But I’m sure you already knew that’s how the game is played.

It’s not a question of patronage – I hardly expect Obama to do anything for me specifically. But Obama ran on a platform that may be more progressive than how he looks like he will govern. The country chose that platform, but, as always, not the whole country did, just a majority of those that voted. So is Obama’s responsibility to average out his platform with that of the losing candidate so as to get a good representational sense of the electorate as a whole (after all, close to half either voted for that other platform, believed he was sympathetic to radicals, were racist, or had some other reason for not voting for him)? Has any President ever been expected to do this?

There are real conflicts here that Obama seems to think he can paper over. The liberals believe everyone should have affordable quality health care. The conservatives believe no one should be compelled to pay for anyone else’s health care. You can compromise between those positions – in fact, what we have now and anything we are likely to get are compromises. But the compromises come from finding the limits of negotiating power, not from finding “common ground”. Of the latter, there is none, as there are different moral theories behind the two positions, and a victory for one will be a loss for the other.

not just the slightly over half of the country that voted Democrat

I would read that “you” as addressing America, not just the slightly over half of the country that voted Democrat; doing otherwise would be Bush-type bs. American presidents represent the entire country, like it or not.

I, for instance, voted for Obama because I expect his administration to be both more competent and more in line with my own ideals than McCain’s would have been (we shall see how the reality plays out). I do not, however, think he owes me patronage. What he owes the country is the effort to do the job to the best of his ability.

I would be willing to bet lots and lots of money against his “enacting all the same policies as GWB.” That’s not gonna happen. That there may be some overlap is possible. But “all the same policies”? No.

If instead, we on the left whine too much…

I’m sorry, I really can’t be polite about this. Defending a prominent Inauguration role for a hateful bigot like Warren is simply inexcusable, as was Obama’s inexplicable choice of him in the first place,

I’m glad that a significant number of Christians are so muddled in their beliefs that they will charitably disregard one of their religion’s core tenants and allow us heathens to enter a place that doesn’t exist. However, I don’t see how this is evidence that there are fewer “dimbulbs” than I might think. After all, the survey also revealed this interesting tidbit:

“According to Pew’s August survey, only 39 percent of Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God…”

Only? That’s like saying that only 39 percent believe that the Apollo moon landing was an elaborate hoax filmed on a Hollywood sound stage. To me that is evidence that there are far more dimbulbs than I would expect in the 21st century.

The point is that there are plenty of reasonable, decent Christians (most of whom happen to also be politically somewhere near Obama), and Warren isn’t one of them. His conservatism isn’t just a matter of abstract philosophical differences, either – it’s outright hatred for substantial numbers of people who thought Obama was on the side of defending them against that kind of unjust bigotry (and, indeed, defending the victims of unjust bigotry in general).

Nobody would have raised all this ruckus over Jim Wallis being invited to pray, even though he’s just as Christian as Warren is. That’s because while Wallis is a devoted Christian, he’s not a bigot and (at least usually) not an asshole.

(It’s true that I’d prefer a president who prayed in private if he was going to pray at all, rather than one who makes prayer a public spectacle, let alone privileging one particular religion and giving the cold shoulder to others. But that’s not entirely, or even mostly, what opposition to Warren is about.)

Can’t say whether they are needed, but there’s certainly no inherent contraction between creationists and populist Democrats. That was the political alignment for many, many decades. And, of course, you all have plenty of ‘those people’ in your tent already—albeit with a different skin tone. African Americans are more likely than Americans as a whole to accept creationism and oppose gay marriage. When it comes to evolution and gay rights, there’s really little difference between Rick Warren’s flock and the average African American congregation.

He has spoken out against the use of torture to combat terrorism. He has joined the fight against global warming and, encouraged by his wife, has put his prestige and money behind helping people with AIDS. The Warrens have done so at a time when a notable number of conservative Christians still consider the virus a punishment from God.

Und so weiter. Your mileage may vary. I see no reason to get one’s knickers in a twist or your panty in a wad, above and beyond the idea that there is going to be both an invocation and a benediction at the inauguration. I’d be beyond thrilled if Obama would return to the revolutionary practice of pronouncing the oath of office exactly as given in the Constitution , without the contemporarily customary embellishment of “so help me God.”