How has the Warren debacle affected your expectations for Obama's presidency?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: How has the Warren debacle affected your expectations for Obama's presidency?

[ogneopasno]

1. Other: I hold very few, if any, illusions about a guy who ran a very inspiring and very

calculated and careful campaign on words without a whole lot of specifics.

[undeterred]

6. Me neither.

[musette_sf]

7. the sad part is how that inspiration

feels like a betrayal now.

[KittyWampus]

12. without a whole lot of specifics? You must not have ever visited his campaign website

[ogneopasno]

25. Oh, I did. I just didn't see a lot of how.

[JackRiddler]

35. Same other: It fits my expectations, but what can you do?

A majority approval of the McCain succession to the Bush regime would have been fatal. You had to reject them, and you had to go with the guy with the obvious big brain and greater personal integrity, even if his policies are corporate economics, maintaining the empire, and keeping the cultural status quo (been right wing so long it's called the center).

Anyway, people keep forgetting that he's not in charge. The multifarious crisis will dominate and demand responses (of which a revival of the New Deal and a conversion to sustainable energy is going to be the minimum). The people need to rise up finally on behalf of their own rights. Obama's got a realist's potential for flexibility. Can't say he's an ideologue or a gangster (i.e., someone who personally expects to profit from imperial plunder like the Bushes and Co. indisputably were).

Talk to ya in 2010...

[marylanddem]

2. This is a very well-worded poll. Thoughtful. Thanks.

[BurtWorm]

4. Thank you.

I can't tell you where I fit on it. I've been feeling every sentiment I put into words up there.

[Marie26]

3. No.

It's not particularly surprising & thus hasn't affected my expectations.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. I see it as one more opportunity for the Wellstone Left to organize for a seat at the table.

I hope we make good use of a bad policy decision by Obama.

[gcomeau]

9. WHAT policy decision? Exactly?

Do tell how"invocation deliverer" got classified as a policy decision.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I think providing an international mega stage to a bigot is a bad policy. So do a lot of people.

[gcomeau]

15. A stage for *what*?

It's an invocation. It's a minor ceremonial address. He isn't going to be making policy recommendations to the nation. He isn't going to be up there preaching a political agenda. It's like being the announcer introducing the guy throwing out the first pitch at the freaking baseball game for cripes sake.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Legitimacy.

Would you suggest that there would be zero political fallout if Obama were to put Mullah Omar on the stage to deliver a prayer?

How about the Dali Llama? Think that would make for good negotiations with the Chinese? No Problemo?

Maybe if Sun Young Moon or Obama's own ex minister Write were to be put up to give a prayer that there would be no political implications?


I'm not sure how you figure that putting a person who has repeatedly called for bigotry, persecution, and exclusion on the stage is apolitical. But of course everyone has their own opinion.

I know that the reporter on NPR this morning made the point that it's a political move to reach out to evangelicals and try to cut into the Repo base. that analysis makes sense.

You think Obama's choice is just serendipity, I know. Like maybe he asked so late, he couldn't get anybody else to do it or something. But I don't think so.

[gcomeau]

23. I didn't say it was apolitical.

I said it wasn't policy. It isn't. I said it wasn't giving him a national platform. It's not.

And I said it's very, very minor. And it is.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Warren already has legitimacy.

It's quantified by the millions of AMERICANS (not Chinese or any other non-American constituency you list for your apples-to-oranges comparison). Like it or not (and I fall into the "not" category), it's already there.

[ieoeja]

32. McClurkin wasn't supposed to go an half-hour anti-gay diatribe either.

If the announcer introducing the guy throwing out the first pitch starts a long speech, they can pull the plug on his microphone. They could do the same thing when Warren goes off script.

The Rightists would then play that up for all it is worth. "Obama only pretends he cares about your opinions. He reneged on his offer to let America's most respected Christian pastor give the opening prayer."

So Obama will have to let the man rant. The crowd will boo. The Rightists will play up that. While Progessives will be angry that he let the man rant.

Obama has manuevered himself into a no-win situation. I have been a supporter since his 2004 Senate primary campaign, and I've only seen three major fuck-ups: McClurkin, uttering the phrase "spread the wealth", and now Warren.

If Warren surprises me and actually does not betray the trust Obama put in the man, then Obama will have gotten lucky.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Except he didn't.

Warren will do little more than say a prayer. It is not a stage for him. It is not a stage for his beliefs. He will not make any comments on any policy. He will say a prayer. That is not policy at all.

[ieoeja]

33. How do you know that? (See post #32.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4675780#4676751

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. He didn't at Saddleback, and that was his stage.

I can't guarantee that he won't, but I would be a teensy bit surprised if he did.

[BurtWorm]

8. It's hard not to be struck by how polarized DU is looking over this.

And it does have to make you wonder if polarizing the "base," so to speak (if that's what we really are) is a good idea, especially when the Warren thing was supposed to symbolize common ground.

[gcomeau]

11. Or...

...it could make you wonder if polarizing ourselves over something that doesn't actually matter is such a good idea. If you were to look at it from a slightly different perspective.

[BurtWorm]

19. As an atheist (I said this yesterday), I don't care at all about the invocation or benediction

To me, they're meaningless exercises. But I do understand symbolism, which is what I think this is all about--meta-symbolism. I mean, it's not what Warren or Lowery will say that matters. What really matters is that it's Warren and Lowery who will be saying anything. I don't think Obama would have selected either of them if he wasn't trying to send some kind of message with the very selection of them. His ostensible purpose, as it was reported yesterday, was to demonstrate the purple-ness of his intentions, to unite the nation, red and blue, behind him, to include even those who voted against him in the pageant of his inauguration. It's ironic, to say the least, if that really was his intention, that this choice has had the effect on DU--and not just DU, but all of the progressive sphere of American politics--of fragmenting it and pitting people with faith in Obama against people who are reading something very different in the meta-symbolism of these selections. Did no one in the Obama camp see this coming? Then they made a mistake. If they did see it coming and decided to go ahead with it anyway, then what does that say about how unified Obama really wants the country to be? Where does he see the progressive movement--as an ally or an enemy?

Personally, I desperately want to believe he made a mistake, demonstrating simply that he's human. I want to believe that he can learn from this, as he promised he'd try to do. But that remains to be seen.

[Fantasma74]

10. cry-babies

What i see is a bunch of cry-babies...Waaaaaaaaah! President Obama wont get shit done cause of tooo many cry-babies..........Waaaaah! waaah!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The first priority of politicians is to achieve and retain power.

Obama is a politician playing politics by moving to the perceived "center" with his cabinet picks and the inaugural ceremony.

Fortunately, the Big Tent has an entrance and an exit. If some are invited in that others find repugnant there is an exit available. One that I have no compunction using when the other members smell bad.

[Birthmark]

16. Nail, final. eom

[Redbear]

17. Other: The Warren things shows Obama is different than what many

people wanted Obama to be.

Obama was very clear that he would involve people he disagrees with as he governs. He had "Chicago school" economic people on his campaign. He is apparently nominating two Republicans to his cabinet.

Anyone who thought Obama would somehow be different than that was looking at him with their hearts, not their eyes.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. Does he agree or disagree with progressives, and why won't he invite them in?

See, I don't get it.

If he's a centrist, and he disagrees with progressives on some things, then why hasn't he put some into his cabinet so he gets some people he disagrees with.

If he's a progressive, then he might want to pick at least one or two others and put them into the mix so as to achieve a little balance.

But it doesn't look like balance so far, It looks like the same old same old.

[Why Syzygy]

18. E. He is showing he is Owned by the Powers. nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

21. I agree and didn't expect anything different although I had hoped

I was wrong.

[Skittles]

22. he is doing exactly what I expected him to do

no surprises here

[MineralMan]

24. I have learned not to have expectations for Presidents...

I always wait to see what they do. There is no way to accurately predict what a President will actually accomplish during his term in office.

In the present controversy, Obama was clear during the campaign that he did not favor same-sex marriage, but did not plan to fight establishment of that in individual states. I heard him say that more than once. I think that's the wrong approach, but there it is. That's his position. He has been elected.

He has lots of positions on lots of things. I will wait to see whether he honors the statements he made. I doubt he will honor them all. However, I expect that he will be a better President than John McCain, and by a large margin.

I don't expect him to enact everything I would enact if I were President. I could never be elected to that office, since my positions on virtually everything are way too far to the left to be accepted by more than maybe 10% of the population. I'm also someone nobody ever heard of, which would eliminate me way ahead of that point.

I am a pragmatist, however, and realize that no President can stray too far from the center, simply because of the way our government operates. So, I don't expect anything from Obama, except for a leftward swing in some areas. If I expected otherwise, I'd be disappointed, I'm certain.

So, I keep donating to and supporting causes, and hoping that the drift toward progressivism continues. I can do nothing else.

[spanone]

26. change....doesn't mean more exclusion....more inclusion

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Other: I'm not fine with everything Obama does, nor did I ever expect to be, and that's okay by me.

[Bucky]

31. I'm about halfway between the 2nd & 3rd choices. (Voted for #3)

I couldn't say I hate the Warren idea, but the Lowery benediction makes me feel better about Obama because I don't particularly think that the Lowery invite offsets the Warren invite. You don't invite the NAACP and the Klan to a picnic and then call it a "balanced group."

On the other hand, I don't think that Obama totally bungled the inaugural, either. The choice of Warren is deeply offensive because he leads the charge against civil rights for all Americans. But that doesn't amount to bungling the whole day's ceremonies. That's a pretty generous thing for me to say, seeing as how Warren isn't trying to attack my civil rights.

I know Obama has a reason for doing this and that it probably is part of a strategy for isolating and defanging the hard Right factions in this country. If it works, he made a smart move. But I still think it's morally unjustifiable. I'm a pragmatic person and I'm generally happy with Obama's moderate course of appointments. But some issues ought not to be up for compromise on; and I think equality of rights under the rule of law is absolutely one of those issues.