Props to The Obama Inauguration

I was on google chat when I read the Obama inauguration schedule of events, so my reaction (in a private conversation) is recorded for all posterity:

I have to give it to Obama for his inauguration
sounds like it’s going to be quite the event

Rick Warren, Yo-Yo Ma, Aretha Franlkin, Itzkhak Perlman, and others will make it the hottest ticket in Washinton.

Of course, not everyone is so happy:

OpenLeft:

big_tent_under_the_bus

MyDD:

Not to mention the progressive movement as a whole. The thing is, there’s no shortage of progressive Christian pastors, ministers and priests who opposed Proposition 8 and are no less Christian than Rick Warren. Sure Warren may be better known, may have sold a whole lot of books and brings with him the added bonus of sending a dog whistle signal to Christian conservatives that he’s their president too, but what about sending a signal to the LGBT community and broader progressive community who, ya know, actually supported him and worked our ass off for him? Reinforcing the false notion that the only real Christians are conservative Christians is NOT change I can believe in at all.

DailyKos:

Rick Warren? Are you kidding me?

Why in the name of, well … God, would Obama choose someone whose outspoken beliefs are substantively no different from the James Dobson’s of the world? There’s a thriving progressive religious community in every faith, and many believe the religious left is ascendant.

And the always classy Eschaton:

Wanker of the Day

Barack Obama.

And America Blog:

But Jesus. This is rather uncharacteristic of Obama, making some grand gesture from his gut, and not checking it with his brain, or the brains around him. Unless, of course, his brain trust thought this was a brilliant strategic move. I can easily imagine them thinking, what better than to make a nod to the religious right and the religious left, by having Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery, at his inauguration?

Why stop there? If you really want to show that you’re not the typical Democrat, that you’re breaking the mold and willing to embrace the other extreme of religion and politics, regardless of how much it ticks off your base, why not invite a racist and an anti-Semite too? Just imagine the thrill – one of America’s lead civil rights activists, alongside the first black president of the United States, surrounded by men who think of them as little more than slaves. Talk about change!

But Barack Obama would never invite a high profile racist or anti-Semite to stand next to him during his swearing in, regardless of the bigot’s caché. Obama did, however, invite a raging homophobe – and it’s the second time now that he’s done so – and we’re supposed to suck it up and say “oh it’s okay.” Well it’s not okay. It’s yet another example of how when the bigot is anti-gay, somehow he’s not as offensive, not as non grata, as the bigot who bashes blacks or bashes Jews. None should be acceptable, but one always is

Of course, there is more to do in Washington than watch the inauguration: you can always get mugged or raped: factosr which won’t change until we get serious about fighting crime in the cities.

9 thoughts on “Props to The Obama Inauguration”

  1. I have, apparently, overstated Obama’s ability to overcome domestic expectations[1]

    When rhetoric meets reality, it’s never pretty for the most devout followers. This is why abject idealism is so comically and tragically (yes I realize the dichotomy) fascinating.

    [1]http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2008/11/president-barack-obama-overcoming-too.html

  2. “It is great to see a “useful idiot” suddenly realize he has been used.”

    Who’s the useful idiot, though? Obama’s supporters or the religious right-wingers that will think that they will have a say in his platform because of a series of symbolic gestures towards them?

    It is quite simple. Wait until the slightly more reasonable leaders of the religious right-wing are eating from your hand and then go forth with gay rights legislation. These leaders will then have a choice. Sabotage their relationship with Obama and all the little perks it comes with, or rationalize with their base why they support Obama despite the new gay civil unions and anti-employment discrimination legislation that just got put into law.

    To understand further what I am talking about, research the history of the London Times after its a acquisition by Murdock’s News Corp. and how it has coincided with the Labour Party’s shift in position on the issue of media consolidation.

  3. “or rationalize with their base why they support Obama despite the new gay civil unions and anti-employment discrimination legislation that just got put into law.”

    I should take that back. When I said “why they support Obama” I meant to say “why they support ‘the president.'”

  4. The useful idiots are people who still think Obama is going to be a gay rights champion, or ever thought that, when there is no reason for him to be. The GOP will always be worse on this issue, so the gay rights people have nowhere to go but with the Democrat, and their cause is not popular, so Obama will give them nothing.

    We will see how effective Obama is at coopting the religious right. My bet: Not very. The reason: Abortion, and specifically FOCA. But, we shall see. He is wily as a snake, that Obama.

  5. The Weekly Standard has a good piece, noting Obama’s previous affection for Rev. Wright. [1]

    In politics, you give a favor to get a favor. Obama realizes this.

    Obama views religion as a vehicle for social organization and mobilization. In south Chicago, this meant Wright’s church. In American politics as a whole, this may well mean something like Rev. Warren.

    Obama seems to be signaling tolerance of both sides of social debate, without particularly caring about either. Juding by the order he announced his cabinet, his areas of focus appear to be the economy, foreign policy, and health care.

    This would put Obama in the general area of the German Christian Democratic Union, the British Conservative Party, and so on.

    [1] http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/12/the_left_this_is_not_the_obama.asp

  6. “Obama views religion as a vehicle for social organization and mobilization. In south Chicago, this meant Wright’s church.”

    Interesting. When the controversy first sparked, I swore you asserted that Obama was most likely an ideology of Wright’s church. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *