Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Inauguration: Rick Warren To Deliver Invocation (Press Release of Inaugration Program)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:49 PM
Original message
Obama Inauguration: Rick Warren To Deliver Invocation (Press Release of Inaugration Program)
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 01:51 PM by KoKo01
Obama Inauguration: Rick Warren To Deliver Invocation
RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com Share this on Facebook

The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner | December 17, 2008 02:07 PM

Pastor Rick Warren, who hosted a Saddleback Church Forum attended by both Barack Obama and John McCain, will deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration.

David Brody of CBNNews adds:

Pro-life pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at President-Elect Barack Obama's inauguration. It makes a whole lot of sense. Even though Warren and Obama disagree on the life issue, they do see eye to eye on many social justice issues. This move is also classic Obama because it is a signal to religious conservatives that he's willing to bring in both sides to the faith discussion in this country. Obama has never shied away from that.


The full press release:


WASHINGTON, DC - Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, today announced the program for the 56th Presidential Inauguration, which will take place on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2009.


"I am delighted to announce this superb line-up of participants in the 2009 inaugural ceremonies," said Senator Feinstein. "The inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama will be an event of historic proportion. It is appropriate that the program will include some of the world's most gifted artists from a wide range of backgrounds and genres."

The program participants were invited by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and chosen by the Chairman, the Presidential-elect and the Vice President-elect. In addition to Senator Feinstein, the members of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies include: Senator Bob Bennett, Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; and House Republican Leader John Boehner.

The order of the program will be as follows:

Musical Selections
Story continues below

The United States Marine Band


Musical Selections

The San Francisco Boys Chorus and the San Francisco Girls Chorus


Call to Order and Welcoming Remarks

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein


Invocation

Dr. Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, CA


Musical Selection

Aretha Franklin


Oath of Office Administered to Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

By Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

The Honorable John Paul Stevens


Musical Selection, John Williams, composer/arranger

Itzhak Perlman, Violin

Yo-Yo Ma, Cello

Gabriela Montero, Piano

Anthony McGill, Clarinet


Oath of Office Administered to President-elect Barack H. Obama

By the Chief Justice of the United States

The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr.


Inaugural Address

The President of the United States, The Honorable Barack H. Obama


Poem

Elizabeth Alexander


Benediction

The Reverend Dr. Joseph E. Lowery


The National Anthem

The United States Navy Band "Sea Chanters"Text



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/obama-inaugura...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh yuck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. So the fundies have a friend in the White House.
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. and he sends his kids to.....PRIVATE school!
The horror!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I take it you're not gay.
Rick Warren opposes choice, glbt rights, stem-cell research. This is not funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Get back to me when any of Obama's policies reflect Warren's views.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Like how he opposes marriage equality?
I'm getting back to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. And he has been consistent on that, but he supports civil unions. My point was that he doesn't share
the vast majority of Warren's beliefs. He is reaching across the aisle symbolically, and if you take anything more than that from this, you are fooling yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. He's basically naming Warren as his pastor, his spiritual confidant.
The role Billy Graham played for years. This is a big "fuck you!" to the glbt community. And I say "fuck you!" right back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Uh, where exactly has it been reported that Warren is now his spiritual advisor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Uh, you didn't read the OP?
This has historically been the role of the minister saying the invocation at the Inauguration. Warren will be a regular at the WH. Count on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. So you have an inside source on this? Awesome. Please keep us updated on the behind-the-scenes
stories!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Every time Warren visits the WH--which will be often--I'll post
to keep you updated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. The symbolism seems pretty clear to me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #20
90. Tradition
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 03:56 PM by TechBear_Seattle
The person who gives the Inaugural Prayer has almost always been the new president's spiritual advisor. When it was not, the person selected was usually someone of the same church, denomination or doctrinal base as the new president's spiritual advisor. This has been the case for the last eight inaugurations; I am working to put together a list.

Edited for spelling and grammar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Considering all of the issues surrounding his last "spiritual advisor"
I highly, highly doubt that Obama will be continuing that tradition in any meaningful way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. Whether nor not that will be the case, the choice is still highly significant
No matter how you look at it, the choice of Warren demonstrates extremely poor judgement. As a gay man, I am definitely worried about how such judgement will affect Obama's campaign promises regarding GLBT rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. Your concerns are not founded.
I'm sorry, but it's way overboard to suggest that having a prayer said by Warren is tantamount to Obama doing a 180. It's not grounded in anything whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. A 180? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. A 180 = a complete reversal.
As in a 180 degree shift (think in terms of circles).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. I get that. But how is this a 180? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. I'm saying it's not.
The OP and others suggest that this means he's going to completely change his stance on GLBT rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. This demonstrates that his stance is the same as it's always been...
opposition to marriage equality. I'd be happy to see him do a 180. His views on glbt issues are what need to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. He supports marriage equivalency.
The only thing that's different is the name, frankly. I don't see how a 180 would be a positive thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. No, He doesn't. He supports civil unions. Doesn't want them called "marriage".
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 04:25 PM by mycritters2
There's a huge difference between "marriage" and "civil union".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #103
112. Honest to god question: what is the difference?
I've been made to believe they are the same, except in title.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. The title matters. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #113
123. How, practically speaking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #96
116. Obama is doing a 30, at the widest
You must be hopelessly straight, not to know how much anger and bitterness he has caused to us in the GLBT community. He has stated repeatedly and often that he opposes equal marriage rights for same sex couples and that he has no problem with Jim Crow, separate and inherently unequal alternatives "if a state wants to have them." He spoke out against homophobia in black communities of faith, using direct quotes from Exodus International and other "reparative therapy," "hate the sin but love the sinner" religious bigots. He shares the limelight with now TWO religious bigots well known for their vehement anti-gay statements, and refuses to even acknowledge that his actions were hurtful. He promised during his campaign to take quick action in repealing DADT and DOMA; once he was elected, he said that he would look into these issues towards the end of his term (just in time to rally us queer sheep into bleating for him yet again, I would imagine.)

Shall I go on? I have plenty more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #116
122. I might be straight, but I'm not "hopeless" and do not appreciate the label.
As for the "Jim Crow" statement... let me pitch a hypothetical to you. Let's say you're dying, and you need a prescription in order to survive. You can't afford the brand name, but you can afford the generic. Do you opt to die and not buy the generic because it doesn't go by the same name as what other people are taking?

I'm really not sure how "Jim Crow" would apply, as we're not talking about the quality of services that the government is providing, but of the rights the government is protecting. So long as the same rights are protected, it's still a rose by any other name, to borrow a phrase. As a "hopeless hetero", as you prefer to call me, I would truly like to hear how civil unions would be different from marriage if they are so - I admit that I might be ignorant on that matter. I've not heard it spelled out, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist - I may indeed be operating from an incorrect point of view.

As far as using direct quote from Exodus International... If you're truly trying to change people's minds about something (especially when such vast ignorance is involved), you don't exactly go in there and tell them that they're all hateful assholes, true as that is. You'll never win them over like that. And unfortuantely, as evidenced by Prop 8 - if you want to win the Presidency, you do have to win them over without changing your mind on the issue. So you speak their language. I understand that you don't appreciate that - nor would I. I'm not trying to be an apologist for those actions, I'm merely trying to explain that it was probably the only way to do it and still become President at this juncture in our history. If it weren't, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Same goes with "sharing the limelight" with bigots - the unfortunate fact is that too few people consider them to be bigots, and the 40% of us that support LGBT rights will not alone govern this country. It sucks, it's hurtful - there's nothing I can say to take that away. I can say that I'm sorry it happened for my own part, but I don't think my own part was big enough to really do so.

As far as your skepticism about DADT and DOMA - I share that, to some extent. To a larger extent, however, you're probably way overstating the influence of the LGBT community. It's cold to say - I know it is, and I'm sorry for that, but if in four years, the economy has improved and we have a better standing in the world, he'll win by so much that no single coalition would stop him. If in four years we're in the same hole or worse than we are now, he'll lose, and no single coalition will save him. It's that simple, and deep down inside, even the hardest freeper on the planet knows that. So if he is, in fact, playing political games with DADT and DOMA, he's doing so rather needlessly. I'd actually be more suprised if he didn't push it to his second term, which is typically where more liberal changes occur, because he can afford to do it and not care politically.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear - there's not a single part of this civil rights issue that doesn't suck, and my heart truly does bleed for my LGBT friends. You say that I don't know how much anger and bitterness he's caused the LGBT community - and that may well be true. It is also true that not all anger and bitterness in this world is justifiable - again, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place if it were. I don't agree that Obama has thrown anyone under a bus, and lest I remind you, that he has appointed the first openly LGBT cabinet member in history, whereas to my knowledge, he has not appointed an evangelist. If I have to choose between a cabinet post and a prayer - I'll take the cabinet post, every single time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChazII Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #96
120. Agreed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hileeopnyn8d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #90
104. They've pretty much always been Graham
I think the invocation has been given by Graham, either Billy or Franklin, going back to Carter.

Carter had a Methodist pastor (he was Baptist) and the Archbishop of Minneapolis. Mondale didn't become Catholic, and Carter didn't become Methodist by way of Inaugural Prayer.

Graham was the de facto spiritual advisor to the Whitehouse going back to Eisenhower. I sincerely doubt that Warren will become Obama's spiritual advisor.

I'm not at all thrilled with the choice, but I think it's a huge stretch to say that Warren will be his advisor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. If you believe that the people who follow Warren are going to disappear.....
and that their votes on GLBT issues aren't what is standing in the way of Gay Rights, then go ahead and ignore and curse them, and see if that ends up helping the GLBT community in both the short and also the long run.

And no, I don't think that he is naming Warren as his pastor. That's what you've decided. to accompany the anger you feel. Which is not to say that you are not justified in your anger.....but this is your interpretation on what it all means. period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hileeopnyn8d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
39. oh, come on...
From what I've seen, you've been saying "Fuck you" to Obama for a long time now. He's not naming him as his pastor, Kreskin.

I imagine, they may have considered a Catholic priest for the invocation due to Biden being Catholic, but given how vocal various Catholic leaders have been in "denouncing" Obama/Biden it would have turned into a PR nightmare.

Not that this isn't but...

And just for the record...I'm not happy with the choice, but I don't think it signifies any policy stance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. I volunteered on his campaign. Hardly a "fuck you".
But I was hoping for something more progressive than this. But then, anything would be more progressive than this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. If it didn't signify, there would be no point in doing it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
59. SNAP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
83. Why pick Rick Warren?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. i am as horrified as you are
this sets the completely WRONG tone for gays and for women, and for science's role in the US. i feel betrayed. i tried to take the high road over some of the appointments that i am not happy about, but this is an egregious insult to women and gays and scientists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hansel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
86. I'm right there with you on this one.
I haven't said anything about his appointments up until now. But elevating a man who has help to make it so hard for more tolerant people to be elected to office is disappointing at best.

Would we be in the situation we are in in this country if people like Rick Warren had not been preaching their intolerance? By making abortion and gay marriage a part of their crusade, he and his ilk have manipulated their followers into electing some of the most corrupt politicians/corporatists in Washington.

It is not only gays and lesbians, and women who have been harmed by him and his kind. It is America in general. Without people like him, more rational heads would have prevailed and people who really cared about the American people would have been elected to office.

And there is no excuse for selecting a man who so openly endorsed Prop 8 while the wounds of its passage are so raw. It shows an insensitivity and lack of empathy that, quite frankly, surprises me.

I have no problem with Obama inviting Warren to the White House or soliciting his input. However, is this really the time and place for this? Is there not a less emotional vehicle than religion to present a message of all inclusiveness at the inaugauration? Is there not a more tolerate preacher to present this case if that is his goal? There are many other much more tolerant preachers who respect all of the people who he could have chosen. If Obama represents all of the people, why not select a person to give the invocation who does as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #86
94. thank you
and please go to change.gov and state your opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
73. But the President (elect)
opposes none of those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #73
84. Actually, he opposes marriage equality. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #84
105. I understand,
but I really think he can be convinced on that, and I doubt VERY highly that he would ever go the other way and oppose even civil unions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
34. He's giving a known homophobe a national platform and greater visibility.
Not fucking cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Not the first time, you know.
There was the Donnie McClurkin fiasco in the fall of 2007, and those of us who feared that it was a sign of things to come were accused of "faux outrage" and "poutrage" for weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Oh, I remember.
He really hasn't been trustworthy or inspiring of confidence on equality issues at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #34
62. and his church supported prop 8
He's a fucking shit in my book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. bwahahaha.
critical thinking is not your strong point, is it?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fran Kubelik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
75. ??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:54 PM
Original message
Some good stuff on there too
Yo Yo Ma. And Stevens will swear in Biden. Both very very cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Plus John Williams and Itzhak Perlman...
Whatever Williams comes up with should be spectacular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. dupe
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 01:55 PM by Truth2Tell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Ironic in that Obama voted against Robert's confirmation.
Guess Roberts will have to smile through it anyways! Love it.

Oh, and with Rick Warren doing the invocation, there goes the AntiChrist theory from the fundie nutjobs! Love it! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. no. it's NOT funny.
Slick Dick Warren is an insult to every woman, gay and scientist in America. this is horrific and i am appalled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. It would be one thing if these folks (the Warren type) could simply be ignored
and be made to disappear....but you must admit that considering how the anti-Gay measures have passed all across this nation, their vote makes a difference on the issues that gays care about.

Perhaps if they tune in to watch Warren, they'll stay tuned for Barack Obama's message. Perhaps they will listen......
and perhaps it may shift enough of them to make a difference for the future.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
37. People voting against gay civil rights are mostly older voters.
(Older then me! lol)

And this is a concession to the right wing culture wars at exactly the time when the wing nuts are starting up again. I have a lot of respect for Obama and his team as tacticians and strategists. But this seems, apart from my personal feelings about the choice, to be a tactical error. This is the wrong time to give up ground, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
108. BUT! if Obama gives concessions (which he always said he would) to RW
and he can get them onboard isn't it "His Call" to be a PROGRESSIVE...since he is the "DECIDER?"

I'm trying (very hard) to give Obama much rope or leash to "wind out." I don't think (unless Obama has lost his mind) that he would be putting all these DLC and catering to "RW RELIGIOUS" unless he knows he's going to have his "own agenda" that would be truer to those who gave him his job. :shrug:

But, I'll tell you...if Obama decides that Michael Powell should go back to head FCC as a "Tip o' the Hat" to his "father, Colin" and allows him to do crap to give our Corporate/Corrupt/Idiot/Controlled ..MEDIA more INFLUENCE then what the Bushies put in PLACE will have to TASER ME!

AND...I believe that many on the Left will end up tasered if Obama Caves on what the Military/Industrial/Corporate Media has done to us for the past two decades. I'm telling you...it's going to be grim for him. Because he OWES US..

What do you think about this?

Peace...KoKo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hay rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
115. lemons -> Frenchie Cat -> lemonade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
10. i am trying to take this calmly
but i despise that pious hypocritical Dick, he hates women's freedoms, he hates gays' freedoms, he's a selfish ignorant b@stard, and i believe he will rot in hell for all he has done to continue the polarization of this country. i am very disappointed in BO and his team for doing this. i have been trying to take the high road with some of these appointments that i don't approve of, but this is disgusting pandering. WHY WHY WHY do we have to kiss fundie bigot ignorant @sses, why NOW?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Perhaps because when a haters is included,
the hater's followers will bother to watch....and perhaps they will hear what our new President has to say, whose views are not the same as those of the hater.

Sometimes the reason that people hate is because they don't listen, and therefore they don't hear.

Obama is giving them a reason to listen....and then perhaps they will hear something that will change their perceptions.

The haters are afterall the ones that need to listen the most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Frenchie see this thread I started
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. I sure hope it's about strategy - that guy creeps me out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. What strategy makes hate-mongering acceptable? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Maybe he was trying to get the hatemongering fundies to watch...
I don't know. Barack's tolerance of these assholes is something I don't understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #33
110. I think that was what he was trying to do... Remember..he said he was all
about "Bringing People Together.

Many of us have seen that even a WebSite called "Democratic Underground" has had horrible battles through the years. I think it's to Obama's Credit that he "gets out in front of the most controversial issues" ...puts folks into positions who can work "across the aisle" while he remains "cool and pushes his own agenda." It worked for BUSH to be the DECIDER...it could work for Obama?

I HOPE TO HELL IT WORKS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. But this isn't really simply inclusion. It's a kind of elevation of this horrible person.
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 02:37 PM by sfexpat2000
Inclusion would be having him in the audience as a guest. Once he's on the stage, that seems to me to be different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. Rick Warren is already elevated......
in particular in the eyes of the Fundies.....

Because I don't really know anyone else who has cared about who gave an invocation that wasn't a fundie until today. Odd how that works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Sarah Palin is also elevated in their eyes. Maybe she can be given a spot.
The invocation is powerful ritual and it matters. If it didn't matter, they wouldn't do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. The invocation is a powerful ritual to whom? and it matters to whom?
secular folks really care about the invocation? That's news to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. You can't argue both that including Warren is important AND
that the Invocation is insignificant, FrenchieCat. In any case, I emailed the Obama people. That's all I can really do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Whatever happened to mainstream Christians? They care about things...
...like invocations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. Mainstream Christians also are not a group that can't stand Warren.....
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 02:42 PM by FrenchieCat
so their care for the invocation is not going to change their minds one way or another about Gay rights....and you'd be surprised on how many mainstream Christians (whatever that is) don't support Gay Rights (see California's Black and Hispanic Christians).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Seems like mainstream (Jesus-like) Christians are losing ground to these whackjobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
47. agreed
i've made my thoughts known about this slap in the face to gays, women and scientists, on change.gov. i hate that evil toad Warren and everything he stands for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Good idea. I'll do the same instead of this uselessness.
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 02:45 PM by sfexpat2000
:hi:

/bad typing day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. I've done the same. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_E_Fudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. Why the surprise?
Obama is behaving EXACTLY like he said he would during the campaign...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
19. For those with short memories....
...a blast from Obama's past -- "ex-gay" preacher Donnie McClurkin. O has pulled this shit on gays before. Shame on him.

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2729&PAG=461&d...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
24. Was this really necessary?
I guess all the progressive clerics were too far to the left, unqualified or unavailable? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. I'd have done it!!
But he seems to be distancing himself from the UCC. After we took all that crap for having him speak at Synod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. And I bet you would have done a great job.
Plus you could have scored some autographs for us. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
35. This Warren bit is going to drive right wingers crazy!
It will make them even crazier than picking Rev. Wright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. It already is. . .
I heard there is a thread. . .LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #35
111. Yes...it wil drive the RW'ers CRAZY! It will have the Cables and FAUX in a TIZZY...
I think it was a good move initially. But, if we see Obama inviting this guy into the White House Inner Circle where he becomes a "National Policy Advisor" then we GOTTA WORRY BIG TIME!

I'm hoping it's an Obama throwing "COOKIES." :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alhena Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
41. I'd like to see a snake-handling preacher chosen
that would really reach out to the deepest corners of Appalachia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Plus, it would be entertaining!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
42. They see eye-to-eye on social justice issues?
Like oppressing GLBT people?

What. The. Fuck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
51. Hey, I have an Idea! Let's just have everyone hate everyone.....
and see where that takes us!

Oh wait.....That's what has been happening all along,
meanwhile Gays have yet to get their civil rights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Change I Want To See:
NO MORE FUNDIE ASSKISSING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. So like I said...be free to Hate. Hate them, hate Warren,
and by extension hate Obama. Your hate is after-all justified, and makes you better than all of "them".

In turn they can continue to Hate us, and feel quite justified in doing so....after all, we hate them too..... and so on and so on and so forth.

And let me know when that works in getting us anywhere.

Now I see why ME peace is so difficult to achieve......because everyone always can rationalize why it is ok for them to hate the other side, while they complaint that the other side hates them, which makes them possible to hate back. :crazy:

This is all so progressive thinking! NOT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. ME peace is difficult to achieve
because of fundamentalist @ssholes.

like Slick Dick Warren.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. You've made my point.
And I'm not sure how excluding them, or hating them, or calling them names is going to actually achieve anything....and that applies to ME peace, Gay Rights or other issues where there are two distinct sides that have not been getting their voice respected by the other.

Obama obviously is willing to give everyone a seat at the table.....and that is perhaps how things get done. It is obvious that everyone hating everyone hasn't worked. Being smug and right in one's hate doesn't neccessarily gain anything other than momentary satisfaction. Meanwhile, the other side will figure out how to get back even. Is that what you really believe solves things? If so, I'm glad you are not on any diplomatic mission in attempting to secure any forward movement. Looks like you want concessions from the other side, but aren't willing to give up anything until your own demands have been satisfied. Sounds like Bush diplomacy to me; willing only to sit down with the enemies after getting your concessions and not before.

Personally, what Obama is doing might be shocking to some, but that doesn't make it useless or a step in the wrong direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. i did *not* "make your point"!
i pointed out the truth - that radical fundamentalists will only seek to continue to divide people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #70
77. So there is no hope in your opinion......
and we will never win enough support from those we hate in order to fulfill our agenda.

So I am now officially glad and relieved that you are not the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. my concept of hope
does not include putting people up on a stage who are vile and hypocritical, who publicly stand for hatred and divisiveness in the name of "God". Slick Dick Warren needs to be under investigation for violation of separation of church and state, not up on a dais at what is supposed to be OUR Inauguration for Change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #42
60. Would you consider emailing them, HK? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #60
88. Done, sfexpat
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
58. Oh great. Big Prop 8 supporter.
Damn we thrown under bus pretty quick.

Damn it, Barack!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #58
66. Perhaps it's just a bigger bus that Obama has in mind.....
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 03:11 PM by FrenchieCat
so that everyone can get in, so that educating the big Prop 8 supporters can begin.

I'm not sure if it was you that I had a conversation in reference to Prop 8 (that's when African Americans had been named the culprit)....but what was found out is that many people voted for this proposition that might not have if they had been provided with some education; some outreach we called it. I don't think anyone being under the bus is going to help pass anything that would further the cause of Gay rights. However, being inclusive (as Gays are asking only for that, to be included in the area of full civil rights) instead of excluding those who have the fate of those we care about in their votes could be a start.

It is easy to hate. It appears to be much harder to show the haters by example exactly what inclusion means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. I hope you're right.
It's just right after Prop 8 .... this really hurts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #69
76. It is why it is most meaningful right after Prop 8, because now is the time
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 03:17 PM by FrenchieCat
to start changing minds. Not just before the next time a proposition is on the ballot.

I believe that Obama wants to gain equal rights for all people, as I don't believe him to be a bigot....but how does it start? By seeing who hates who the most? No matter how satisfying it might feel to be righteous in our hate, it still doesn't advance anyone to a further point, and that should be the goal...to get to somewhere else and not stay in the same place. I believe that we have to give Obama the chance to have our enemies at the table...as he has proposed time and time again. Enemies is not just a word reserved for foreign states....I think it can be applied to many situations...including those who are enemies of inclusive Civil Rights for all. Outreach has to be applied literally.....or else it is just a word without meaning, and sadder still, without results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
64. A fine bit of American political superficiality on display
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
65. I tried to warn people here on DU that there was a fundie element to Obama's campaign...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alwysdrunk Donating Member (908 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. That's because of the fundie element to this country
Obama was campaigning to the whole country to be the President of the whole country. I wish I could snap my fingers and blink fundamentalism from existence but I can't. None of us can including the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #71
78. What you are missing here is that fundies do NOT make up the entire population of the U.S.
They are the fucking fringe. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alwysdrunk Donating Member (908 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #78
85. Far from fringe
Depends on how you define "fundie". If you equate it to "evangelical" it's more like one out of four Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. That's the same one in four that still support George Bush. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #65
82. Yeah.... if only they would've listened to you, Obama could've been defeated
...and we could've had John McCain instead.

It's a shame you failed.



:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #82
118. Sarah Palin was way scarier to me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alwysdrunk Donating Member (908 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
68. This is a brilliant move, unfortunately
Warren is not just a fundie preacher. He is now the official heir to Billy Graham and his unofficial role of America's Pastor. He is the leading voice of this country's evangelical population, a very large percentage of our population.

By offering this ceremonial, five minute prayer spot to this man, Obama will make more headway with this huge segment of the population in five minutes than he could do for the next two or three years. He will be getting the official stamp of approval from the leader of this evangelicals.

This is huge. I can't begin to post all of the ways that this will greatly help Obama to have a successful first term.

I understand, and mostly agree with the resentment and anger at this decision here on DU. I am just asking people to see this thing for what it is. A purely political move, and a brilliant one at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. insulting women and gays
not to mention scientists, is a "brilliant move"?

geez, then Georgie Butch must be a frigging GENIUS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alwysdrunk Donating Member (908 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #72
92. Yes, unfortuantely
And actually, not all of those you mention will be insulted. Many will overlook this political pick for a ceremonial appearance and focus on Obama's governance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musette_sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. translation:
women and gays, shut up, don't rock the boat.

the same BS we've been told for ages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #72
109. It could be a clever thing that he gets the RW/Evangelicals who lean Dem on his Side...
and gradually (like Moses) manages to get them to the point where they can "cross over."

It's not a wrong tactic...but, I know it doesn't sit well with many of us. But WHAT IF...Obama is CORRECT in this strategy? What If? :shrug:

Maybe he's found a way better to move forward, at this point in time, for Dems working off Bill & Hillary's "DLC" Strategy when Dems were so "out in the wilderness" we didn't see we'd ever recover from Carter Presidency.

But...remember that the RW and CORPORATE MEDIA started with Carter and they hounded him like dogs to rabbit.

They never question Bushies and Reagan enough to count for anything, did they? Did They? :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #68
80. What huge segment of the population?
The one that voted against him and lost?

:wtf:

What ever happened to that new politics of Obama's?

You're probably right about what he's trying to do and it's wrong. It's immoral and it diminishes him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #80
119. Sadly it was something like over 45 % who voted McCain/Barbie....
I believe our voting machines are at fault...but we will have to live with the Media's Results and that's the numbers.

Obama always said...he wanted to work with "both sides." He didn't hoodwink us...it's what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
74. This is seriously, seriously bad.
Hell, they may as well asked Pat Robertson to give this prayer.

Warren is homophobic. What kind of crap is this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. Email them. Let's give the feedback Obama asked for. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
87. So, Joseph Lowery is chopped liver now?
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #87
106. Well, does the bigot on the front end cancel out the tolerant guy on the back end?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
107. See? Obama's not mad about the "cone of silence."
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
114. How Does Everyone Like Change Now?
Edited on Wed Dec-17-08 08:14 PM by lostnotforgotten
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-17-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #114
117. Give it a few months after Inauguration...then the Pitch Forks are Ready and Waiting...
He's up against what Carter and Clinton were when they came in. Let's hope his "Dem Ops" like "Center for American Progress" have finally learned something ...after all these years of mistakes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-18-08 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #117
121. Choosing Warren The Day He Is Inaugurated Was Not Wise
I was already sharpening the pitchforks last night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC