HRC (not Hillary, but the Human Rights Campaign) has a petition urging Obama to show restore the trust of the LGBT community by committing to their excellent blueprint for change:
Issue an Executive Order within the first 100 days that reaffirms protections for federal workers based on sexual orientation and expands them to also include gender identity;
Work with Congress to sign Hate Crimes legislation into law within 6 months;
Support only a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA);
In the first 100 days develop a plan to begin the process of eliminating the failed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy; and
Work with Congress to end unequal tax treatment of domestic partnerships benefits.
They seem to be taking the line that Obama *should* un-invite Warren. But if he doesn’t do this, he needs to do some serious work to show that he actually gives a shit. This seems to me an excellent strategy. If you agree, go sign!
Feminist Philosophers 
The main argument that I keep hearing in support of Warren’s invitation is that it’s inclusive: We must be willing to include those who exclude us. I’d like some suggestions on how to take that apparent because I find it somewhat offensive. My first reaction is “why?” If you want to create a politics of inclusion, wouldn’t you want to build it from the inside out? Start with the people who oppose you who at least respect you? Despite his polished rhetoric, I don’t get the sense that Warren respects the LGBT community and women in general. The other thing that irks me about this “inclusiveness” talk is that you cannot include someone who alienates your supporters. That’s not inclusion; that’s divisiveness. And then finally, too many things have been shuffed down our throats in the name of inclusiveness. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is one example. DOMA is probably another. As Bertrand Russell said you don’t want to have such an open mind that your brain falls out. You don’t want to be so inclusive that you lose all integrity. Am I missing something?
Rachel, I agree. The idea is supposed to be that we can discuss the issues civilly, but does that mean I have to civilly ask “now just why do you think my son is a pedophile and friends of mine are murdering innocent babies?”
Perhaps Obama is looking not for us to discuss the issue civilly so much as to stop demonizing the opposition. But who is demonizing whom here? As far as I can tell, comparing people to pedophiles and baby-killers comes awfully close to demonizing.
Warren discriminates against homosexuals. It’s a shameful choice for Obama to have made. Warren is being held up as an ideal of sorts. The “inclusive” argument is ridiculous, as Rachel mentions. The president elect sends certain messages when making his choices. His message with this choice is that discrimination against homosexuals is acceptable.