The other day, Huffington Post blogger David Quigg posted his thoughts on Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. He titled his opinion-piece What Would Obama Do If Obama Was Mad At Obama About Rick Warren?
To buttress his argument, Quigg suggests that Warren’s slurs against gays are equivalent to Hillary Clinton’s criticisms of Obama during the Democratic primary:
“There are sensible people who look at Warren and see a man who belittled their marriages, lied about the perils California faced if it didn't pass Proposition 8, and -- in helping get gay marriage repealed -- thwarted their deepest aspirations for equality. Imagine that there was someone who'd belittled Obama, lied about him, and tried to thwart his most high-stakes aspirations. Would Obama invite that person to lead a prayer at the inauguration? The answer is no. Absolutely not. Because the Secretary of State doesn't lead inaugural prayers.”
Of course, Quigg fails to mention that throughout the Democratic primary, the Obama team used every despicable, underhanded weapon in its arsenal to smear both Hillary and Bill Clinton as racists even though the Clintons’ record on human rights throughout their years in public service has been impeccable.
If you go to YouTube and watch videos of the debates in the primary, you’ll notice that Obama questioned Hillary Clinton’s integrity at every opportunity.
And let me say it for the 100th time: Obama's national co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s sexist tirade against Clinton the day after her New Hampshire win remains one of the most egregious attacks on another candidate in modern history.
In yet another illogical attempt to defend Obama’s selection of Warren to pray at his inauguration, Quigg pulls a quote from The Audacity of Hope, "Megachurch pastors like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influence to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur."
So because Saddleback Church supports several worthy causes, Pastor Warren should not be accountable for his attacks on gays, Jews, and those who support reproductive rights for women?
This is the flawed reasoning writ large of the battered woman who stays with her abusive spouse because he occasionally does something nice for her.
It bears repeating: the Rick Warren controversy demonstrates that in the age of Obama, bigotry is acceptable against every group in our culture accept straight African-American males.
Welcome to Katalusis for progressive views on politics, religion, environmental issues, and popular culture. (Photo of the Mississippi River from the University Club in St. Paul, MN.)
Flawed reasoning? There is no reasoning. These people are totally demented. I don't know whether CDS has fried their last brain cell, or whether they had any to begin with however, they are truly sad excuses for humans. Unfortunately, there is money to be made in CDS. I wonder what they will do when they don't have the Clintons to kick around...who will they single out for their repressive, malignant attention?
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment on this latest absurd attack on Hillary Clinton.
Virginia, i have been visiting on and off for a long time. I am anonymous of the previous comment. I still wonder who these people will find to vilify once the Clintons are out of their reach, because it seems that a certain segment of society needs to villify another sequement in order to feel worthwhile. My question stands, who will be the butt of their malignance once the Clintons decide that this country is not worth the pain.
ReplyDeleteAll that aside, I enjoy your blog. I don't visit every day, however, I appreciate your viewpoint. Well done!
HT, previously known as anonymous
Hi HT,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words!
You pose an excellent question, but I fear we're dealing with irrational behavior, even among the most prominent supposedly liberal commentators. It's really odd. Occasionally, one of Obama's fawning groupies at the NY Times or Washington Post will finally get his or her eyes opened and offer some legitimate criticism of the One, but invariably the writer takes a seemingly obligatory swipe at Hillary. Frank Rich at the NY Times did exactly that the other day. Do they feel guilty for criticizing Obama and attack Hillary in some insane attempt to even the score? Or maybe they don't want to admit they've been taken for a ride by the smooth-talking, charismatic Chicago politician?
I know - it's bizarre.
It must be hard for them to swallow that Hillary was just voted America's most admired woman for the seventh consecutive year!!
I've often said that the single thing that motivates people to violence is the desire to be heard. "Listen to me!" is cried in just about every human conflict from domestic abuse to small claims court to major world wars. Some think a need to be right, and recognized as such, is most important, but I firmly believe most people don't care about that nearly as much as they do about being heard out. Unfortunately, the internet affords these people the opportunity to make their cases, rational or not. Fortunately, we can ignore them when they're stupid.
ReplyDeleteObots used the same "he helps poor people" argument about Rev. Wright, too, and we know how far that got them.
Well said, Cinie. It's just unbelievable how frequently that tired excuse appears in defense of those who abuse others.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger, and Susan Thistlethwaite, then president of the Chicago Seminary and member of Trinity UCC, felt that Trinity's "good works" entitled them to trash Hillary Clinton from the pulpit or in WaPo's On Faith Blog. It never once occurred to them that they might be abusing their offices.
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comments.