comments

1. #1    The MSM is relentlessly framing this as a gay issue, when Warren should be objectionable to any antiwar, pro-choice, pro-science, pro-public-education, anti-christian-right, pro-rule-of-law, etc -- in other words, progressive -- person.
   written by nasrudin since 338 days 8 hours 10 minutes
2. #2    I agree with #1 on this, it is not a gay issue. Warren has called for assassinating foreign leaders, and advocates policies that can be called theocratic. His medieval mindset is the antithesis of progressive.
   written by gringoflamenco since 338 days 8 hours 1 minute
3. #3    Most politicians wait until they get into office before betraying the people who voted for them. Obama is starting before he gets into office. I suppose that is what "Change" meant in his campaign.
   written by PhilosopherJay since 338 days 7 hours 56 minutes
4. #4    To be honest, I can't get excited by this. It's just one ceremony. It's not like Obama is making him Attorney General or something.
   written by Fiore since 338 days 6 hours 58 minutes
5. #5    True Fiore, but the symbolism is not lost. On the other hand, imagine if he picked Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
   written by gringoflamenco since 338 days 6 hours 42 minutes
6. #6    Does the person delivering the invocation have to be a US citizen? If not, he could have asked Desmond Tutu.
   written by Fiore since 338 days 5 hours 46 minutes
7. #7    #6, What a brilliant idea?
   
   #5, I would much prever Jeremiah Wright to Rick Warren. I agree with point #4, it's one event and not a big deal; and the symbolism is probably intended to preempt any criticism from reich wingers, but it does send a message that will not fade away quickly.
   written by protect_democracy since 338 days 4 hours 28 minutes
8. #8    PREFER....damn, I shouldn't have skipped those typing lessons!
   written by protect_democracy since 338 days 3 hours 54 minutes
9. #9    I assume the "invocation" invokes God, in some way. That is clearly unconstitutional.
   
   Rev. Warren can speak, as long as he doesn't invoke any deity or bash any group of citizens.
   
   But than, what would be the purpose?
   written by rlpete2 since 337 days 18 hours 41 minutes
10. #10    Open dialog is fine, provided both parties refrain from screaming at the other. In this instance this will NOT be an open dialog. Obama's endorsement of a bigot disguised as a man of the clergy is an open admission that he backs this type of hate speech.
    
    You may love your family, but if they are disruptive at family gatherings you LIMIT your exposure to them. This is not limiting exposure, this is a big wet french kiss between people that feel the same way, despite what Obama may say on the record.
    
    The change we can believe in is no change at all actually.
    written by kjlovell since 337 days 17 hours 53 minutes
11. #11    Obama is not progressive - get use to it.
    
    
    PS - can we get the word OBAMA added to the spell checker? It's time.
    written by PHred42 since 337 days 11 hours 1 minute
12. #12    Agree number 13.
    written by Bladerunner since 337 days 8 hours 18 minutes
13. #13    The Political Compass has been telling us for a long time that Obama is not a progressive.
    See: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
    He and Biden are substantially closer to the quadrant where progressives tend to feel at home, at the lower left, than McInsane and whatsername are. However, they are still in the upper right quadrant.
    written by Fiore since 337 days 7 hours 40 minutes

trackbacks

• (no trackbacks)
•  según Technorati