The Smoothness of Obama

I like the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration ceremony. Obama continues to impress me with the way he is navigating uncharted territory. First, he announces he will be sworn into office using his full middle name. Now, he taps an evangelical preacher, who asked him tough questions at Saddleback Church to give the invocation.

In one stroke, Obama has given notice to both ends of the ideological spectrum; he is not going to pander to the anti-church left and he is not going to alienate the evangelicals that have long been identified with the Republican Party.

If he hasn’t proved it before, Obama reminded everyone that he is a game changer. He has gotten uberliberals and the Christian fundamentalists fuming over a prayer that will last for only one minute. No one has been bright enough, or organized enough, to out maneuver him over the past two years. Has there been a Blagojevich story today? Things that make you go hmmm. As they say in my neck of the woods… don’t hate the player, hate the game.

         

Author: TONY CAMPBELL, Columnist

Share This Post On

7 Comments

  1. He's done nothing wrong, and in fact, is reaching out to the evangelical (and more broadly, the religious) community, the younger members of which are more liberal than the older members. He's not going after the Religious Left, but instead going after the large mainstream religious community, whose older members tend to be center-right to right but whose young members are well known for favoring causes like environmentalism. And even older members, including Warren, want to aid the poor, those with AIDS, people in Africa. Obama is working to poach members of the religious mainstream from the Republicans into the hands of the Dems. There is nothing wrong with that. The opposition is coming from extremists, not only the abortion storm troopers but more importantly, the very childish and often neurotic-to-psychotic people who want to re-define marriage, which Obama (who is ignored here, with the hatred and the temper tantrums directed mainly at Warren, revealingly) has been on record as opposing, as has the American mainstream all along.
    We don't need to see with the extremists the same self-debasing, self-discrediting offensive lunacy so many loud-mouthed AIDS activists exhibited routinely in the 1980s. They were their own, worst, most childish, stupid, and offensive, enemies. Don't repeat that here, now.

  2. Has there been a Blagojevich story today? Why yes, Tony, there was………..

    The Chicago Sun-Times reports this AM:

    Emanuel talked with the governor in the days following the Nov. 4 election and pressed early on for the appointment of Valerie Jarrett to the post, sources with knowledge of the conversations told the Sun-Times. There was no indication from sources that Emanuel brokered a deal, however.

    A source with the Obama camp strongly denied Emanuel spoke with the governor directly about the seat, saying Emanuel only spoke with Blagojevich once recently to say he was taking the chief of staff post.

    But sources with knowledge of the investigation said Blagojevich told his aides about the calls with Emanuel and sometimes gave them directions afterward. Sources said that early on, Emanuel pushed for the appointment of Jarrett to the governor and his staff and asked that it be done by a certain date.

    And, sources tell the Sun-Times his discussions with Governor Blago, or some of them, are caught on Patrick Fitzgerald’s audio tapes.

  3. Good choice for an invocation leader, and the Marxists like Steve Benen at Washington Monthly are fuming that there is an invocation at all, since he and his orc-colleagues recognize no higher power than themselves. Rick Warren is an implied apology for Rev. W[rong] and some other slippery characters in BHO's biographical narrative, I am guessing. Obama's standing up to the foam-at-the-mouth sociopathic left makes me believe my neighbor, a four-term Repub State Rep in FL, was right that Obama was a center-left “smoothie” who caused hallucinations in the overheated brains of Mrs. Andrew Sullivan and other sports-of-nature on the ultra-left.

  4. Orc colleagues?

    Where have you been Dave? That beard looks Marxist.

  5. I've said this under Joe G's posting but I'll say it here.

    Obama's choice of Warren is horrible. It's not so much that he is against gay marriage- he has a right to his beliefs. And if that were all it was with Warren, then I think Warren would be a good choice. However Warren worked to get Prop 8 passed and does not respect others with different beliefs. Warren has taken away some of my rights. And he doesn't respect millions of people because they think differently than him and Warren divides people and has harmed hundreds of thousands of people (those people who are now no longer able to get married because Warren worked to take away that right that gays and lesbians had). Warren should stop meddling in how other people want to honor their commitments to each other and to God.

    If Warren respected others' beliefs, then I wouldn't have a problem with him (regardless of his own beliefs).

  6. DLS: “The opposition is coming from extremists, not only the abortion storm troopers but more importantly, the very childish and often neurotic-to-psychotic people who want to re-define marriage, which Obama (who is ignored here, with the hatred and the temper tantrums directed mainly at Warren, revealingly) has been on record as opposing, as has the American mainstream all along.”

    DLS, first of all, you of all people on here should know that society changes. We're not stuck in the stone age and we have done away with laws which have banned interracial marriages. Second, I don't understand why people who want to commit to each other and honor God (and practice their religion as they believe) can not do so. Third, why is it that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Many people believe that it's because a man and a woman should have children. Yet there are lots of men and women who marry and do not have children, whether it's because they don't want children, are too old, or simply one of them is infertile. So what, exactly, is wrong with same-sex marriage? Hetero marriage doesn't work out for 40% to 50% of people. And while we're talking about “redefining marriage” straights have already done that…. Almost every straight couple I know under 45 lived together before getting married. It wasn't that long ago that straight people had to marry before they could live together.

    I find it hilarious that straight people want to live together before marriage (and many don't get married, but have kids) but those gays and lesbians who do want to get married are prevented from doing so by those same straight people who live together outside of marriage (but act like a husband and wife) won't let same sex couples get married, claiming that gays will ruin marriage. Seems to me that straights aren't doing a very good job of keeping it together in the first place.

    So who has redefined marriage and family more? Straights who don't get married but have kids or gays and lesbians who do want to get married and raise a family?

  7. Elrod, I was a marxist in Ann Arbor with the SDS short-fuse bombers and knew Diana Oughton as well as her skanky boyfriend back in the day! I threw it off like a childhood illness like measles or the mumps. Can you believe some people can stay sick all their lives?

Submit a Comment