Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Obama has made his first two serious missteps as president-elect, which are: A) his mishandling of the Blagojevich situation and B) his invitation to Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural. Neither will be a big deal in the long run, but they're causing unnecessary difficulties for the campaign and they amount to unforced errors that only give his enemies ammunition against him.
The big mistake in regard to Blagojevich was in claiming, almost off the cuff during a press conference, to have had "no contact with the governor or his office" in regard to who should fill his Senate seat. Now reports are coming out that Obama did have contact with him through Rahm Emanuel and they did discuss who the president-elect would like to have replace him. But that seemed obvious to me long before those reports came out.
Of course his people spoke to Blagojevich about who he'd like to have replace him. And there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing inappropriate about him offering his support for a candidate or a group of candidates and one would have to be quite naive to believe that he had not done so, directly or indirectly, to the governor. Which only makes the denial of any contact sound absurd and dishonest.
It does not appear that there was ever any need to sow such doubt at all. We know from the complaint itself that Blagojevich says pretty clearly that the Obama people refused to offer him anything of value to get their preferred candidate into the seat, only "appreciation." That fact alone absolves the Obama camp of any serious questions and actually makes them the good guys in the situation.
The response from Obama when first asked about it should have been, "Of course we did speak to Gov. Blagojevich and suggested several possible candidates to replace me in the Senate. But as the governor himself makes clear on the transcripts quoted in the legal complaint, we refused to offer him anything other than our appreciation for considering those candidates." By handling it with a blanket denial of any contact was both unnecessary and wrong.
I agree completely with Joe Conason when he writes:
So when the Chicago Tribune reported that Rahm Emanuel had in fact discussed the Senate appointment with Blagojevich or his aides on nearly two dozen occasions, it meant trouble. There is no indication that the incoming White House chief of staff engaged in any illegal or unethical conduct. There is certainly no indication that those contacts were "inappropriate." But the revelation encouraged every insinuation that Obama and his staff are somehow obscuring the real nature and extent of their relationship with the disgraced governor.This political problem arose in part because Obama was so eager to appear purer than any politician can actually be. In his initial statements, he sounded as if he was trying to say that he knew nothing at all about the selection of his successor. "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening," he told the press, and refused to elaborate.
That remark clarified nothing; today it seems like obfuscation at best and prevarication at worst. Nobody is likely to believe that Emanuel spoke more than 20 times with Blagojevich or the governor's aide John Harris without informing Obama about those conversations. To insist that he had "no contact" when his top aide was involved in so many contacts is precisely the kind of parsing that undermines confidence.
Yet there should be no need for parsing, because the facts are entirely on Obama's side. To date, the evidence confirms Obama's assurance that he and his staff did nothing "inappropriate." Indeed, he may be unique among Chicago politicians, in that he has been exonerated of wrongdoing not just by a United States attorney but by the alleged criminal, who curses him roundly on tape for unwillingness to "pay for play."
Just a dumb move that is sowing unnecessary doubts.
Now, as for the Rick Warren situation, this is again a case of an unforced error. Obama should have invited some utterly uncontroversial pastor that few have ever heard of to deliver a bland and generic invocation and been done with it. About the only way he could have done worse by inviting Warren is if he'd invited Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan instead.
Reaching across the aisle and extending olive branches to those with whom we have disagreements is not a bad thing. I think Obama is generally being wise to do so and has done a good job of it so far. But this instance of it simply makes no sense. To whom does it appeal? No one that I can tell. The left is angry because of Warren's anti-gay stance and much of the right thinks Warren is a wishy washy Christian to begin with.
So he's going to take criticism from both sides for this decision and without any positive benefit to balance it off and make it worthwhile. I can't think of a single positive thing that having Warren deliver the invocation can do for Obama; all of the fallout is going to be negative and it's going to be negative from both sides. It just makes no sense.
Obama should have uses this symbolic gesture for something that would have been immune to criticism. They should have found some police or fire chaplain, or maybe even a military chaplain, who had some connection to some heroic situation and asked him to give the invocation. All of the media stories about the person giving the invocation could have been about what a wonderful person was chosen for that honor; instead, they're all about the controversy surrounding the choice. Bad move. And again, an unforced error.
Politics
Comments
I agree completely on the Blago issue. Just a bad move; he should have said that he would look into any contacts between his staff and Blago's staff and make the results public rather than the off-the-cuff denial.
I'm not sure I agree that the Warren thing is a misstep (and this is coming from someone who hates what Warren stands for) because I'm not sure Obama isn't getting SOMETHING for letting Warren give the invocation. While Obama may not be getting anything from the right, he may be getting some traction with the Christian middle, firming up his support by associating with a VERY popular pastor and author. Not saying I think he'll get much traction at all, but I'm willing to wait and see a few months before passing judgment.
Posted by: Shygetz | December 23, 2008 9:39 AM
Is "immune to criticism" the right choice of words? Is it really more important that Obama's actions are immune to criticism, than say honoring someone whose life's work better reflects Obama's stated inclusive ideology and fierce support of equality for gay men and women?
Although, it is probably appropriate given the incredible vetting one has to go through to become a member of the Obama administration, clearly Obama does not want anyone working for him who would tarnish Obama's image in any way.
Which makes me wonder just how much of a misstep this really was, more likely a well calculated decision.
Posted by: JED | December 23, 2008 9:50 AM
About the Warren invitation.
I'd say that the fact that Warren is now drawing serious fire from other fundies for accepting the invitation does benefit Obama.
(Ed Kilgore argues over at thedemocraticstrategist.org that Warren wants to loosen the current alliance between conservative evangelicals and the GOP. Obama has solid strategic reasons for wanting this to happen.)
Posted by: Michael I | December 23, 2008 9:54 AM
My impression was that Obama had only stated that he himself did not have any contact with the governor about the Senate seat, and the transition was researching who on his staff had contact and how often (that is the report being released today). Clearly by the time Obama spoke the transcripts of the Blago calls had already been released, and some contact with the Obama team implied, so it would have been dumb to claim no contact whatsoever. Incidentally, I have also seem more recent reports that the count of Rahm phone calls is widely overstated.
As for the Warren thing, I wonder how much Obama is really getting there, Shygetz. From what I have read on the blogs and heard anecdotally from other LGBT people, the anger in this community is very real and very raw. Mr. Obama runs a big risk of losing significant support in the LGBT community, many of whom have been very wary of him since the Mclurkin debacle last fall (quick recap: Donnie Mclurkin is a gospel singer and self-proclaimed "ex-gay" who took the opportunity of performing in an Obama-campaign-sponsored concert to unleash a load of hate on the gays). There are a lot of LGBT people who are taking this single action as evidence Obama was never really committed to LGBT rights at all, and we are being thrown under the bus. I don't happen to share that opinion, but I understand how it looks.
The miscalculation I think Obama and his people made was underestimating the residual cynicism in the LGBT community after the Clinton and Bush years. We got burned bad by Bill with both DOMA and DADT. Add to that Bush's callous political use of LGBT rights as a wedge issue in his campaigns, particularly 2004, and Bill Clinton's advice to Kerry to come out in support of the anti-gay marriage amendments on state ballots in order to win, and you have a population that is just waiting to be discarded by a political figure. Whether Obama is actually doing that or not remains to be seen, and if he acts quickly on the easy LGBT stuff - hate crimes and ENDA, hearings on DADT - he could begin to undo the damage, but the damage is already being done.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | December 23, 2008 9:58 AM
I'm unwilling to call inviting Warren to do the invocation a "mistake". What he pushes for in legislation will be far more important than a symbolic gesture. I don't think there would be very much media discussion about a low profile pastor, but unlike Ed I don't see that as preferable.
I still feel like many who oppose gay rights do so without having thought about why they oppose gay rights. Any public discussion of the issue tends to be good, and by the discussion focusing on the cordial relationship between Obama and Warren despite their opposition on these issues, it may open more eyes to the substance of the debate.
Posted by: Odie | December 23, 2008 9:58 AM
I think only time will tell how the Warren business plays out, but I'm inclined to agree with Shygetz. Obama clearly has the ability to play to the Christian middle--and trying to play to the Christian right is a fool's game for him.
Back in '04, when he gave his brilliant convention speech, the thought that went through my head was "here is a Democrat who can 'rescue' the Democratic party by appealing to Americans who are religious and politically moderate." That group was pulled to the Republicans by Ronald Reagan--no devout Christian himself--and the Democrats pro-choice and pro-abortion rights stances* have made it hard to recapture them.
And so far it looks to me like Obama is doing exactly that. I think most moderate/religious folk don't have a clear idea who Rick Warren is, and will be happy to see Obama having a "real" pastor (i.e., not J. Wright) do the invocation. It's all about symbolic politics on this issue.
*Not that I'm criticizing the Dems for those stances--just factually noting the real political effects.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 23, 2008 9:59 AM
The Warren thing isn't a dealbreaker for me, but it shows just how little Obama understands the gay rights movement. Kennedy won the black vote handily in 1960 by certain racially progressive actions he made during the campaign; can you imagine how civil rights activists would have felt if he then invited a pro-segregation preacher to speak at the inauguration? I see absolutely no difference here, and it's a shame that Obama doesn't either.
Posted by: Joe V. | December 23, 2008 10:12 AM
I agree with Shygetz and michael. Obama promised he was going to govern for ALL Americans, not just the people who voted for him. And like it or not, that includes a whole lot of Evangelicals. Warren is perceived as a moderate Evangelical (if that's not an oxymoron). Having him give the invocation is a huge symbolic gesture in that direction, and gives him political cover to address substantive issues like DODT and DOMA. The only losers here are the far-right nutjobs coming unglued because Warren is too moderate, or is somehow selling out.
Posted by: WScott | December 23, 2008 10:27 AM
My calendar is clear at noon that day-just have to be back by 7 pm central for a Bible study exposing the absurdities of the Rapture;-)
And I supported his campign, too.
And I have some practice at this-I gave the benediction at the Honors and Awards ceremony at Richmond High School in 1987;-)
I heard on Rachel Maddow last night that Warren has taken down the listing on his web-site about not allowing "unrepentant homosexuals" to join his church. Hmmmmm...guess he's now okay with teh gay....
As far as Blo-Jay goes...I think Obama's initial response was to distance himself as quickly as possible without even thinking it through before responding. It shows that he is still "green behind the ears." As time goes on he'll get better at deflecting questions until a more opportune time-like when he has all the facts worked out.
What those of you who are not near the Chicago media have to understand is that we all knew that Blo-Jay was going down at some point. Even before all this his approval rating in Illinios was 13%. It's too bad that his competitor in '06 was Judy Barr Topenka; who was state treasurer under George Ryan-you know the last governor who now resides in a federal prison in Terrible Haute, Indiana. No one has found any dirt on her, but his stink stunk enough that Blo-Jay was able to win re-election over her. (And he has been under investigation since '02. It also didn't help that she sounded like a combination of Marge Schott and the sisters of Marge Simpson when she spoke;-)
To summerize I think the fear of being labelled "Another Chicago politician" made him give a knee-jerk response. As far as presidential gaffes goes, this one is nowhere close to "mission accomplished!"
BTW saw a great editorial cartoon the other day. It's the three Wise Men traveling-one with Franincense and the other with Myrrh. The third one is carrying a chair that say, "Illinois Senate Seat." The two are looking at the third who is saying, "What? The man who sold it to me said it was frickin' gold!"
Posted by: Rev. AJB | December 23, 2008 10:28 AM
While I would have preferred to see him offer the spot to Jeremy Wright...
Seriously, Rick Warren is a bloviating douchebag who is so full of himself that it's impossible (imo) for him to have GOD as a passenger, nevermind a co-pilot. Letting him offer a prayer (and have the spotlight) irks me. I don't like the pick. I am sure that a lot of LGBT folks are upset, just like a lot of ecofolks are upset about Salazar and a lot of anti-Clintonistas are about Hillary as SecState. I want to give it at least that first 100 days to see what really happens. Given the GOP's new role as spoiler (can you say "Filibuster") it will be hard enough for the new administration to make meaningfull changes in short order. If Obama came charging in with a herd of "new people" like Clinton did in '92--well, shit, I remember that.
Posted by: democommie | December 23, 2008 10:31 AM
Before you start trashing Obama over the Warren issue, you might want to consider what Melissa Etheridge had to say about her own encounter with Warren. (Sorry, no time to look for links right now; I found it in a friends-only LJ post, which you wouldn't be able to access from here.)
Two points: first, even if Warren's words to Etheridge and her wife were not heartfelt or sincere expressions of his real feelings, they at least show he has enough sense of shame and reality to fake real Christian compassion -- that's more than some in his camp can say. And second, we'll never heal our deep (and mostly pointless) divisions if we never reach out to those who disagree with us; now, if the gay-bashers try to keep those divisions going, we'll at least be able to say "Look, our guy made a conciliatory gesture, why can't you follow the example?" We (as in liberals, progressives, etc.) need to start talking to the evangelical Christian right, and if we only talk to the ones who don't toe their party line on gays, we won't have many people to talk to.
I'll say one thing for Obama's decision here: it's brought lots of public attention to Warren's actions, both good and bad (I didn't know how bad he was on gayness until his name came up here!). And it's also getting attention for Warren's compassionate words toward Ms. & Ms. Etheridge; which is bound to help undermine some of the hatred and scapegoating.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 23, 2008 10:36 AM
Obama doesn't support gay marriage. He has associated himself with those who have been outspoken against issues that concern GLBT. He is is not all that comfortable with the GLBT crowd. We know this. So why the false outrage now?
(personally I think Warren is an opportunist who just wants to sell his next book - unlike a Dobson - who is obsessed with gay sex - I don't really think he has given the subject much thought)
Posted by: yoshi | December 23, 2008 10:43 AM
"...both good and bad".
Exactly what good, other than enriching his family and giving people kinder language in which to express hate, has Warren ever done?
Posted by: dean | December 23, 2008 10:46 AM
I don't think it is false outrage, and I think Obama has done a pretty good job of playing both sides of the equality issue, it's really difficult to tell just what he supports.
Posted by: JED | December 23, 2008 10:59 AM
So no heaven for Jews and Mormons, either according to Warren, I guess. His civil rights past isn't so hot either.
http://www.slate.com/id/2207148/?from=rss
Posted by: Scholarly Pagan | December 23, 2008 11:05 AM
Re the Warren situation. Who cares? It is traditional for someone to deliver a prayer at the ceremomy. But does anyone remember who prayed for any former President? I dare you to remember without resorting to Google. This is a tempest in a teapot that will be forgotten in 2 months or less.
Posted by: Ann Klein | December 23, 2008 11:22 AM
The Warren pick was a good one. First, RW is only one of two ministers picked for the day. Dr. Joseph Lowery -- who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues -- is also speaking. Second, look at this in reverse--not that it gives RW a platform, but that it uses RW to say to evangelicals, we can work with this guy despite the issues on which we fundamentally disagree. And the Melissa Etheridge letter is now up on Huffingtonpost.
Posted by: Austin Noelle | December 23, 2008 11:22 AM
A big misstep would be starting an unnecessary war that killed tens of thousands of people. Or spending more money to create bigger deficits than any other president.
Posted by: Rufus | December 23, 2008 11:37 AM
Raging Bee: Well, no becuase he is still up to his "old" ways. After meeting with Melissa Etheridge he has made serval vidoes saying the same hateful thigs about gay people. please see:
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/12/video-the-more-he-talks-the-more-he-offends.html
Posted by: Tulle | December 23, 2008 11:40 AM
RE: Blago incident.
Where is this "I have had no contact with the governor or his office" quote coming from? A friend of mine pulled out out of his ass a while ago claiming that it substantiates all of his fears about Obama. I cannot find this quote. All I can find is this quote and it is clear that he is trying to say that he didn't speak to the governor or his office regarding the matter of selling his seat for favors.
"I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I'm confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the US attorney reflect that fact," Obama said, making light of the profanities Blagojevich used to discuss the president-elect in conversations taped by the FBI.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24789403-5013948,00.html
I have not been able to find a blanket denial of any contact yet.
Posted by: Justin Schenk | December 23, 2008 11:41 AM
Wow, if that's only a big misstep, what is a real mistake, or major blunder? Accidently starting a nuclear holocaust?
Posted by: JED | December 23, 2008 11:44 AM
No, that would be a criminal offense deserving of impeachment followed by imprisonment.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 23, 2008 11:55 AM
Gretchen: The traditional punishment for War Crimes is hanging; today is in fact the 60th anniversary of the hanging of Tojo and five of his aides for the crime of, "Starting an aggressive war."
I have been commenting occasionally during the campaign about how Obama has morphed into Bill Clinton: This is another of those moments. Remember Sister Souljah? Same thing with Rick Warren. It's a purely symbolic act with no policy implications, but it speaks to a certain part of the populace that maybe the big black guy isn't that scary after all.
The idea is to not be seen as under the influence of any particular interest group. LGBT make the perfect choice because they have major legislation (ENDA, DADT) coming up which will be highly controversial. Obama is moving himself above the controversy, so that his only role is
signing whatever crosses his desk.
Ed and I usually agree, but he's 180 degrees wrong on this. It's a good move for Obama in both the short and long term. It's really good for Rick Warren, though, who has finally achieved his life-long desire to be Billy Graham (who is the answer to Ann Klein's challenge above; no, I didn't have to google).
Posted by: kehrsam | December 23, 2008 12:34 PM
kehrsam:
Pretend Obama is white, and it's 1966 (never mind that there wasn't a presidential election in 1966). Proponents of the right to miscegenation have strongly supported his election, and he invites a minister who is radically opposed to it to speak at his inaugeration. Would you hold the same position?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 23, 2008 12:43 PM
Bah. The Blago and Warren imbroglios (if that's what they are) will disappear from memory very quickly.
Obama's brilliant and inspired science picks will resound for a very long time indeed!
Posted by: andrew | December 23, 2008 12:57 PM
Bah. The Blago and Warren imbroglios (if that's what they are) will disappear from memory very quickly.
Obama's brilliant and inspired science picks will resound for a very long time indeed!
Sorry if this is a duplicate. I tried posting once & it failed.
Posted by: andrew | December 23, 2008 12:59 PM
Shygetz wrote:
One thing that happened as a result of picking Warren is that we all found out how much of a bigot Warren was and how quickly he tried to hide it.
Before the pick Rick Warren explicitly banned "unrepentant" gays from membership in his church on his website. After the media controversy, that statement on his website went away. The Saddleback website posting that: "Someone unwilling to repent for their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted as a member at Saddleback" was removed.
Maybe Obama knows what he's doing -- he seems to have picked up a right-wing theocrat he can easily manipulate.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 23, 2008 1:10 PM
Austin Noelle wrote:
"...it uses RW to say to evangelicals, we can work with this guy despite the issues on which we fundamentally disagree.
I agree with Austin:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-obama-real-change.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 23, 2008 1:17 PM
I'm with kehrsam. Who presents the stupid invocation just doesn't matter. He (kehrsam) only remembers Billy Graham because BG was so involved in actual policy-making. If Obama continues to invite Warren to the White House regularly, I'll be a lot more worried. But this is a meaningless gesture.
I'm not understanding the concern about pissing off the LGBT community. What's the downside? Obama is officially in favor of everything we want short of marriage, and my reading of his text is that he's really just holding back on that as a political convenience. Okay, found it. Here's his official statement.
So, why not just call it marriage? Well, I would prefer that, and I will be surprised if we don't end up there. But to get there from here we needed Obama to beat McCain as step one. (Okay, to get there as quickly as possible.) And I think omitting the word "marriage" was a good choice in a pragmatic sense. I see a pretty big nod and wink in those words.
Okay, so my point is his plan involves some pretty major, and pretty contentious legislation, with some big changes for a lot of people. (Remember when the entire state of Massachusetts exploded from teh Gay? Oh. Okay then, big-seeming changes.) He already has the support of the LGBT and friends community; what he needs is the support of the middle. I think Warren can help him with that.
And here's a thought: what if it works the other way? From what I've read, Warren has been a little iffy on some of his anti-gay stances. What if he does get to know Obama a little, and Obama influences him? It could happen. There's a word for that, what is it now...? I haven't heard it in a long time, it's kinda fuzzy. Oh yes, "leadership". Not too likely, I know, but if I were going to try to bring some evangelicals back from the dark side, Warren would be on my list. Hey, I can hope.
And now I return to my usual cynicism.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | December 23, 2008 1:43 PM
Exactly what Justin Schenk said. On Dec. 11th, Obama said "I have never spoken with the Governor on this subject. And I am quite confident that no representatives of mine would have had any part in any deals related to this seat." (There's a transcript here: http://thepage.time.com/obamas-prepared-remarks-thursday/).
Then later the same day, the AP reported that "President-elect Barack Obama said Thursday he didn't discuss his vacant Senate seat with disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich and said he's confident nobody on his staff did either." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081211/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_blagojevich_9)
If you read the Obama quote, what the AP reported is misleading at best, if not downright dishonest. Obama never said that nobody on his staff discussed the vacant senate seat, but that no one on his staff "had any part in any deals related to" his senate seat.
The right wing blogs were more than eager to run with it, and pretty soon it's being repeated all over the place (ahem) as "truth", because no one bothers to look up what was actually said.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 23, 2008 1:53 PM
I have really mixed feelings on the whole Warren affair. On one hand, I think it's potentially good that Obama is reaching across the ideological aisle and possibly appeasing people who are inclined to regard him with suspicion. On the other hand, Warren is an anti-gay bigot who is on the wrong side of the gay marriage debate and who actively supported Proposition 8. He is arguably among the more "humane" of prominent religious right leaders, but he's still a bigot, and it's somewhat disheartening to see Obama embracing him.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 23, 2008 2:01 PM
I had made a post, if it made it through my network, but it hasn't appeared. I did have a few links, and maybe that got blocked or caught for moderation. Is there a limit on that? I rarely post links, so I was unaware if there is. Can anyone let me know about this? Thanks.
Posted by: Badger3k | December 23, 2008 2:15 PM
Thanks to Justin Schenk and Adrienne for the links. I too was very surprised to see Ed Brayton's take on this issue, since I considered it another right-wing distortion. I thought maybe in this case MSNBC was wrong and Fox News was right for a change, but JS and A have turned my world back right-side up again. (Not that Obama's statement couldn't have been improved, but if we had to phrase everything so that nobody could possibly distort it, there wouldn't be time to do much else).
Posted by: JimV | December 23, 2008 2:28 PM
Others have said it above, but Obama has been misquoted and misinterpreted left and right on the Blagojevich matter. He did not say he had no contact at all, he said he had no inappropriate contact.
Posted by: Sean | December 23, 2008 2:29 PM
it's ~mostly~ considered socially unacceptable to hang around with openly racist people; however, it's still quite socially acceptable to hang around openly anti-gay homophobes. until that changes, people like rick warren will continue to be rewarded while espousing their views.
Posted by: arin | December 23, 2008 2:29 PM
Allowing a despicable homophobic bigot to speak at the inauguration was the more egregious of Obama's missteps, and a slap in the face to progressives. I believe in tolerance, but not for hate-mongery, which should always be condemned and never embraced in the name of "inclusion".
Posted by: Raymond Minton | December 23, 2008 3:05 PM
On Dec. 11th, Obama said "I have never spoken with the Governor on this subject. And I am quite confident that no representatives of mine would have had any part in any deals related to this seat."
Exactly. The IL Governor has sole power to appoint someone to fill a vacant US Senate seat; so Blago would see no need or reason to consult with Obama before doing something totally embarrassing and corrupt with his Senate seat. There's no reason to believe Obama would have had anything to do with this scandal.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 23, 2008 3:07 PM
PS: It's a one-time ceremonial role, not a Cabinet appointment. There's no reason to accuse Obama of "embracing" Warren.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 23, 2008 3:09 PM
Ed, as Justin Schenk and Adrienne pointed out, you are spreading right-wing lies. I assume it was simple negligence and expect to see a correction very soon.
Posted by: bullfighter | December 23, 2008 3:38 PM
My take on it is that apparently it is OK to be gay -- as long as you're a celebrity.
Posted by: Dan L. | December 23, 2008 3:43 PM
I agree that the Warren choice was a misstep.
As for Blagojevich, I think you're reading too much into it. His instant reaction was that he had no personal contact with Blagojevich or his office, and couldn't comment. At a later press conference, he added that "I have never spoken with the Governor on this subject. And I am quite confident that no representatives of mine would have had any part in any deals related to this seat." Which is true. How is this a "misstep"? He answered questions honestly. If you look at the video of that first statement (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/09/obama-no-contact-blagojevich/ which you quoted), he actually says "I had no contact with the governor or his office so we, uh, I was not aware of what was happening." He actually shied away from making any statement about what the transition team/campaign knew at that point, answering only what he knew, which was that he hadn't talked to Blago.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | December 23, 2008 3:43 PM
Gretchen asked:
Well, to be clear, in the present instance, my position is that it is a smart political play, not that it's the right thing to do. But the situations are not really similer: Johnson had just pushed through the Civil Rights Act: There is no ambiguity as to where he stood on the issue. Obama's positions on LGBT issues is much less well-known.
But the short answer is yes, it would have been good politics in 1966, too. And, yes, it would be wrong.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 23, 2008 4:10 PM
I should make it clear that my last post was intended to be tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by: Dan L. | December 23, 2008 4:12 PM
Dan L.,You may have intended it to be tongue-in-cheek, but no truer words have been spoken.
Posted by: JED | December 23, 2008 4:26 PM
While I'm chuckling about being accused of passing on "right wing lies," let me post the exact quote from Dec. 9th, not Dec. 11th, the first thing that Obama said:
It was that initial statement, which did not include anything about people speaking on his behalf, that was the misstep. Some people in this thread need to read what I actually said and get a sense of perspective. I'm not accusing Obama of lying; he didn't lie. What he did was made a reactionary statement to the situation that wasn't well considered. It's entirely possible that he meant only that he himself had had no contact with the governor's office, but he also needs to be aware of how the public is going to perceive what he says. The public knows that the president rarely makes such contacts himself, he has people who speak on his behalf. And when he makes that statement and then it immediately comes out that his chief of staff has had multiple conversations with the governor's office about that specific issue (which is not at all inappropriate and which we know, from Blago himself, included explicit refusals to give anything other than appreciation), it's going to be perceived as being engaged in the kind of lawyerly parsing that the public doesn't like. The statement should have been different than it was. I didn't accuse him or lying or of doing anything wrong in regard to the situation, I just said that he made an ill-considered statement in reaction to the situation that gave his opponents unnecessary ammunition against him. This is hardly an example of peddling "right wing lies." I guarantee you that Obama himself now wishes that he had said something different because it would have saved them a lot of headaches over the last couple weeks.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 23, 2008 4:28 PM
Posted by: JED | December 23, 2008 4:41 PM
It appears that Reverend Warren is backing off some of his statements relative to his attitude toward gays and lesbians. It's just possible that this is an issue he hasn't thought much about and has, in the past, reacted in a kneejerk manner. It just may be that the brouhaha over this selection is causing him to rethink some of his past positions in the light of new information. If this is indeed the case, the President Elects' selection of Reverend Warren may turn out to have positive consequences.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/12/rick_warren_lov.html
Posted by: SLC | December 23, 2008 7:10 PM
I thought it was celeBATE...but hey if they make enough money I guess they can buy their way outta hell;-)
BTW the whole Obama/Blo-Jay (what one local talk radio guy has started calling the gov) revelation today in the Chicago market was met with a great, big yawn. The weather and major delays at O'Hare were much more sensational.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | December 23, 2008 9:07 PM
On the Senate thing, the worst Obama can be accused of is a slight verbal misstep. Certainly his staff spoke with Blago, it would have been irresponsible not to do so. What they did not do -- as the wiretaps, today's report (backed by those wiretaps), and Blago's own statement confirm, is get involved in any sort of dealing over the seat. "All they'll give us is appreciation?" Right.
The Warren thing is much trickier. I started out thinking it was a blunder, but not a big one -- after all, there will be another strongly pro-gay preacher speaking as well. But I am wondering if I didn't do what everybody has done repeatedly and underestimate Obama.
He might just be playing Chicago "favor for favor" politics -- in the good sense. "Listen, Rick, you know the heat I took for inviting you to give the invocation. Now I have this bill coming up. I'm not asking you to violate your conscience and support me, just not to be the out-front erson opposing me on this." (And 'this' could be a repeal of DOMA, or a 'full faith and credence law' that required states to accept a couple married in another state as married, even if it would not be legal for them to marry in the second state.)
And that is almost a worst-case scenario. (I dismiss the gloomsters who are going 'see he's really a closet homophobe' or 'here we go again, just like the Clintons. He wants our votes but will leave us behind now he's elected.' Not only does this go against everything we've seen from Obama, who has been very consistent in his positions, but remember that this is a man who criticized the homophobia in the black church in front of a meeting of black ministers.)
The other possibilities are mentioned above. Driving a wedge between the evangelicals, certainly. (And remember it is the evangelicals and other conservative religious that make this even a close call. The rest of the populace generally supports or accepts gay marriage. If even 10% of the conservatives backed off, just a little, gay marriage would pass easily. Getting Warren to mute his opposition? Well, removing the anti-gay language on his website might be just 'cosmetic' but maybe not.
And Warren is no Hagee. Yes, he's a 'pompous bloviator' but he doesn't seem to have the nastiness of a lot of the RRs. He is anti-gay, but it seems because he feels he needs to, because of his beliefs, not out of a hate. (I wonder how he'd respond if I asked him if, were it not for the two verses of infamy, he'd otherwise accept gayness.)
There certainly is a chance that Obama -- who can 'talk his language' -- might change him somewhat. A lot of people are 'ex-bigots' racially -- even George Wallace received -- and deserved -- a lot of black support at the end of his career.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 23, 2008 10:04 PM
As for the Warren-Etheridge exchange, the best coverage was Juan Cole's since he was also a headliner at the same meeting. What a crew! Ethridge, Warren, Juan Cole, Salman Ahmed (founder of JUNOON, the "Pakistani U2" both for music quality and political activism -- they even played in the UN General Assembly) and *gag* Deepak Chopra.
(The report is in Cole's blog from Sunday.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 23, 2008 10:11 PM
I don't know, Ed. That was on the afternoon of the day Blogo was arrested. It seems to me that Obama was referring to the arrest, not discussions relating to whom the senate seat would be appointed. Here's a longer quote:
"Asked by a reporter if he was aware of what had been happening, Obama said: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening. And as I said, it is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that I don't think it's appropriate to comment."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-no-contact-with-blagojevich-2008-12-09.html
Technically, he could be referring to either the arrest or the senate seat, but when the longer quote is taken into consideration, I think it's more likely he was speaking of the arrest.
Once again though, we've got the AP chopping off the last part of what Obama said and then stating that Obama was referring specifically to the senate seat, when that is not at all clear, and even seems unlikely.
"The president-elect was blunt and brief in addressing the case on Tuesday: "I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening" concerning any possible dealing about Blagojevich's appointment of a successor."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081209/D94VG39G0.html
To me it looks as though the AP is trying to manufacture an Obama 'misstep' where one doesn't truly exist, although I agree that Obama could have been more clear.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 23, 2008 10:18 PM
Except the story you linked to very clearly showed that he is not backing down on anything. They've taken the wording down so they can make a video instead - the anti-gay policies still stand. The video he posted over the weekend shows he has had no change of heart at all - gays and lesbians are "liars" who are "Christo-phobic" (apparently, as Rachel Maddow noted, Warren doesn't understand he is not Christ) and he claims he never compared our relationships to incest, child rape and beastiality, despite two video interviews that clearly show him doing so.
Let us not forget that, while being part of the anti-gay hate movement has not been a major force in Warren's world - unlike Dobson or Tony Perkins at the FRC - he has a solid anti-gay record. He was a significant force against Proposition 8, and made outlandish and false arguments as to the impact of equal marriage (including the old standby that we're out to have preachers like him arrested), and his church hosts an "ex-gay" ministry, where gullible gays and lesbians with strong religious backgrounds waste months and years trying to be good enough "Christians" for God to remove the gay.
As Richard Cohen notes in his superb column (who knew Cohen could be so good? I guess sometimes even a blind batter hits a home run) the issue with Warren is not political, it is about human dignity, and Warren isn't getting that. He's gone on a great PR campaign, bamboozling Melissa Etheridge with a few nice words and actually touching a gay person, in WEST HOLLYWOOD, for crying out loud, but he's just trying to cover his ample butt because he knows his brand of extreme anti-gay rhetoric doesn't play well outside of a narrow band of "Christianity."
Posted by: CPT_Doom | December 23, 2008 11:12 PM
At first I thought getting Rick Warren on Obama's side was a good idea, but as of about an hour ago I have changed my mind. What changed it were some videos Warren recently put up on his website. I've got two on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-obama-real-change.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 23, 2008 11:37 PM
So it wasn't negligence? That's disappointing, because you are being dishonest. The timing you described in your response is correct, but it is very different from what you first wrote in the post. There, you made it appear as if Obama had been denying contacts between his staff and Blago's for a long time, until reports from other sources came out. And that is exactly the right-wing made-up lie. Now you are doing acrobatics to spin your original statement as true - exactly what you are (baselessly) accusing Obama of doing.
Posted by: bullfighter | December 24, 2008 12:10 AM
At first I thought getting Rick Warren on Obama's side was a good idea, but as of about an hour ago I have changed my mind. What changed it were some videos Warren recently put up on his website.
Awwwwwww, he loves all the evil bloggers who attack him. Anybody who attacks him is just Christophobic. Scaredy cats of Christ!
He returns all teh evil and hate with love. That's beautiful, man.
Posted by: reindeer386sx | December 24, 2008 12:26 AM
bullfighter -
Just out of curiosity; How exactly is Ed being dishonest here? I'm just not seeing it. His post says nothing that his comment does. I can see disagreeing with him, I do it all the time. I'm not really sure I agree with him on this. But calling someone a liar is a hell of a lot different than saying they're mistaken.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 24, 2008 1:30 AM
Prup, do you see any irony in your statement about "He might just be playing Chicago's "favor for favor" politics, in the good sense" in response to a story where one of the parties was arrested for playing Chicago's "favor for favor" politics?
I don't know, I was just thinking there might be a little bit of irony there.
Posted by: JED | December 24, 2008 10:19 AM
Actually, I was making the non-ironic point that this style of politics does not have to be corrupt, that while it can frequently lead to a Blagojevich, it doesn't have to.
(An uunusual reference indeed, but if any of you are mystery fans and know Robert Campbell's wonderful Chicago-politics-based Jimmy Flannery books, you may understand my point better.) It is a way of managing relationships and obligations, and getting things done outside of 'channels' that can be very useful.
But let's carry this over to today's Warren thread...
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 24, 2008 10:53 AM