While the fact that you went digging around in 7-year-old archives looking for things I've written is interesting, the posts you pull do NOT support your argument. In fact, they are completely consistent with the point of my OP.

The first post simply noted the interesting symbolism of Warren delivering the invocation at President Obama's inauguration while Rev. Lowery offered the benediction.

"Whether he intended it or not, President-elect Obama will present some very interesting symbolism with the invocation and benediction at his inauguration.

Rev. Rick Warren will give the invocation on Bush's watch; Bush will still be president when Rev. Warren takes the podium and he will still be president when Rev. Warren - a minister seen by many as narrow-minded, divisive and judgmental - finishes his prayer.

Before we get to the next prayer, a sea change will have occurred: when Rev. Joseph Lowery takes the podium, this giant of our time, this champion for human rights - will pray for and ask God's blessing on a nation led by President Barack Obama.

I have no idea whether President-elect Obama purposely offered this symbolism. But I do find it very interesting how the juxtaposition of Warren and Lowery speaks volumes of the change - the passing of the torch - represented by the inauguration of Barack Obama.

As you can see, I neither praised nor defended Warren's participation. So your reference to my post is not only utterly irrelevant to this topic, it is blatantly misleading.

The second link is even less relevant to this issue. That discussion revolved around the negotiation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the need to negotiate with all manner of people, including bigots in the House and Senate, in order to get it passed - something very different than campaigning to attract the votes of bigots. If you don't understand the difference, I suggest you do what I recommended in the post you linked to - go do some research.