“Fierce is over”

A funny blog somewhere on wordpress juxtaposed a transcript of Obama’s discussion of the Warren choice with the second video.  It maintains that whatever Obama is, he is not a fierce advocate for gays.  Obama’s claim to the contrary reminds me of people who manage to say things like “No offense, but I think you are a complete shit.”  There’s a limit to what words can accomplish.


I’ll put a link to the  other blog in a comment if I can find it.

7 thoughts on ““Fierce is over”

  1. I did find Michael Berube, whose work I think is really fine:

    Yes, I know you have your talking points, full of the usual stuff about how you disagree with him on some issues but not others, and how your inauguration will be really diverse, and how you are “committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground.” (Ye gods! That’s an actual quote from the executive director of your Inaugural Committee!) But you know what? When someone tries to strip gays and lesbians of basic human rights and bears false witness lies about the reason why, there isn’t any common ground to search for. Really. Don’t bother. Don’t waste your time and my patience. If, back in ‘64, LBJ had been sworn in alongside someone in the “faith discussion” who opposed what they used to call “miscegenation,” and who claimed that proponents of interracial marriage were infringing on his right to free speech, we wouldn’t call that “bringing together all sides” and “searching for common ground” today. We’d call it . . . uh, what would we call it? “Shameful,” maybe, if we were being kind.

    There’s more related stuff at:

  2. I don’t know, is this more objectionable than, say, the appointment of HRC as secretary of state? That might sound like a weird question, but Hillary voted for the Iraq war, and, unlike Rick Warren, she will have an actual hand in policy decisions. I think that people tend not to find this compelling (1) because most senators supported the Iraq War and (2) because the war does not carry for many people a sense of immediacy; but neither of these strike me as good reasons.

    In other words, we have on the one hand a person who directly contributed to an act which has killed upwards of 100,000 people and who will have pivotal role in the upcoming administration, and on the other hand someone who is a bigot but who very likely will have nothing to do with future policies in the slightest.

  3. Like you say: words can only do so much. I don’t consider Rick Warren’s presence at the inauguration likely to be particularly harmful, even if I find it rather distasteful. If it buys Obama political capital that he can direct toward policy, I’m happy.

  4. Leeds, I think it is important that Hillary has been strongly supportive of ending the war. In effect, she changed her mind with more information. If the same were true of Warren, I wouldn’t object to him at all.

    I’m surprised the Hillary Clinton is always brought up as the war-mongering spoiler. Why not Biden, who is now a heart beat away from being president? Clinton doesn’t ever get the final say, but Biden might.

    Jonathan, can I suppose you’d think that a representative of some positions should not be giving the invocation? For example, a racist shouldn’t? Someone who thinks disabled people should be sterilized if the trait is carried genetically shouldn’t? If so, then our disagreement is whether someone who is a homophobic anti-choice supporter of the use of torture is in the same class as the racist or eugenicist.

  5. I’m inclined, with you, to put Warren in the same moral class as a racist. I’m just more pragmatic than you, I guess, with respect to how unacceptable it is or isn’t to have horrible people around in public.

    (There is an difference between having Warren give the prayer and having a racist give it, but it’s pragmatic, not moral: Warren is much closer to mainstream America.)

  6. lp: I wonder if that’s why our reaction to the Warren selection is so strong. We’re all waking up to the reality that we have a long, long way to go and that we’re still having to accept a public role of the religious wrong. The bubble of hope that Obama will change a lot has popped. I am so sick of the religious wrong defining our policy dialogs!

Comments are closed.