"Warren *not* one of the "most extremist""

Agreed. I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, and Warren is rather run-of-the-mill in these regards.

I disagree with Warren on many issues, but frankly, I don't care if he gives an invocation. Not who I would have picked, but not exactly a pressing matter.

It's not like making a big stink about it will somehow reverse the passing of prop 8. And anyways (and this has nothing to do with "inclusiveness"), unless Warren is going to go up on the stage and start making a case against gay marriage, et al, I don't see a reason to carry these things over into an otherwise unrelated and benign situation.

Warren's chief crime (to me) is that he feels that people who he disagrees with are somehow less human or less American. I wouldn't rush to try and demonize him, in a way treating him as less human or less American just because I disagree with him.

I'd argue with him until I was blue in the face about the topics on which we disagree, but I don't have to be outraged about every single thing he ever does.

"So then, it stands to reason that you wouldn't have objected if Obama had invited a KKK member, or a neo-Nazi with a nice big swastika on his arm, or someone who advocates the murder of abortion doctors, or who believes that Al Qaeda attacks are justifiable?"

As horrible as some of Rick Warren's positions are, I don't think he has ever advocated the physical harm or death of anyone. That's a ridiculous analogy.

That's the exact same type of thing I read you rail against when an op-ed in the NYT compared Bill Clinton's sins of the body with George Bush's war crimes.

Obama has "sold out" the gay community?

You have legitimate beef with Rick Warren, I won't deny that. But all Obama has done is invited a man to pray. This constitutes selling out the gay community?

So I guess his stance against don't ask, don't tell, his stance in favor of civil unions (not perfect, but better than nothing), and his heavy consideration of Mary Beth Maxwell to be the first gay member of cabinet are meaningless. Why? Because he decided his inauguration was a time to put our differences aside.

I see very little difference between that mentality and the mentality that the religious right has about people who are pro-choice. To wit, Warren is coming under fire from the right for attending the inauguration of a pro-choice President.

I guess you have found something in common; knee-jerk reactionary response to the idea of acknowledging the people with whom you disagree. Strange bedfellows to be sure...

"Didn't Rick Warren recently agree with Hannity that we should "take out" assassinate Ahmadinejad?"

Touche, I stand duly corrected. Still think it's a ridiculous analogy.

All this talk of the "left" and "right" doesn't explain Obama's actions, any more than it explains the support for war crimes indictments, because the issues of today do not break down on the same fault lines as they did in the 60s, when the current lines were really drawn.

We're in a time of political flux, on many issues. Why should Obama, or anyone for that matter, wall themselves off from people who would support their agendas but are on "the other side"? Why should he let traditional political lines define him if it means that self-defining "conservatives" will only view him as the enemy, and many will never allow themselves to realize they actually agree with him on some things?

And mostly, in a time of huge national problems, why should he rule out any ally? Rick Warren is not going to be an ally on social issues, obviously, but he has a pretty good record for fighting poverty and global warming. Why should Obama push away a political doorway into an entire sector of the populace on key issues simply because they disagree on other issues?

You of all people should understand this. How many times have you been described as a "liberal blogger" for your posts against torture? The standard political dichotomy is breaking down and being rearranged, you will continue to have trouble trying to shoehorn it into the old definitions.

"I've been saying since the election that it makes little sense to try to guess what Obama is going to do until he actually does it. That's especially true now, since we'll all have the actual evidence very shortly, and trying to speculate by divining the predictive meaning of his appointments or prior statements seems fruitless."

seems odd to read those sentences, and then read on as you take a few sentences from an interview and derive from them everything that obama *will* do.

i don't say this to discourage from advocating your position on the matter, because i agree with your position. however, you can advocate it without coming to grand conclusions based on vague sentences in a single interview. i don't think that's the most constructive, or effective, way to do it.

and based on the sentences i quoted, you probably agree with me.

Mark Halperin is going to blame Obama no matter what happens. It's a foregone conclusion. You might as well point out Rush Limbaugh attacking Obama as if it had anything to do with what Obama actually did or did not do.