Can we please get this straight?

Comparing Sarah Palin with Barack Obama is like comparing Elbert the counting horse to Albert Einstein. Watching both of them for 5 minutes should demonstrate this.

Mr. Obama is an erudite, intelligent, highly educated person who has some of the most impressive credentials of any President in recent history. His books, speeches, off the cuff remarks and pretty much everything else about him lend credence to this "fact."

Ms. Palin is a well-meaning (at least sometimes, one would suppose) not very well educated, perpetually under-prepared person who would be severely challenged as the principal of a junior high school (not to mention bigoted, short-sighted, holier than thou and a raft of other traits not desirable in even a low-level politician) much less as the leader of the free world.

I'm pretty sure most Republicans are aware of this, but don't wish to admit just how monumentally they screwed up in allowing her to get within a thousand miles of the Vice-Presidency of the United States, much less the Presidency.

I don't quite know when our society reached such a low pass that we feel it is wiser to lie than to admit error, but there we are.

There are plenty of Rebublicans qualified to compete for the job of President. Sarah Palin is not now, and has never been one of them. Sarah Palin's candidacy was one of the most cynical attempts to manipulate public opinion ever foisted upon the American citizenry. I really don't think she's a "bad person," but I have no doubt whatsoever that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of more qualified potential candidates for almost any political post you might care to name - from dogcatcher of Wasilla to Municipal Court judge, than she.

It truly amazes me that we have reached such a level of incivility in our lives that even those who claim to be proponents of individual rights feel empowered to trample upon the rights of others in their pursuit.

President-elect Obama has already made it abundantly clear that he disagrees with many of Warren's opinions. He has made it clear that he disagrees with his (Warren's) opinion regarding gay marriage, but he apparently believes that, despite their disagreements, they do have some issues upon which they agree, and perhaps they find each other likeable, who knows?

Beyond that, Obama said innumerable times during his campaign that he wanted to bring Americans together, again despite their differences. I'm prepared to believe that his choice of Warren is one of many he intends to take in this direction.

To presume to believe that one should publicly censure a president-elect over an issue as banal as who give the invocation at the inauguration - especially when the reasons for the choice have been enunciated time and time again - is rude, very rude.

Would gay persons think that anyone else - whether or not they were gay - should find it necessary to censure them in their choice of a cleric to perform their own marriage? I think not. I'm pretty sure the phrase "It's none of your business" might be invoked.

And before you give me the "he's our President so we should have a voice" routine, think again. Some choices are purely individual, no matter what one's job is, and this is one of them. No President, or President-elect is required (nor would they be able) to please every single American with every single choice. That means that almost all choices a President makes will be greeted with disagreement by someone - many, many someones. That doesn't mean that any of those who disagree should behave as though they have the right to have their agenda (whatever it might be) followed in every particular. Those are your preferences, but they are not your rights. In that regard none of us have any rights, unless the President does something illegal. In electing a President (even one as ill-suited to the job as G.W. Bush) we are agreeing to be governed. We don't have to like it, but we do have to (for 4 years at least) tolerate it. If the President is supposed to play by the rules, so are we - even if the President doesn't. You can't ignore rules when it suits you and then ask for the protection of the rules when that suits you. One must agree to be governed by the rules if one wishes to appeal to the rules when an injustice (ie: an infraction) has been committed.

So, Rick Warren disagrees with gay people about gay marriage, so what? Gay marriage is an unsettled question at the moment, even many people have it settled (for or against) in their own minds. I think it is always better to have people of good will - who understand the humanity and capacity for decency of those with whom they disagree - participating in the debate than to have intransigent idealogues.

I also think that civility will generally trump rudeness, as long as no punches are thrown.