And this story is just part of the reason why.
That he'd invite Mr. Warren is a minor surprise. That the backlash against him for doing so would be so swift is, in retrospect, not so surprising - it's the "you owe us for electing you, now walk the line we tell you to walk."
Obama's reply can be summarized, simply, as "no."
I like that. Part of politics is reaching out to the people you disagree with on some issues because you have other things in common. It is possible for good men to disagree, and politics recently seems to be heading the opposite direction - a self reinforcing ever-harsher circle of animosity and distrust.
Read the criticisms of Obama's choice; their idea is that allowing a man like Mr. Warren a place of honor at Obama's historic moment suggests that they will then have no place at Obama's table. Clearly, Obama disagrees with Warren about this, but that logic has no place in the rhetoric.
That Obama is rejecting such rhetoric is a good sign. That he is doing so early, and asserting his indepencence immediately is a good sign that this is something that will feature prominently in his administration, and I find that very encouraging.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yeah, I basically agree. Part of me wonders if Obama is just uber-smart about manipulating symbols (saying to Evangelicals, look I'm including you (by your proxy Warren), but I'm not really with you on any of your important issues). But basically I think Obama is really trying to reach out to Evangelicals as well as he can. And, judging by the reaction of the gay community, you can see how hard it would be for him to move in any substantive way toward the middle.
Post a Comment