Pissing Off Everyone

I wonder if Obama is doing something right – not because some groups of people are happy with his choices so far, but because, it appears, that he has succeeded in pissing off just about everyone. What this means to me is that Obama is more concerned with doing what he believes is best for the country and less concerned with poll numbers or any particular interest group.

Continue reading, after the jump, to find out who Obama has pissed off today.

This is different than President Bush’s arrogance and his ‘fuck you’ attitude towards the world. Bush is concerned with an interest group; Big Business and those interested in making money at the expense of everyone else. I have yet to see evidence of Obama being beholden to the big moneyed crew who have ruled, or attempted to rule, this country for the last century or more.

It is time, once again, to break up monopolies and put big business in their place – I think that the Obama Administration will do this. I just have to be patient and wait for the poor guy to be sworn in before I start inundating his Administration with my expectations.

Expectations are part of Obama’s current problem. The Left would like him to deliver on campaign promises that he made (or campaign promises that we projected onto him) and the Right is waiting for him to implement some drastic Left-Wing-Agenda. He is doing neither. He has not yet been sworn in and he is, by far, more popular, interesting and followed that than the Still-President, Bush.

Obama has succeeded in pissing off the press.

Obama has been given an ‘F’ on his transition transparency.

Of course there is the whole Blagojevich scandal, which numerous people and interest groups are using as examples of “things that Obama has done wrong.”

Obama has even succeeded in causing controversy between those of us who do not exercise religiously and the obsessive health junkies.

The big conflict of the month, however, is inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration.

Frank Rich wrote a scathing editorial yesterday, the highlights of his slam are below.

"But for the first time a faint tinge of Bush crept into my Obama reveries this month."

...

"Bestowing this honor on Warren was a conscious — and glib — decision by Obama to spend political capital. It was made with the certitude that a leader with a mandate can do no wrong."

...

"Equally lame is the argument mounted by an Obama spokeswoman, Linda Douglass, who talks of how Warren has fought for “people who have H.I.V./AIDS.” Shouldn’t that be the default position of any religious leader? Fighting AIDS is not a get-out-of-homophobia-free card."

While I absolutely agree with Rich, that fighting for people who have H.I.V./AIDS is not a substitute for tolerance and love of all people – and while I agree with Rich that Obama should not have invited Warren to begin with - I do not believe, necessarily, that Obama made the decision glibly or that there is “a tinge of Bush” in his actions. After all, Obama succeeded in pissing off the Religious Right at the same time.

Also from Rich’s opinion is this statement, highlighting the anger that the Fundies have over Obama’s invitation and Warren’s acceptance of it. Nothing shows “Christ’s Love in Action” like a bunch of anger-filled emails rabidly flowing into CBN.

There is comparable anger and fear on the right. David Brody, a political correspondent with the Christian Broadcasting Network, was flooded with emails from religious conservatives chastising Warren for accepting the invitation to the inaugural. They vilified Obama as “pro-death” and worse because of his support for abortion rights.

Angering the Fundies is not, in itself, a free pass for Obama. I, personally, would have preferred that he had never invited Warren. I actually do not even really like the whole “invocation” thing at my President’s inaugural. If they must have a preacher there, for "tradition" or whatever, I personally would like it to be a non-denominational woman preacher…but that is just me.

I think that Obama’s intention in inviting Warren was to neutralize the Christian Right. I do not think that he did it as an intentional slight to the LGBT community. However, Obama has tremendously thin ice to skate on with those of us who support equal rights regardless of sexual identity, orientation or parts…I hope that he does not fall through it before he even takes the oath of office.

For now, though, I am reserving judgment until I see actual policy. It is not that symbolism isn’t important to me – it is. It is just that policy has the real impact. In addition, I am having a little bit of fun watching Obama do his thing and watching everyone get uptight.

When I compare the disaster that is the Still President Bush Administration (and the horrible last minute policy and law changes that he is implementing – with almost no scrutiny from the media,) - I am heartily warmed by the tiny (by comparison) problems coming from Obama.