Comments on: Rick Warren’s Blessing and Obama’s

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:28:46 +0000

I agree with Robert. To me this is not a good sign for those who have been craving leadership that would depart from the status quo. It appears as though Obama is tapping the brakes on his change and hope message. Yes, I know he hasn't taken office yet, but he's making important decisions nonetheless. To those who see this choice of Warren as “inclusive”, then I say the standard being embraced is terribly low. This is hardly a time for watered down leadership and watered down thinking, and reaching across the aisle for it's own sake isn't any sort of measure for leadership. Perhaps this country is just no longer capable of producing the caliber of leadership that is required to meet unusually challenging times. Or perhaps there are too many people who are content to substitute ideological games and the rearranging of deck chairs for inspired and clear thinking – not to mention worthwhile actions and far-reaching goals. I know, this is a lot to draw from a simple invocation, but I see it as a shot across the bow of hope and change, which if I remember correctly, was the selling point for those of us who had the audacity to imagine an America that might be able lift itself out of the swamp.

By: jeff_pickens

jeff_pickens — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:13:52 +0000

It sounds good and inclusive, but....

Sorry to bring up old Glenn Greenwald again, (my fault for bringing his views into these discussions so much, but I think he offers differing perspectives on the issues as we sometimes see them here) there's today's blog posting at Salon:

Friday Dec. 19, 2008 07:35 EST
How new is Obama's New Politics?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:04:52 +0000

I agree Jcavhs. Like it or not, Warren represents a significant slice of the American polity which Obama has to contend with. Contrary to Mr. Stein's conclusion, engaging such factions actually is a change from the Bush years where political enemies were given no quarter. To follow in those footsteps and attempt to marginalize the religious right is only a change in ideology – something decidedly different from the kind of change Obama campaigned on, much to the chagrin of many on the left.

By: Jcavhs

Jcavhs — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:54:54 +0000

disagree with you that Obama is justifying Warren's inclusion on
"the grounds that the best-selling minister is tolerant of the President-Elect's political views". What President-Elect Obama seems to be saying (to me at least) is that just because people don't agree on everything doesn't mean you should exclude them - especially when you agree on other important issues.

To exclude Rev. Warren because he disgagrees on some issues seems to me a bad precendent and contrary to what President-Elect Obama stood for in the campaign. You need to work with people you disagree with. We can't continue to have a country where because you disagree with someone, albeit on a big issue, you refuse to include them. Excluding Rev. Wright is no different from a Republican excluding pro-choice ministers.

This country needs to start working together, and you can't do that when you exclude people you disagree with. President-Elect Obama is going to be President of ALL Americans, not just those who agree with him 100%.