then probably Lowrey couldn’t go, either. Would it be worth the trade off?

Comment #11: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  01:36 PM

Ben D.,

I don’t accept the meme that if Warren goes, Lowrey has to go as well. (Says who??)

However, if that were the only way that we could get rid of Warren, I say get rid of them both. Get Robert Fulgham or some other plain vanilla liberal Unitarian minister and let it be bland and non-controversial (or, better yet, don’t have a religious ceremony at all, but I’m being realistic here).

There’s a couple of terrible points being made here, not the least of which is that Lowrey is going to wipe the floor with Warren. That point fails because the majority of America simply will not watch to see either men. Warren’s selection is symbolic to the Religious Right - they don’t NEED to hear what he says, him just being up there energizes them, legitimizes them, and gets them excited enough to draft the next gay-marriage ban for whatever states are still a toss-up. And at the same time, even if they DID watch, literally NOTHING Lowrey can say will change their minds about this issue, Warren, gay people, Bush, or anything else.

Lowrey is a wonderful person, fine. But we don’t need him to do this religious ceremony - we need clear symbols from Obama that the Religious Right days of rule are over and we’re going to do things maturely and sanely from here on out. Seriously? I’d RATHER Obama have picked bland vanilla pastors to begin with, and not gone out and gotten Awesome Liberal Dude and Asshole Conservative Guy for balance. This is an important event, meant to symbolize that we’re going to move AWAY from crazy religious people dominating all political discourse and, to symbolize this, we’ve gone and gotten crazy religious people to dominate the political discourse for this event.

And it’s now a major news cycle.

Obama, epic fail on this one.

Here is what I awnt. I want Obama to go into office quietly, efficiently, un-flamboyantly, and as quickly as possible. I want him to buckle down and pass legislation that we need and get rid of the legislation that needs to go. I want him to deal with the economy, with Iraq, with civil freedoms. I want him to steer our country AWAY from the idea that EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL idea, movement, and issue needs to spin around what “religious people” want.

I’m tired of Ayers. I’m tired of Warren. I’ve got nothing against Lowrey, but I don’t need him either. Please let the Christian pastors GO HOME and pastor their flock and leave the rest of us alone. Please. No more pastors in politics, Obama, I beg you.

Comment #12: Ellen  on  12/19  at  02:16 PM

Oh, yeah, and Obama:

When the top news story on Yahoo! news is titled “Obama announcing Republican pick for Cabinet position” and my first thoughts are “big surprise” and “oh, look, another one”, you’re doing it wrong.

Comment #13: Ellen  on  12/19  at  02:38 PM

Wait. I’m missing a bit history of here.  Did Lowry actually sit down across from George Wallace and demand a jelly donut?  Wow. That takes balls.

What’s the story behind that?

Comment #14: melaka  on  12/19  at  03:13 PM

Far too many happy bigot troll commenters over at Daily Kos, but I think Kos himself has got it right on the Warren mess:

“I think the Warren choice is bullshit, but if we want a silver lining, it’s that the President of the United States has just said:”

‘I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and—well, 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.’

“That’s not a bad silver lining. But ... Obama wouldn’t be out there making perhaps the strongest statement in support of gays and lesbians by a president (though he’s still not technically one, I know) if it wasn’t for the sturm and drang this choice generated. It is precisely this backlash that has forced Obama to clearly affirm his commitment to equality. And it will be continued pressure that will force him to do the right thing on the issue.

If we shut up, he’ll take the path of least resistance. And that path of least resistance is kowtowing to the conservative media, the clueless punditocracy, and bigots like Warren.”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/18/15457/095/611/674671

Comment #15: judy brown  on  12/19  at  03:17 PM

I fear that simply appearing beside Lowry will give Warren credence with the otherwise uninformed: no less that handing a mic to Warren is taking a chance on more toads popping from his mouth—and this time at the Inauguration.

Comment #16: judy brown  on  12/19  at  03:20 PM

When the top news story on Yahoo! news is titled “Obama announcing Republican pick for Cabinet position” and my first thoughts are “big surprise” and “oh, look, another one”, you’re doing it wrong.

Yes, because everyone knows that the Secretary of Transportation—a job that is often given to someone of the other party—rules the entire cabinet, so Obama giving the job to a Republican as Bush gave the job to Democrat Norm Mineta is ABSOLUTE PROOF! that we may as well have elected John McCain since Obama is making the exact same decisions that McCain would have.

Comment #17: Mnemosyne  on  12/19  at  03:26 PM

Sweet Jesus, I hate Rick Warren!

Another high point, in addition to the Reverend Mr. Lowery, will be a reading by poet Elizabeth Alexander.  She’s awesomesauce incarnate.

Comment #18: JupiterPluvius  on  12/19  at  03:27 PM

What Ellen said.

Comment #19: CParis  on  12/19  at  03:42 PM

We should be happy over the pick for Labor Secretary, and we’re getting pissed over the Transportation Secretary.

Comment #20: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  03:50 PM

Mnemosyne,

What?!?

Okay, who kidnapped the sane Mnemosyne and gave us this troll in her name?

Seriously, you did this to Seeker to: every single frakking time someone criticizes Obama, you act like they’ve said we should have elected John McCain.

Do we have 4 years to look forward to this reactionary knee-jerk reaction from you? Do you seriously equate my sincere and bitter annoyance that Secretary of Transportation has gone to a rural Republican who is lukewarm AT BEST on public transportation at a time when the 3-car family is seriously fucking up our economy and our planet (permanently, I fear) to “McCCAIN RULZS 4EVAH”?

What I’m trying to say is, can I have the sane Mnemosyne back please?

Comment #21: Ellen  on  12/19  at  03:51 PM

The President directs the agenda. Not the Secretaries. They just carry it out.

Look at how easily Colin Powell was cowed in Bush’s first term for God’s sake.

Comment #22: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  03:53 PM

Also, unless you’re a spineless mental midget like George W. Bush, you bring your cabinet members (and VP, for that matter) closer to your political philosophy, not the other way around.

Comment #23: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  03:53 PM

Ben D.:

We got a shit-sandwich and a cake, so I’m supposed to be grateful for the cake?

I care about transportation. I want public transportation that I can USE, not more of the “well, if you can’t bike 50 miles in 20 degree weather, you hate the environment”. I want change I can believe in, starting with the very difficult change that we need to make to our Three-Cars-To-A-Family American mentality.

Comment #24: Ellen  on  12/19  at  03:54 PM

Biden is going to have more influence over transit policy than Ray LaHood. I guarantee it.

Comment #25: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  03:56 PM

Ben…..so far I’ve seen little to suggest that Obama isn’t picking cabinet members he doesn’t agree with. Crossing my fingers and praying that Obama is picking tokens over and over and OVER again that he intends to fight, bicker, and dominate for the next four years is not my style. Why would he stack his administration with people who are going to be ideologically opposed to them? He’ll never accomplish anything that way.

Occam’s Razor makes me think that it’s more likely that he’s picking people he agrees with. Why wouldn’t he? He can claim mandate here and get some awesome Democrats…if that is what he WANTED…

Comment #26: Ellen  on  12/19  at  03:56 PM

Why would he stack his administration with people who are going to be ideologically opposed to them?

Ellen, it’s not like he picked Cheney to be Secretary of State, Grover Norquist for Treasury, and Palin for the Interior! Get a grip.

Comment #27: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  03:58 PM

Ben, you seem to be under the impression that if there is a Good (Progressive Democrat), a Bad (Regressive Republican), or an Ugly (Cheney / Palin / etc.), and if the President-Elect choses the Bad rather than the Ugly, I am hyperventilating if I point out on a blog that, you know, the Bad is still much worse than the Good.

Which brings me back to the subject of cults.

Comment #28: Ellen  on  12/19  at  04:03 PM

Ray LaHood is a Rockefeller Republican. I don’t mind one or two of those in the cabinet.

Comment #29: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  04:06 PM

Shorter Ellen: ...

Ah, screw it. It’s not even worth it. You’re pissed. We get it. At least you’re bleating to the choir on the internet. I’m sure that will help matters from where you sit. Keep up the good, hard work. And that’s coming form someone who can’t stand Warren, but whatever. Don’t let the holy righteous fire cloud your vision. I mean, who needs allies when you can just vent on the pandagon, right? How’s that working out for ya?

Comment #30: Joe Lisboa  on  12/19  at  04:19 PM

How nice that you don’t mind. I have a different opinion. Kindly extend me the respect of not acting like I’m an insane, hyperventilating concern troll. smile

(Mind you, that’s more directed at Mnemosyne thank you, Ben.)

Comment #31: Ellen  on  12/19  at  04:20 PM

Joe Lisboa, your point is?

Comment #32: Ellen  on  12/19  at  04:21 PM

Actually LaHood is the only Republican. Gates is a registered independent, and most likely a place holder from Clark (he’s prohibited until 2010).

Comment #33: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  04:24 PM

Okay, who kidnapped the sane Mnemosyne and gave us this troll in her name?

Great.  Thinking that people are WAY overreacting when they decide that Rick Warren giving a 60-second speech is a complete betrayal of the entire left and everything we stand for now means I’m a troll.  One of us needs to get a grip, and it ain’t me.

Do we have 4 years to look forward to this reactionary knee-jerk reaction from you? Do you seriously equate my sincere and bitter annoyance that Secretary of Transportation has gone to a rural Republican who is lukewarm AT BEST on public transportation at a time when the 3-car family is seriously fucking up our economy and our planet (permanently, I fear) to “McCCAIN RULZS 4EVAH”?

If your every reaction to a completely ordinary decision on Obama’s part to continue following tradition on cross-party appointments then, yes, I guess you’ll have to get used to me pointing out that Obama is following tradition on cross-party appointments instead of joining you in freaking out.

LaHood is Congressman for the sixth-largest city and third-largest urban area in the state of Illinois, so calling him a “rural” Republican is a bit of hyperbole.

What I’m trying to say is, can I have the sane Mnemosyne back please?

Sanity is declaring that Obama has completely betrayed liberals with a one-minute speech by Rick Warren despite all of the other appointments he’s made?  If that’s the case, I’ll be happy to stay insane and judge Obama by all of his actions, not by cherry-picking just the ones that piss me off most. 

Excuse me while I drift off into my psychotic state so I can enjoy having a pro-labor Secretary of Labor for the first time in over a decade.  I realize that, in this age of union-busting, having a pro-labor Secretary of Labor is much, much less important than Rick Warren giving a one-minute speech, but I need to enjoy my crazy moments when I can.

Comment #34: Mnemosyne  on  12/19  at  04:30 PM

Also, I’m thrilled about his pick for trade representative. Whens the last time you heard one talk about a “Progressive trade agenda”?

Comment #35: Ben D.  on  12/19  at  04:32 PM

Sanity is declaring that Obama has completely betrayed liberals with a one-minute speech by Rick Warren despite all of the other appointments he’s made?

Please point out where I have said this (or where PAM has said this, for that matter, as I happen to agree with her posts on this), and I will apologize.

Until then, please stop making the insane assumption that “unhappy with some of Obama’s choices” equals “wants McCain as president” - which is a leap you have made for both me and Seeker multiple times now.

Comment #36: Ellen  on  12/19  at  04:34 PM

Also, Mnemosyne, get it through your binary head that I can simultaneously hold the opinion that the Secretary of Labor choice is good and the Secretary of Transportation choice is bad. These are not mutually exclusive opinions.

Comment #37: Ellen  on  12/19  at  04:35 PM

Please point out where I have said this (or where PAM has said this, for that matter, as I happen to agree with her posts on this), and I will apologize.

From comments like this one:

“We got a shit-sandwich and a cake, so I’m supposed to be grateful for the cake?”

I’m interpreting you as saying that there was no point in even giving you the cake if you were also getting the shit sandwich, so you’re going to concentrate on the sandwich and ignore the cake.  If that’s not what you were saying, please re-interpret.

I also find it funny that you’re accusing me of binary thinking while declaring that Obama’s Warren and Secretary of Transportation decisions have completely poisoned your feelings towards him.

Comment #38: Mnemosyne  on  12/19  at  04:51 PM

As I believe the comments point out;

People are going to view the Warren/Lowery through their own filters and biases.

We may never know what the “real” reason is.
I understand those that feel Warren is a “slap in the face.”
So do they remove themselves from the process because they are angry and feel disenfranchised or do they get back to work and help elect More, Better <strike>Democrats</strike> Progressives?

Comment #39: Cynickal  on  12/19  at  04:52 PM

I’m pretty sure that Obama’s LIEbral strategy with Warren is “Keep your friends close and your enemas closer”.

Comment #40: RUGGED IN MONTANA  on  12/19  at  05:06 PM

I’m really, really sick of all this bullshit about “no, no, he’s going to tell him off, he didn’t really mean it, it’s just strategy.” At best, Barack Obama fucked up. At worst, he was sending a message to the Religious Right that on gay rights and contraception they still have an ally in the White House. I suspect gay rights is simply not a important issue to Obama and so Warren’s views don’t bother him.

He’s not practically perfect in every way just because he’s a Dem, or just because he’s <s>liberal</s> left of the Bush Administration and McCain and Fox News. Why are Ellen and I (and maybe Amanda) the only posters or commenters on three different blogs to take the selection of Warren at face value?

Comment #41: Hershele Ostropoler  on  12/19  at  06:40 PM

We got a shit-sandwich and a cake, so I’m supposed to be grateful for the cake?

You have the most progressive President ever, and someone both intellectually and poitically competant enough to have a chance of undoing some of the harm the Republicans have inflicted on your country.

You are supposed to be grateful that Obama learned a lesson from watching what happened to Jimmy Carter.  I would be.

He’s not practically perfect in every way just because he’s a Dem, or just because he’s <s>liberal</s> left of the Bush Administration and McCain and Fox News. Why are Ellen and I (and maybe Amanda) the only posters or commenters on three different blogs to take the selection of Warren at face value?

Would this face value include Obama’s actual public statements on his disagreement with Warren over LGBT rights?  Or are we to assume that a minute during the inauguration ceremony given to someone with objectionable opinions on gay rights who has none the less done some good in other areas is more indicative than Obama’s actual record and public policy statements?

Comment #42: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  12/19  at  07:49 PM

Egad, I wish someone would erase all the whining voices of the crybabies on this blog. The world does not need to adhere to your standards for life to continue. Don’t watch the inauguration, just sit in your rooms and cry and play with your dicks.

Comment #43: Foo Colt  on  12/19  at  07:50 PM

Interesting posts by Todd Gitlin and Greg Sargent at TPM.  Both of them—like me—were initially livid at the selection but have started to take a deep breath and see what some of the thinking might have been other than “let’s fuck over gay people.”

There is still a major problem here in that the rights of gay people are still considered publicly expendable in a way that women’s or racial minorities’ rights are not, but talking as though the ONLY motive for inviting Warren was to kick the DFH’s in the ass is missing a huge part of the picture.  Sargent’s article is particularly interesting because he points out the ways in which Obama really is doing things differently than Bill Clinton did, even though you can call both methods “triangulation.”

Comment #44: Mnemosyne  on  12/19  at  08:20 PM

seriously, Clinton spent a lot of time bleating that he respected the LBGT community…and then bent them over the chair. Obama needs to prove his support on the national stage before he gets the pass.

Comment #45: redwards  on  12/19  at  08:37 PM

Ray LaHood is a very decent man, used to working across the aisle. Read this David Broder column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102050.html

His selection makes sense in two additional ways: it’s the complement of W.‘s keeping Dem Norm Mineta as Transportation Secretary; like Mineta, Ray LaHood is an ethnic minority—an Arab.

The more I think about Obama’s picking Warren, the more inexcusable it seems I could excuse Donnie McClurkin’s performing because he hates himself for being gay. The guy needs help and understanding. Besides, he was picked for being an awesome Gospel singer. He’s a performer, not a teacher, and a highly skilled one at that. Many artists are seriously fucked up in one way or another.

In contrast, Warren is smugly self-satisfied with his straightness. Others are wrong; not him. And Warren was picked because he supposedly can help lead you to salvation—but there is no salvation in bigotry. There are umpteen thousand official holy men and women operating in the US—Obama could have picked any of them.

Someone should keep a list of everyone who Obama throws under the bus.

Comment #46: Hector B.  on  12/19  at  09:47 PM

Clinton spent a lot of time bleating that he respected the LBGT community…and then bent them over the chair.

Now there’s a picture…

Comment #47: RUGGED IN MONTANA  on  12/19  at  10:25 PM

no less that handing a mic to Warren is taking a chance on more toads popping from his mouth—and this time at the Inauguration.

With any luck he’ll get soundly booed by the audience if he does spew something bigoted.  And all the better if there’s a nice photo op of Obama standing there with a pained look on his face along the lines of “WHY did I think this was a good idea?”

Comment #48: Kyra  on  12/19  at  11:32 PM

seriously though… “secured his seed” ?!?!?!? I hate talk like that.  They don’t eulogize the husbands of famous women by saying things like “enlivened her egg.”  Isn’t there something a little patriarchal about this even being considered a compliment to pay a woman?  Even something like “brought beautiful children into the world with him” would be more egalitarian that lauding the security of “his seed”.

ugh.

Comment #49: Ellen  on  12/20  at  01:22 AM

There are grilllions of clergy of various stripes in the country. Many of them are honorable people who are not outspoken homophobes. It’s not like the only way Obama could find someone who did a good deed once was to take someone who wants to put people I like in prison.

Comment #50: Hershele Ostropoler  on  12/20  at  01:52 AM

He should just find a Hispanic transvestite amputee hooker so that all of you freaks can be happy!

Comment #51: Sniffle  on  12/20  at  02:45 AM

seriously though… “secured his seed” ?!?!?!? I hate talk like that.  They don’t eulogize the husbands of famous women by saying things like “enlivened her egg.” Isn’t there something a little patriarchal about this even being considered a compliment to pay a woman?  Even something like “brought beautiful children into the world with him” would be more egalitarian that lauding the security of “his seed”.

ugh.

Ellen on 12/19 at 11:22 PM

Huh? That wasn’t me. Do we have a new Ellen? Not an uncommon name, I suppose. Will have to come up with something more unique, I guess.

Comment #52: Ellen  on  12/20  at  02:56 PM

You have the most progressive President ever, and someone both intellectually and poitically competant enough to have a chance of undoing some of the harm the Republicans have inflicted on your country.

We do?  Seems to me we just might have another neo-liberal whose idea of “inclusion” seems to mean “lefties move out of the way”.  We certainly have someone who managed to downgrade themselves from being compared to FDR for the next four years to being compared to Bill Clinton.

Googling “obama broken campaign promises” nets you:  not ending the Iraq War, not taxing oil companies, not shutting the door to lobbyists, not fully outlawing torture, not prosecuting torturers, and not closing Gitmo.  These are generally MSM sources but the partisan articles are divided right and left.  That’s only 6 of 96 promises, but those are some pretty serious lapses.

I *really* want Obama to be the FDR II we desperately need at this moment in history, and I celebrate that he was elected, but I’m not seeing that kind of stature right now.  He was fantastic on the campaign trail, and adopting Hillary as SOS was brilliant, but outside a few things he seems to be re-enacting 1992.  “Reaching out” is looking more like “triangulation” every day.

Comment #53: KL  on  12/20  at  11:42 PM

Shouldn’t we let Obama actually, y’know, become President before we whine about the campaign promises he’s broken?

Comment #54: Jrod  on  12/21  at  04:45 AM

Googling “obama broken campaign promises” nets you:  not ending the Iraq War, not taxing oil companies, not shutting the door to lobbyists, not fully outlawing torture, not prosecuting torturers, and not closing Gitmo.

You do understand that this thread involves his inauguration ceremony using the future tense, right?

Comment #55: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  12/21  at  04:56 AM

Shouldn’t we let Obama actually, y’know, become President before we whine about the campaign promises he’s broken?

Possibly, but we should also wait to see what he does as president before we start lauding him.

Why is criticizing Obama’s decisions so far seen as a sign of disloyalty or hysteria or whatever? Taking the view that whatever Obama does is good because he’s Obama and he’s good isn’t particularly healthy, IMO, and trying to shut down dissent sounds far too much like what’s happened under Bush. No leader deserves unconditional loyalty. They need to know when they fuck up that their constituents aren’t just going to let them get away with anything they want, which is what’s going to happen if progressive people don’t push Obama to implement a progressive agenda.

Comment #56: stealthy cat  on  12/21  at  10:38 AM

“Why is criticizing Obama’s decisions so far seen as a sign of disloyalty or hysteria or whatever?”

Because you’re about as coherent as a cat on fire. Seriously: no one cares what teh gayz and their friends think of the pastor. The MSM is not even covering this story. Wah: it breaks my heart that you think this was a slap in the face, but get used to it. Obama has no gay agenda to represent or to fulfill.

Comment #57: Sniffle  on  12/21  at  11:05 AM

Sorry about that Ellen #1.  I didn’t check to see if there was already another.  I’ll be wayloopy from now on.

Cheers, e

Comment #58: wayloopy (formerly the second Ellen)  on  12/22  at  03:44 PM

KL, Jrod: You’re both right.* He hasn’t broken any campaign promises yet. Arguably we can’t firmly say he’s broken any promises until January 19, 2013. But I’m not going to withhold judgment for four years just because he still has a chance to pull it out. Repeating “he’ll change the way things are done in Washington ... he’s very progressive ... he’s fighting for the oppressed” isn’t going to make his fuck-ups—-of which there will inevitably be quite a few, and yes, Warren is one of them—-not fuck-ups.

I’m reminded of all the people asking people like Jon Stewart and Conan O’Brien if they’re sad to see GWB go because they supposedly can’t make jokes about Obama.

*“But how can they both be right?” “You’re right too!”

Comment #59: Hershele Ostropoler  on  12/22  at  10:34 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.