The comparison between Clinton and Kennedy based on name recognition is nonsensical.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. I know that there will be debates on who is/was more qualified for the senate seat, but there is a much big difference between them: Clinton had to earn the confidence and votes of the people of New York. Name recognition certainly helps both, but Kennedy will not have to be bothered with talking to laid off factory workers and farmers in economically depressed areas of the northern and northwestern parts of the state. Kennedy would not have to go there a demonstrate a working knowledge of their issues and concerns and how she could help them. She wouldn't have to log thousands or hours and miles in the bitter cold winning over conservative voters who most likely hate her, the way Clinton did.

I think that the seat should be given to someone who has won some of the votes of some of the people of New York, not a totally unelected private citizen. Hillary Clinton was an unelected official, true, but she was a knowledgeable unelected official who campaigned and won.

Finally, our country is in a particularly disgusting period. Our elected officials get arrested, get convicted, are targets of investigation, and they do so with breathtaking flagrancy. Most of them are refusing to even resign despite being convicted (Ted Stevens), incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing (Rep. Jefforson, Gov. Blagojevich), or even Sen. Craig. A few of those will leave office because their terms coming to an end. But for those who stay, they retain the power to make appointments (Blagojevich can still pick the new senator). Gov. Spitzer, irony of ironies, had the decency to resign. Now we New Yorkers have an unelected governor. The notion of an unelected governor elevating an unelected private citizen to the junior senate seat representing New York is galling.

Kennedy has her attributes, but naming her senator will be a case of an unelected governor giving us an unelected senator. We, the voters, would like to have SOME say.

Obama's incessant prattling on about being inclusive has always been a little suspect to me. It is going to be his fallback when he does shit like this. He's rationale will be that everyone should have a seat at the table regardless of beliefs. I'm sorry, but I do not think that bigoted snake oil salesmen should have a seat at the table.

For all of you who are saying that gay people should calm down and not make to much noise, I say wake up. During the civil rights era there were blacks who told the blacks who were marching, doing sit-ins, protesting, boycotting, and registering voters to sit down and wait. Where would we be had those calls to in-action been heeded?

I am gay and I am appalled that a man who compares me to a pedophile, who devotes his time to taking away my rights, and who spits venom about me and the loving committed relationship I am in, would have any place at Obama's inauguration. I am not surprised, though. Obama is the one who refused to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome because he did not want to give off the wrong signal (that he agreed with Newsome). Obama does not believe in my right to marry. He says he believes in civil unions, but without the word marriage there are about 1100 laws of which my partner and I cannot avail ourselves. Obama did nothing to discourage his supporters in Arizona, Florida, and California to vote for anti-gay measures.

Obama is not gay friendly. He is not outwardly homophobic, but he will trade gay rights for anything. He has no compunction about offending us.

But, Obama is not solely to blame in this one. Diane Feinstein but this together and SHE invited Warren. Obama should have rejected that out of hand.

I am glad I wasn't a gay fool who bought into his schtick. "Yes We Can" discriminate against gays.