Democrats & Liberals Archives

What Message is Obama Sending with Rick Warren?

One has to wonder what message President-Elect Barack Obama is sending with his selection of Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer.

Warren is the head of the evangelical Saddleback Church (comprised of four "campuses") in Lake Forest, California.

Obama's selection of Warren is a slap in the face to those who support equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people, and recognition of same-sex relationships.

Warren, who has made it a practice not to endorse candidates or political parties, wrote in October that the issue of gay marriage is not a political issue, but instead "a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."

"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote in a newsletter to his congregation. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population." (Mooney, CNN, 12/18/08)

While I would challenge Warren's claim that only 2% of the population is not heterosexual, that shouldn't matter when it comes to the rights of our population. Nor do I see extending equal rights to all of our citizens "appeasing" a minority population. One might argue that the political embrace of evangelical Christianity is also "appeasing," but we wouldn't want to go there would we?

In a June 2008 CounterPunch article, Jeff Sharlet says this of Rick Warren:

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don't set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what's possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It's big tent fundamentalism - everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men -- and the new evangelicalism as a movement -- continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it's self-help; scratch, and it's revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There's a sense in which Buchman's vision of "God-controlled supernationalism" thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

After having eight years of evangelical power mongers in the Bush White House, are we now to expect more of the same with Obama? Are we being informed that the Obama presidency will continue the goals of the Christian Right in its domestic and international policy? There has been a lot of concern among so-called "progressives" about Obama's choices for leadership positions, but the tapping of Warren is perhaps the most disturbing decision so far.


Articles of Interest
12/05/2003. Chip Berlet & Nikhil Aziz. Right Web. Culture, Religion, Apocalypse, and Middle East Foreign Policy

10/11/2005. Brian MacQuarrie. Boston.com. Pastor rivets many without politics

By Rowan Wolf and published at Uncommon Thought Journal

12/23/2003. Apocalyptic belief and foreign policy

5/19/2005. Merging "Rights" In A Time of Fear.

11/04/2006. Haggard, Bush, and the Unholy Alliance

Posted by Rowan Wolf at December 19, 2008 10:01 AM
Comments
Comment #272389

“One has to wonder what message President-Elect Barack Obama is sending with his selection of Rick Warren to give the inaugural prayer.”

Why? Were we not told that wanna-be President Obama wasn’t sending any message with his selection of Rev. Wright to preach to him and his family for 20+ years? Can’t Obama agree with Warren on some things and not others, as we were told he did with Wright?

Obama hasn’t even been sworn in yet, give the guy a break.

Posted by: kctim at December 19, 2008 10:24 AM
Comment #272390

To my knowledge both presidential candidates and both VP candidates support the traditon view of marriage and oppose gay marriage as did John Kerry.

To date neither party has had a candidate support gay marriage. I don’t get the point of this post at all.

If this is the most desturbing decision of all that Obama is making, by having a pastor in the moderate wing of evangelicalism pray, God help us all.

I personally don’t like Rick Warren for other reasons but to be critical of asking someone to pray?

Burr up your feathers, and toughen up. If you are going to the this sensitive, Wow what a long 4 years we are in for.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 19, 2008 11:03 AM
Comment #272392

I agree Warren is a disappointing choice.

The only explanation I can provide is that perhaps this is a political gesture to indicate that Obama intends to represent all citizens, include far-right evangelical religionists, unlike his predecessor who ONLY represented far-right evangelical religionists and big business.

It’s encouraging to think that maybe Obama has gotten past the dogma and ideology of the past 8 years, even if Obama’s biggest supporters haven’t; I understand their disappointment.

The good thing about this is that Obama seems to understand that the problems facing this nation, which were already impending 8 years ago and have only gotten worse due to neglect and ineptitude, are so big that we cannot possibly make the kind of progress that needs to be made against them without a far broader coalition of national factions than the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin ideologues ever remotely dreamed about assembling.

I agree with Craig and Tim on this: let’s not start judging Obama before he’s even inaugurated. If, on January 20 2010 or even on July 20 2009, he’s still making these kinds of concessions to the far right, it will be time to start complaining. But not now, especially not for such an almost completely symbolic and peripheral appointment.

Posted by: Varsity at December 19, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #272399

Rowan,

Just what did you expect?
Obama made it very clear during the election that he is a Christian and that he doesn’t support gay marriage.
In fact, when asked during the VP debate if they supported gay marriage, Joe Biden said, “No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.”

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 19, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #272402

Well I just tried to post and was told since I am a first time poster that they are holding my post. I am not a first time poster but this has happened before and my post never shows up so oh well-guess I’m not going to get to have my say on this- which sucks.

Posted by: Carolina at December 19, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #272403

Gee, is the honeymoon over already? Maybe Obama’s gonna to be a one term President after all.
All Rick Warren is gonna do is supposedly pray for what 3 or 4 minutes. That sure ain’t making policy.
I’m more concerned about Obama choosing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State than I am about who he wants to give the inaugural prayer. Just what was he thinking anyway?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 19, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #272404

If he was selecting this fool-of-the-right to be his religious advisor, or to a cabinet post, I would wonder about his sanity. However, the two go back a ways, and Obama has tried to balance with a more main stream pastor for the convocation…giving both left and right a voice. My bet…he is in the healing mode he promised during his campaign. A healing mode does not heal very well if it excludes those who are not of the same political vein.

I, for one, am glad for his selection, and I’m an atheist, and would prefer him not to have a prayer on his inauguration day.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 19, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #272407

Marysdude:

That is interesting what you said. I just looked at Bush’s 2004 inauguration. And Aetheist sued to have the prayer stopped. Which begs the question, what is so controversial about a simple prayer at an inauguration?

It all seems to petty to me.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 19, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #272414

Wow! I guess it’s all OK. Obama is just being “inclusive.” Little does it matter that he selected one of the most visible spokes people for Prop 8. Little does it matter than Obama is giving the spotlight in a supposedly “historic” inauguration of the first non-white President of the U.S. to someone who sees the issues equality for LGBT people as “appeasement.”

“Separate but equal” didn’t worked so well at promoting equality in our society, but Warren doesn’t even support that doctrine.

There is inclusion and there is promotion.

Posted by: rowan at December 19, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #272420

The message he is sending is that he intends to keep faith with his words on the campaign trail that got him elected. He will reach out across social, cultural, political, and economic divides in this country to bring us together as a people working for common purpose on common ground; that purpose being the salvation of our nation in these perilous times and challenges. Nothing more, nothing less.

Extending the olive branch to opposition on this or that issue while pursuing policies he is convinced are in the best interest of producing the greatest good for the most people, is the kind of political diplomacy that our times and circumstances require both domestically and internationally. Obama is an example of those rare presidents who are elected during times that demand their unique perspective and set of talents.

He is human. His tasks complex beyond most people’s understanding. He will err. Not all of his decisions will, in hindsight, be the most propitious. But, he is the right person, with the right perspective, right temperament, appropriate intelligence and education, and confidence for our time and challenges.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 19, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #272421

I wonder…is it still acceptable for a member of congress, the supreme court, or anyone in the executive branch to say; Merry Christmas?

Let’s talk about and discuss the color of the president-elects socks or whether he wears his tuxedo tie beneath or on top of his shirt collar points.

I understand that neither the Pope or Billy Graham was available so he went with Warren.

Posted by: Jim M at December 19, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #272422

Rowan,

Seems to me marriage as it has been practiced, again, in virtually all organized societies, has a EVOLUTIONARY mandate, much as the universal use of a judge in a legal proceeding has. Evolution clearly does not require a god to function, but it functions anyway In its universal functioning the ritual relationship of common nurture recognized in culture after culture has been between A male and A female.

Now, as to rights, as opposed to simple petulant assertions like “I have a right to smoke pot” or “I have a right to twenty concubines”, what is wrong with the body politic thinking rights should emerge from something of long standing like everyone’s desire to bee free, rather than some people’s desire to wave the lurid banner of their sexuality, and force everyone else to wave back?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at December 19, 2008 2:42 PM
Comment #272423

Well judging from the hate spewing of the righties prior to election I would have thought the prayer would have been said by a Muslim. I guess the choice of Warren should be enough for profuse apologies from those on the right that made such foul allegations.

As far as Gay’s being upset about this choice I can certainly understand why. Having the enemy in the spotlight doesn’t seem to support their cause. I don’t think an anti gay agenda is the reason Obama chose Warren when the big picture is reconciliation that Obama has espoused during the campaign. Perhaps he really means it. Guess another round of apologies from the right will be necessary.

I would have preferred a Jim Wallis type myself if Rev. Wright wasn’t available but he could have done a lot worse than Warren.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 19, 2008 2:45 PM
Comment #272424

>what is so controversial about a simple prayer at an inauguration?
It all seems to petty to me.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 19, 2008 01:10 PM

Craig,

It all has to do with the ‘separation clause’. If the on coming President of the United States, has a prayer said to bless the beginning of his term as President, he is, in effect, endorsing a religion.

I know it is difficult to understand, but a so-called ‘national religion is contrary to the Constitution, and a President who proposes to have one religion speak for him on his first day, has gone contrary to the Constitution.

I’m not against prayer, nor against the nativity scene at Christmas, or against people greeting each other with ‘Merry Christmas’…I am against MY government endorsing one.

If Obama thought he must select a prayer giver, I think he chose correctly for unity’s sake. But, I also think he chose incorrectly to have the stupid prayer in the first place.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 19, 2008 2:50 PM
Comment #272428

Once again, Jim M, your sensitivity shines as you completely miss the point of Rowan’s post.
I’m still pissed at Warren for giving McCain the edge in their Q and A meeting, so this kind of set me off for a while. I pretty much stay with MSNBC for political news and there were only a few contributors who did not see the wisdom in Obama’s choice of Warren. Most have “gotten it” and don’t want to attack Obama for what seems to be a pretty tactically smart move on his part.
Rowan, here in California, many are still stinging from the prop 8 results, and continue to fight to overturn it, and this is a little like rubbing salt in a wound, but I don’t believe that Obama has changed his mind, or turned his back on anyone by this choice.

Posted by: janedoe at December 19, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #272430
Now, as to rights, as opposed to simple petulant assertions like “I have a right to smoke pot” or “I have a right to twenty concubines”, what is wrong with the body politic thinking rights should emerge from something of long standing like everyone’s desire to bee free, rather than some people’s desire to wave the lurid banner of their sexuality, and force everyone else to wave back?

I had truly hoped that this discussion would NOT go here.

“Lurid” as in “Shocking, gruesome, sensational?”

Sexuality? As in sexual activity?

Do you mean like 99% of the shows on TV with heterosexual engaging in sexual displays?

Do you mean like the wedding announcements, the heterosexuals making out in the parks and on the street corners?

Or do you mean “gruesome” as if my partner was dying in the hospital that her family could deny me the right to see her? Could take our joint property right out from under me?

Neither I, nor the overwhelming majority of LGBT folks I know, have ever waved a “lurid banner.” We have fought, and continue to fight for equal protection under the law, and our Constitutional rights.

Sexual orientation is not synonymous with sexual activity. I did not choose my orientation, and I doubt that many people do. Therefore Orientation is NOT analogous to choosing to smoke pot.

Further, civil marriage is a legal contract and not the same thing as religious marriage. In fact, one can be religiously married without being legally married.

Posted by: rowan at December 19, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #272431

Wow, I knew as soon as I read Jamison’s comments, this thread had been hijacked.
Fortunately, in this part of the country, and on this side of the blog, comments like those are not given much credence. They are far more offensive than the subject matter being attacked.

Posted by: janedoe at December 19, 2008 3:47 PM
Comment #272435

Rowan,

I am not willing to throw Obama under the bus yet, but I am also profoundly disappointed in Obama’s choice. I knew that Obama was a moderate when i worked so hard to get him elected so I am not surprised by his cabinet appointments. But why get in bed with a right wing extremist bigot. They are filthy and getting in bed with them will only get you dirty. These people are never going to support a moderate agenda so what is gained from this. By all means reach across the aisle to moderates on the other side but these extremist bigots need to be marginalized. Giving them a major platform just gives them undeserved and unwarranted credibility. These people are the enemies of Constitutional rule of law and freedom and must be defeated.

Posted by: Ray Guest at December 19, 2008 4:13 PM
Comment #272437

I am not disappointed at all in Obama’s choice.

I wanted a president who could put an end to culture wars, not re-fight them. Let’s accept the truth: that there are going to be people who don’t like gays or homosexuality. We can’t change them, they have to change themselves. We can forbid them to act that discrimination out in how they hire, how they treat people, but past that, we can only appeal to them person to person.

Plenty of these people are otherwise good people. They don’t think of things in terms of outright hatred. They were taught that there is a certain order to things and that this runs against it.

They have every right to hold this attitude, though we might think them wrong for it. They judge things differently under different criteria, and there’s nothing we can force on them to make them approach other folks any differently.

We can persuade them, but sit down and ask yourself when you would be at your most persuadable: while you’re on the defensive, dealing with people who will not allow you to hold your personal viewpoint in peace, or when you’re assured that whatever differences you have, you can talk with these people, respect on on all sides.

These are our fellow Americans, our neighbors, our relatives. Few of them are the intolerant monsters we imagine them to be. We can either try to browbeat people into tolerance, or show them the kind of forgiving and reasonable attitude we would like to see out of them. We should no doubt fight with fervor for the rights of the GLBT community, but we should understand that certain means of fighting this intolerance may win battles, but lose the war to cultivate these people’s respect, which will be the key to leading them to be less intolerant.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 19, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #272438

For once I tend to agree with S.D. The way the church has taught me is that you love the sinner but hate the sin. For the few intolerable gays who want to bash Rick Warren, SHAME ON YOU. But to those who don’t God Bless & Merry Christmas. Even the ones who are intolerable God Bless & Merry Christmas. To all you posters MERRY CHRISTMAS.

Posted by: KAP at December 19, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #272440

Marysdude said: “It all has to do with the ‘separation clause’. If the on coming President of the United States, has a prayer said to bless the beginning of his term as President, he is, in effect, endorsing a religion.”

We have bigger fish to fry and enormously more threatening challenges facing the nation, Marysdude. Obama is not going to fight the cultural and social wars while the economy sinks under us all. Get with the agenda and reset your priorities so we can, as a nation, address the threats first and foremost, and then the essentials and preferences afterward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 19, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #272441

I was given a copy of Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life yesterday. He seems very interested in “the church” and some busybody he calls “God” who thinks he knows everything about everybody. He has a lot of mcnuggets of wisdom which look like they came from somewhere else to which he attached b-word book references. He also propagates some myths and folk tales which are debunked by any creditable archaeologist.

Posted by: ohrealy at December 19, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #272442

KAP-
It’s not merely gays who have a problem with Rick Warren. Plenty of sympathy votes have come out of the left about this.

Personally, I find much to disagree with him about, but I hate to see my people just take such a kneejerk position over something so small. If they were suggesting this guy for a cabinet position, I’d have my problems, but this is a harmless ceremonial occasion where he’ll likely represent the kind of truce that Obama to make across the divides of the culture war.

Also, it kind of troubles me because this kind of reactionary politics is trouble whereever you find it. We need judgment, not partisan rancor. We’re not going to get anywhere making it impossible for Obama to be friendly with people we don’t like. The only way you expand your political horizons, thus enabling practical policy change IS to befriend those who don’t agree with you 100%, but are willing to be civil with you. My attitude is, don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 19, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #272444

Ron Brown Said , “”“I’m more concerned about Obama choosing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State than I am about who he wants to give the inaugural prayer. Just what was he thinking anyway?”“”” Hush up! she’s gone from the senate and Ny State hoooray ! Ron she never did anything in upstate New york, Charles Schumer has done so much for upstate she was hob nobing with the city folks for 7 years .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 19, 2008 5:59 PM
Comment #272445

And I’d be Glad to have this Lady Caroline Bouvier Kennedy..

Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 19, 2008 6:05 PM
Comment #272447

marysdude wrote; “I know it is difficult to understand, but a so-called ‘national religion is contrary to the Constitution, and a President who proposes to have one religion speak for him on his first day, has gone contrary to the Constitution.”

I wonder if marysdude can name one president, including and since Washington himself, that hasn’t invoked God’s name in his inauguration? Are they all guilty, including those who helped write our constitution, of some unconstitutional act? And, if not…why not?

janedoe writes; “Once again, Jim M, your sensitivity shines as you completely miss the point of Rowan’s post.”

I don’t think so janedoe. For you and others Obama’s decision was not politically correct which is what matters most to many. Others are pissed because Obama didn’t bow and scrape to the 2% gay population. And, others, like me, don’t really give a damn if Obama has a prayer by a minister, rabbi, priest, shaman, or voodoo priestess, it doesn’t increase or decrease us as individuals or our faith or lack of it.

Obama’s choice of who gives the prayer, or if no prayer at all is given, is his personal choice. He can place his hand on a bible, lawnmower parts manual, or a Sears catalog for all I care. The reason I don’t care is because in my opinion his swearing to uphold and defend the constitution is bogus. A person reciting an oath they have no intention of keeping, whether taken with hand on the bible and a minister praying or not is still…meaningless.

Posted by: Jim M at December 19, 2008 6:34 PM
Comment #272448

S.D.
I don’t agree with alot of what some preachers say or do. But like you say this is a ceremonial thing so why B—ch. What he does after inauguration day is what counts and as Jim M wrote who cares who he has to do a prayer.

Posted by: KAP at December 19, 2008 6:53 PM
Comment #272450


Usually, when you try to please everyone you end up pleasing very few.

I guess it is alright to have a prayer and continue to pretend to be a Christian nation even though it is not.

I don’t think Christians are supposed to worship a great big idol with a golden head.

Posted by: jlw at December 19, 2008 8:15 PM
Comment #272453

JimM, you’ve really got to stop marching to your own drum and actually pay attention to what others have said. Nowhere, did I say that I found Obamas decision to be politically incorrect, and was essentially supporting his choice, for the reasons I felt he had done it.
I guess you must be pretty comfortable by now with someone who did swear on a bible to uphold the Constitution, and has not!! Just like dude said, the very act of swearing on a bible touphold the Constitution is inappropriate…a kind of oxymoronic gesture. But wait, there’s something about the moron part of that, that fits.

Posted by: janedoe at December 19, 2008 8:39 PM
Comment #272456

Jim M-
One of the reasons I voted for Obama, and defend his decision to have Rick Warren do the beginning prayer is that I’m fundamentally sick of this attitude which treats political disagreements as license for vilifying and demonizing the other side.

One of the consequences of going to Baylor University for four years is that I found that conservatives and religious conservatives could be reasonable, likeable people, despite the people who often served as their representatives.

Maybe somewhere, some conservative kid is having the same experience. He’s finding that he’s got much in common with his fellow students, a fact that ages worth of partisan bickering has distracted us from.

Why do you think Obama’s so refreshing for people like me? It was the thought behind Obama’s speech at the 2004 that captivated people, a vision of America where people had much in common despite what their leaders had told them to divide them, stoke their partisan anger against each other.

I genuinely like that.

The problem with your position is that from the start, respect goes out the window. For me, respect is both a liberal and a conservative value. When Clinton won his first election, I considered myself a Republican, and was disappointed by the result. But I resolved that he would have my respect as Commander in Chief. Even if I couldn’t respect him as a person, I could respect the office

When Bush was elected, I resolved much the same thing. I didn’t like it, but respect was the name of the game. I thought he was going to be one term president. Until 9/11. Then he had my support, so long as he took care of business and didn’t sacrifice civil liberties for victories over our enemies.

Both elections, I accepted the results, accepted the election. I was disappointed that Bush wasn’t more inclined to undergird his victories with an air of legitimacy. Instead he flaunted marginal victories as landslides, used strong arm tactics to get those margins close enough. Nonetheless, he was my President for the last eight years.

Tell me: why can only Republicans who agree with your interpretation of the constitution be honest and sincere in their oath? This country wasn’t built on their being one orthodox interpretation of everything. Even the constitution itself was something to be argued over.

I know you aren’t, by any means, required to abide by my take on things. But my take on things is that Obama was duly elected president, and in his own opinion is every bit the adherent of the constitution you consider yourself to be. The difference here is that he is willing to respect others whose views are different from his, and not consider their attitudes the false pretensions of internal enemies and fifth columnists.

I side against the protest of Rick Warren’s selection for this ceremonial function because I genuinely believe that people like Rick Warren are not bad people, despite their prejudices, and that a more forgiving attitude will let them perceive what they have common with us, people who are also not bad people.

We got enough battles to fight as a country without having to fight each other for lousy reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 19, 2008 10:19 PM
Comment #272457

The God of the United States doesn’t care if you’re gay or not, as long as you pay him.

For the populace of this country, the American God has replaced the Christian God, and Americans have replaced tithes with taxes and debt(Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, unto Ceaser the things that are God’s, and unto Car Czar the things of everyone.)
The American Government has mandated the printing of “IN GOD WE TRUST” on all money, paper and coinage. Americans, regardless of religion (whether they know it or not), pray to a green piece of paper with a picture of Adam Weishaupt (masquerading as George Washington) on it, named The Almighty Dollar. Mr. D. seems to be laying down on the job recently, but Fundamentalist Capitalists like Bush and Obama still worship him.

Posted by: AdamAlive at December 19, 2008 11:07 PM
Comment #272460

Rodney
Reckon there is a silver linning behind every cloud.
Caroline Kennedy should get Hillary’s seat only if she’s the most qualified for the job. And she just might be. I don’t know that much about her. But I’m afraid that there will be those that would think the only reason she got it is because she’s a Kennedy.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 19, 2008 11:51 PM
Comment #272462


What qualifications does Caroline Kennedy have other than often finding it inconvenient to vote in elections in New York?

Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2008 1:12 AM
Comment #272463

“What qualifications does Caroline Kennedy have other than often finding it inconvenient to vote in elections in New York?” said jlw, well as i recall many were saying that about Obama!! I don’t know if she will get it but i still think she would do a fine Job.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at December 20, 2008 1:38 AM
Comment #272466

When did the right to vote become the litmus test for running for public office?

Are we sure that Madison, Jefferson or Adams voted every election?

Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 3:07 AM
Comment #272472

RFKjr would be way more qualified than Caroline. She is apparently being chosen because of her support for BHO in the primaries. He will be inaugurated as Barack Hussein Obama, as it is traditional, so I guess people can shut up about anyone using his middle name.

RFKjr thought he would get the seat, appointed by Spitzer, if HRC was elected. Now Patterson is the appointer.

Posted by: ohrealy at December 20, 2008 10:39 AM
Comment #272475

>He will be inaugurated as Barack Hussein Obama, as it is traditional, so I guess people can shut up about anyone using his middle name.
Posted by: ohrealy at December 20, 2008 10:39 AM

ohrealy,

Get real!..Obama has never been ashamed of his name, or to use his middle name. His supporters have pounced on the vapid idiocy of those on the right, who emphasize the middle name, with subtle hints at Islamic connection, and foreign significance.

She has not been chosen yet, and if she is, it may be because she is as qualified as many who hold current office, and JFKjr may not want it?.?.?

Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 12:08 PM
Comment #272552

Ron Brown wrote; “But I’m afraid that there will be those that would think the only reason she got it is because she’s a Kennedy.”

Aw, come on Ron, you really think so? Nah…couldn’t happen, that would be political.

Posted by: Jim M at December 21, 2008 1:12 PM
Comment #272624

I don’t know how many are in the running for that seat. Has anyone heard who is on the short list? I do know that Patterson has proven to be somewhat of an individual, and I doubt he’ll be pushed into a recommendation he does not want. If Carolyn is appointed on a strictly political basis, she would not be the first to be so, and certainly won’t be the last. Being posted as a political favor does not mean she will not ultimately work herself into being a good Senator.

And until the actual appointment…who’s tree are we barking up?

Posted by: Marysdude at December 22, 2008 8:00 AM
Post a comment