and here's a bigass profile on rick to read while we are making our decisions: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/09/1…

I am an Obama supporter but I think he needs to start thinking about how much bigotry he is willing to surround himself with. To me he has hired a speechwriter who thinks it is funny to pretend to grab Hilary Clinton's boob in a photo. He now is going to have an outspoken bigot open his inauguration. The first guy should be fired and advised to work at a rape crisis center for a few years. If Obama really respects his grandmother, mother, wife and daughters as much as he says he does this would not even require a second thought. Maybe the guy might start to get it. The second should be told that this inauguration is not about hate and hate is not welcome there.

As I tweeted to @hodgman the other day as he was getting into this:

Arguably, I might be willing to have dinner with a comparatively soft-spoken bigot. But I wouldn't ask him to perform my wedding.

I wouldn't say this is his first mistake either. Ken Salazar is a pretty horrible person to put in charge of the interior. Tom Vilsack as head of the USDA is pretty bone headed as well. So much for change. I still may move to Canada. At least I know how to drive in the snow now.

"Those of you whose vote I've not yet earned, I will be your President, too".

OMG, he actually meant it! Here we are in our nice happy bubble here in Portland, not acknowledging that there are millions of Americans out there who feel a lot differently than we do. Rather than turning off their TV during the inauguration, those Americans might actually listen to what Obama has to say. How we feel about Rick Warren...they have the same sort of anger (justified or not) with Obama.

Obama isn't exactly helping the "Black people are homophobes" assertion, is he?

(http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh…)

He really needs to tack an asterisk on the end of his "Change".

ugh this made me so bummed out, is it all the same?

us 6 months ago: Obama's going to be different! Unlike Bush, he will be bi-partisan--he's going to bring Americans of all stripes to the table, not just catering to his base for the whole term.

us now: WTF!? Why is he inviting those jerks to the table? Why is he making bi-partisan appointments? This isn't what we (his base) wanted!

Listen, I'm as upset by Warren's "values" as anyone. Moreover, I can make a long list of pastors with whom I disagree but would still rather see than Rick Warren--but I have to admire Obama for really making good (in some ways, at least) on his promises (threats?) of bi-partisanship and becoming a president for our whole country, not just Portland. As much as we might wish it were otherwise, a whole helluva lot of our fellow Americans are very much in line with Warren, and Obama is, on his very first day, trying to bring forth an administration that works for the whole country, not just Portland and SF.

Personally, I disagree with all pastors and their delusional belief in magical super-beings. This one is just more of an asshole than many of them. They should just do away with the whole invocation thing all together. Making separation of church and state a reality is a change I can get behind.

Ansel: OK, fine. Yay bipartisanship. But so far, there has not been much from the transition team in terms of trying to get the other side to do their part in bridging the gap. Bipartisanship is a two-way street, not capitulation to those with whom you disagree. How long will it be before Obama stands up and asks those on the right to shift leftward towards the center? 2 months? 2 years? His second term? Undoing this country's slide over the past 30 years towards social conservatism is going to take a long time, and this is not an encouraging start to the process.

I keep thinking of Rep. Jeff Merkley bringing the Oregon Family Council to the table before Oregon passed domestic partnerships... consequently, they sat out the repeal effort, and we still have domestic partnerships. Distasteful at the time, sure, but genius in hindsight.

In my lifetime, whenever Republicans have won the White House or a majority in congress, or the post of dogcatcher for that matter, they've typically used it as an opportunity to push through their agendas, which is entirely appropriate. They realize they've won, and they act accordingly. Democrats, on the other hand, continue to act as though they've lost, despite winning the White House and both houses of congress. Even in victory they claim defeat!

The past twenty eight years of Republican dominance at the federal level (remember, the Clinton administration was hamstrung by a Rep. congress for six of its eight years) have brought us bad trade deals, deregulation, erosion of our manufacturing economy, increasingly regressive tax structures, a severly weakened labor movement, etc, etc, etc. Americans are tired of this and have given their leaders a mandate not just for change, but a return to "by the people, for the people." I'm not suggesting the Republicans or their constituents should be frozen out entirely, but now is our time. Is it too much to ask that Obama's actions reflect this?