Say it ain't so...

The New York Times reports that Barack Obama is defending his choice of Rick Warren as a keynote speaker at his inauguration : "But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to 'come together,' even when there's disagreement on social issues. 'That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about,' he said."

Should Obama also invite David Duke to speak so that he can "come together" with white supremacists? Or should have L. B. Johnson felt the need to have noted segregationists speak at an inauguration (hypothetically speaking)?

I find this exceptionally disappointing. I understand the need to bring people together, but there must be limits to the bigotry that you include, and including a man who took an active role in stripping the benign rights away from citizens based on a myopic view of morality clearly crosses this line. Yes, I believe Obama should continue to engage Evangelicals in an open and respectful dialog, but I think it is rather obscene to give Warren the cache and acceptance that an inaugural address grants.

SAT Analogy

Barack Obama in March – “What exactly is this foreign policy expertise? Was [Hilary Clinton] negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”: Barack Obama in December “[Hilary Clinton] is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in every capital…”

Me in March – “I sure hope this change motif is real.” : ?

A. Me in December - “Gosh, this change seems very much like something I’ve seen before.”

B. Me in December - “Thank god change is here. All that two-faced politicking was getting old.”

C. Me in December - “I wonder if this means McCain is really qualified for the office?”

D. Me in December - “I need another beer.”

Prediction

Election day prediction: the candidate that spent the most money will win (again).