Broke at Saddleback

I realize Obama cannot be all things to all people. But he’s trying to be. What else is the purpose of pandering to people you say have views that are “entirely contrary to mine”? Abortion is one thing: most sane people can reasonably agree that abortions are unpleasant, and should be rare. We can then come together to thrash out how to keep them rare, without taking away people’s rights to their own bodies. Here, there is “room for dialogue”. On the other hand, where is the room for dialogue with someone, when that someone is equating your entire identity with that of a pedophile or an animal-poker? It’s not that different from garden-variety bigotry; the same bigotry that was marginalized by laws and attitudes that made Obama president-elect.

Accordingly, here is the transcript of an email I wrote to David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager (not that I hold any hopes of it ever being read, but at least I got it off my chest). I was especially pleased to have called Mr Obama’s belief system “mumbo-jumbo”, but kept it polite by saying “thanks”. Thanks for nothing, asshole.

Hi

I am an Obama supporter and contributor.

I understand his statement that there should be "room for dialogue" on abortion, even though I am staunchly pro-choice.

But I do NOT understand how there could possibly be room for dialogue on explicit bigotry towards gays, as Mr Warren has demonstrated with his repeated statements and emails. There are other ways to engage Mr Warren's work on AIDS and poverty. Having him perform the invocation at the inauguration legitimizes his entire work, not just the good parts of it. If Mr Obama must have religious mumbo-jumbo at his inauguration, there are other, more inclusive, priests and denominations.

I am tremendously disappointed by this pandering. I do not intend to contribute any more of my time and money towards Mr Obama's "campaign for change".

Thanks