Ha-ha. Funny.

I’m with you, but I’m afraid it’s a done deal.

while I wholeheartedly disagree with this choice, it is a brilliant political move. Obama is slowly but surely defanging the rights attacs on him.One thing is very clear to me–Obama wants to get things done. The divisiveness of Bush, Rove, Limbaugh, and Fixed News have seriously hurt our democracy. Obama is a pragmatist, and I think each decision that is met with criticism must be viewed in a larger context.

Oh, jeez. This sucks. Warren is a total Bush-kissing, self-righteous jackass. I understand what you mean about viewing decisions in a larger context, JG, and I think I have done so up to this point. But of all the preachers in the US to pick, they pick Rick Warren? Might as well have picked James Dobson.

Well, I guess I’m not surprised, as I’ve thought of Obama as being an evangelical Christian, so I can see his affinity for Warren. Hopefully he doesn’t agree with Warren’s social views, but I imagine they use the same language when talking about God.

–and that is why it is genius politically. I hate to say it, but compared to the HUGE issue we are facing this is a “small potatoes”–yet it will have a huge symbolic impact–especially by poiting out the silly nonsensical attacks coming from the right.Moves like this do more to punch holes in the idiotic “association” “most liberal” narratives than anything else–again, it’s about getting the Democratic agenda done, not about being a “reverse Bush” politically.

They are all homophobes – would you have preferred Dobson?. The bigger point here is that there should be NO invocation at any government event since we have a law about it. No Invocation, No Bible, No god, affirmation only.

Hmm. I’m on the other side of this. I never believed that Rev. Warren was guilty of the cone of silence incident (I’ll lay that one squarely at McCain’s feet), and I seem to recall that Obama is actually friends with Rev. Warren.I’m reminded, once again, of the Donnie McClurkin incident, in which the African American clergy and the LGBT community came together and laid the foundation for dialogue.I get why people would rather that the symbolic moment go to someone other than Rick Warren, but even there I am kinda torn. ON the one hand – sure, there are lots of other ministers to choose from who have more progressive ideals – and maybe it would be really meaningful to demonstrate (and raise the profile of) ministers who are not evangelicals, or who are evangelical-left type ministers. On the other hand, in the – Minister for ALL the people vein (and in combatting the persistent effort by some to delegitimize Obama’s presidency) how important is it to have the invocation by someone who speaks forcefully to that constituency?Anyway – I’m torn on the subject, but not terribly disappointed in any event. I would welcome any minister at all to perform the service. But then, I tend to be appreciative of people of faith – even if I don’t agree with them.Here’s an alternate opinion of Rick Warren, if anyone is interested: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/in-defense-of-rick-warren_b_151878.htmlQT

Not the president-elect’s fault? ah, he’s a victim- an innocent by-stander to the inauguration plans.Kind of like the Bush/Iraq intelligence.

Bob–I am not saying this will sway the Sean Hannity types, but I do think moves like this undercut the effectiveness of Hannity/Limbaugh/Fixed News’ narratives of we don’t know him/most liberal/associations/real Americans/BULLSHIT that they are peddling on a daily basis.While I think Warren is a hater, I honestly think this is a brilliant move politically. If Obama goes the reverse Bush route, he will get killed in the press, and he will be a less effective leader out of the gate. I think this strategy will bring more people along to the democratic agenda rather than alienating them.I live in California–Gay marriage will be restored–guaranteed. The whole Prop 8 thing is a travesty, but we need to realize these things take time, and sometimes you need to setback to galvanize the movement–I see Warren as an irrelevant, yet symbolic political move.The moves Obama is making are viewed as moderate, yet the agenda remains the same–A brillaint strategy.If the agenda changes in fundamental ways, then I will speak up

>>the agenda remains the sameI definitely agree with you on this. Cheers, JG.

I am still in shock and not quite sure how I feel about this yet. I absolutely hated the position that Rick Warren put Obama in back in August. I hated the fact that two Presidential Candidates were asked about their faith. This is the kind of stuff that gets me under my skin.It may be a politically correct move and I don’t want to jump the gun. I am interested in seeing how this plays out. Rev Joe Lowery will be overseeing the final benediction so this may be seen as a balance by the inaugural committee, but this is certainly not getting as much attention as Rick Warren is.

Who cares honestly. It’s a prayer, not a speech. That’s it. I don’t agree with Warrens views, but I’m not going to suggest that they should stop him from saying a simple prayer that many people are either not going to watch or simply not going to care or remember. The same goes for the benediction. I’m more interested in the swearing in and the speech that’s it and that’s all people should really be tuning in to.BO has reached out to pastors on both sides of the coin. No body wants to talk about the Rev. Lowery doing the benediction. The focus is on Warren. To have both pastors is pretty symbolic of what the next president is trying to do…bridge the gap, bring together different points of view to find some common ground.In the end none of this won’t matter. The president-elect knows that once Jan. 20th hits, its time to get some work done.