The Rick Warren controversy

There is a lot of buzz surrounding Obama's inauguration invitation to Rick Warren. Many liberals and gay rights activists are shocked at the announcement and have come out to demand Obama take Warren off the list. However, more recently there have been calls in support of Warren.

My view is that President-elect Obama is doing the right thing, politically. He needs a well-known religious figure in his inauguration program to satisfy the conservatives. After all, that's nearly 50% of the voters, and he cannot be effective in his narrative of unity if he distances himself, a self-proclaimed Christian, from the anti-gay marriage crowd. I think E. J. Dionne best describes both men:

One need not be too pious about any of this. Both Warren and Obama are shrewd leaders who sense where the political winds are blowing.

Yet keep in mind that there are folks who oppose gay marriage but support gay rights, such as a civil union. Many have problems with gay activists attempting to redefine the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman. And that is understandable and reasonable. If marriage can be redefined at will by a certain group of people, then what prevents the next proposition of legal marriage to be between say, a man and multiple wives (polygamy)? Or a man and his car? Or a male ape and its mate? Where does it end? That's a point Peter Wehner of Commentary brings up.

Rocker Melissa Etheridge also weighs in on The Huffington Post, starting with:

This is a message for my brothers and sisters who have fought so long and so hard for gay rights and liberty. We have spent a long time climbing up this mountain, looking at the impossible, changing a thousand year-old paradigm. We have asked for the right to love the human of our choice, and to be protected equally under the laws of this great country. The road at times has been so bloody, and so horrible, and so disheartening. From being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina, to hateful crimes committed against us, we are battle weary. We watched as our nation took a step in the right direction, against all odds and elected Barack Obama as our next leader. Then we were jerked back into the last century as we watched our rights taken away by prop 8 in California. Still sore and angry we felt another slap in the face as the man we helped get elected seemingly invited a gay-hater to address the world at his inauguration.

Inspirational, no? But wait a minute -- I thought Bush is being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina? Liberals are starting to confuse even me. She writes an article with sincere emotions, but gays already have the right to love another human of their choice and are protected equally under the laws. Think about it.

Obama and Blagojevich

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is still the governor and can still appoint a replacement senator to fill Obama's seat, unless the state legislature works fast enough to impeach him. The buzz about this whole ordeal, however, is if any of this ties to Obama or his aids?

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly opines that all of this makes the president-elect look better because of his "commitment to ethics reform." But it's a fact that Obama and Blagojevich knew each other, perhaps quite well, as they crossed paths in their political efforts. Obama and Blagojevich and Obama have supported each other politically.

And why doesn't Obama release a statement demanding Gov. Blagojevich's resignation? That's the point Jennifer Rubin of Commentary brings up, and a very good one. Who on the transition team has the Governor's number on speed dial?

McCain suggests postponing debate

The blogosphere is over-analyzing McCain's decision to suspend campaign activities and suggestion to postpone the first presidential debate until Congress and the White House reaches an agreement on the Wall Street rescue plan.

Seriously, what does it matter which date the debate is held? Obama proclaims that the American people deserves to know ASAP how each candidate stands on economic issues, especially pertaining to the Wall Street crisis. Besides inconveniencing the staff at the debate venue (Ole Miss) and the Commission on Presidential Debates, what harm is there in delaying a head-on debate? I'm in agreement with John Podhoretz of Commentary:

This cannot possibly be a major issue. But it is being treated as though it is an unprecedented move, a desperation ploy, a brilliant political stroke, a game-changer, a Hail Mary pass — pick your cliche. Why?

Both McCain and Obama are United States senators. What's wrong with actually doing their job to fly to Washington and be tuned into the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression?

Dissecting Obama's leftism

Joshua Muravchik has a good article on Commentary detailing what Obama believes in from his "voting record" and also his "intellectual evolution."