Comments on: Pallin’ Around With Bigots: Obama and Warren

By: Thomas Kent

Thomas Kent — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:56:37 +0000

“Keep your friends close, hold your enemies closer”

By: Ann

Ann — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:45:44 +0000

I very much value and applaud Obama’s apparent intention to reach out to his political and ideological opponents, but having Warren deliver the invocation is something different: no, it’s not “endorsing” Warren’s views, but it is conferring an honor or privilege that should have gone to another, to someone who supported Obama’s candidacy.
There will be countless opportunities in the next 4/8 years to meet with Warren and his supporters to discuss differences and, possibly, come to an understanding on important issues. That’s not what Obama has done here. Instead, he has snubbed those religious leaders who support him, in favor of one who does not.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:54:47 +0000

One obvious difference is that Obama’s relationship with Ayers was circumstantial — they were neighbors, and they served on boards together. Pallin tried to make something out of a casual acquaintance that wasn’t there.

Obama brought his current troubles on himself when he chose Warren for the inauguration. There’s no good outcome here. Either Warren was vetted and Obama knew about his support for Akinola and the rest — and if so, then, yes, Obama is elevating those views — or Warren wasn’t vetted, which means Obama is stubbornly clinging to a bad decision, and the resulting scandal is getting incrementally worse by the day. It’s an inauspicious start, to say the least.

By: libhomo

libhomo — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:27:09 +0000

There simply is no way to involve Warren in the inauguration without enabling Warren’s agenda of bigotry, discrimination, violence, and death. You are claiming the impossible in order to rationalize the reprehensible.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:52:06 +0000

Then again, after reading Lev’s comment and following several links about it, I am a bit discouraged. All points of view need to be heard for truth to win out.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:27:49 +0000

Well done, Trish.

It seems Obama is doing what made him such an attractive candidate to many of us by providing opportunities to reunite the people. We may hold differing belief systems, but in the end we are all human and need to find ways of coexisting. By inviting Warren to speak, he also invites him to find his better self, as I believe Obama is inviting all of us to do. This may have consequences, but silencing those who oppose us only embitters them and can give unintended validation to their views.

By: Lev Raphael

Lev Raphael — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:15:24 +0000

And what sort of message does it send that the much-ballyhoo’d invocation by gay bishop Gene Robinson, widely seen as an attempt to balance Warren’s presence Tuesday, was not broadcast? And people at the Lincoln Memorial could barely hear it because of apparent microphone problems?
HBO says the Inaugural Committee relegated Robinson to the “pre-show,” thus deep-sixing his amazing invocation, which can be seen here on the video made by someone attending the event: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-bishop-gene-robinson-on-hbo.html

By: Realist

Realist — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:23:51 +0000

There is a deep difference between Palin’s crass slur and Obama providing a high-visibility forum for a religious extremist. By providing that forum, Obama is implying that he endorses Warren’s radicalism (and thus maybe Palin wasn’t wrong, just turned around 180 degrees?).

Those chosen to participate in official inaugural events are meant to represent the incoming president in some manner. What these folks have to say and the way that they say it are the earliest display that the voters get to see of the organizational skills of the new POTUS. These people will be seen as speaking for him.

In this important day’s invitations, Obama is certainly breaking with inaugural traditions by inviting those who oppose him to frame and define him from the very first moments of his tenure with their commentary. I admit to being concerned about the wisdom of this choice, and fear that it is yet another example of Obama succumbing to the triumph of hope over reason.