Seriously? That's what you think I meant?

It was far more irony than serious. Sorry I didn't think to plainly tag it.

I got that feeling, yes.

Cool. I get twitchy when people quote me in order to say "Yo, this bit here? I DON'T believe it!"

It gets harder and harder to have conversations -- NOT here, okay? -- where I can say "Um, it's politics. I don't like it, but I understand why he did it," without people telling me that *I'm* a bigot and other horrifying things.

Cool. I get twitchy when people quote me in order to say "Yo, this bit here? I DON'T believe it!"

Huh. I'm really sorry it came across that way. I included your bigoted troll line on purpose to show a point of agreement, and I was just trying to point out that thinking it was Wrong doesn't mean I don't understand or was surprised.

eta: I was also responding more to the whole conversation than to your one post, and I should have made that clearer by including other comments.

Nah, it's more me than your (eminently wise) choice to quote me.

Like I said, I've gotten twitchy from other situations -- NOT here -- in which failure to be in lockstep agreement MUST therefore mean that I'm The Enemy.

My money says the exact same words are being spoken, by the far right, about the inclusion of Rev. Gene Robinson.

I don't want to make things more fraught, but I'd point out that opening a concert barely anyone saw a couple of days before the official event is qualitatively different than giving the invocation of the official inauguration.

Part of the reason I think this is so difficult for me to accept (and for us/others to talk about) is specific to Rick Warren. He's an activist for some out there and abhorrent views, but he nonetheless has a public reputation as a guy who's sort of a non-political middle-ground, bridging the divide, so to speak.

So on the surface it seems more understandable why Obama would choose him to be symbolic of that, but the result is further mainstreaming of a highly influential person who's really not mainstream at all. He becomes a much stronger player, a more dangerous one, and I don't get why you would do that.

[I'm leaving aside the sucker punch to the gay community, since I think that's obvious and has also been covered.]

Now, to people flipping out about Obama having dinner with George Will and David Brooks and other conservative columnists last week, I say @@. That's engagement, and if it surprises you that Obama would do it, you haven't been paying attention. But this goes way beyond that.

I'm hurt that Obama robocalled me to remind me to vote no on prop 8 and then turned around and shook hands with a guy who contributed a huge amount to getting it passed.

Saddleback Church is enormous, though, isn't it? Isn't he already mainstreamed?

I don't approve of the choice, especially for giving the main invocation. But this isn't like choosing Fred Phelps (or even Jerry Falwell, supposedly mainstream but really regressive on absolutely everything) -- as repellent as some of his views are, he does represent a large chunk of the populace.

Again, I don't think this was a good choice. I think having him give the invocation conveys a tacit approval of his policies, and not the ones Obama actually does approve of (fighting poverty, protecting the environment, etc.).

Now that I reread, I think that's what you mean by mainstreaming... which means I'm actually agreeing with you.

There was some speculation in the Washington Post about whether or not he'll use "In Jesus' name" in his prayer. (The Post has had a whole ton of articles lately about the selection of all the various religious stuff going into this inauguration. It's been pretty interesting.)

Now, to people flipping out about Obama having dinner with George Will and David Brooks and other conservative columnists last week, I say @@. That's engagement, and if it surprises you that Obama would do it, you haven't been paying attention. But this goes way beyond that.

Exactly. I have no problem with engaging people like Warren in dialogue. I like the idea, in fact, because it might lead to them changing some odf their positions (okay, so I don't really believe Warren would, but theoretically it could happen, and it is something worth striving for.)

We're not talking about dialogue here though; the Inauguration is too important symbolically, and including Warren gives him and his ideas prominence and tactic approval.

t loves you guys

I was almost scared to come back in, but as usual, you guys are totally classy and smart and stuff. When someone attacks my family, I get a bit rabid dog, you know? It just doesn't get any more personal than that.