Rick Warren and Change.gov: The Internet Giveth ... and Taketh Away

If you get your political news online, it's hard to miss the controversy over Rick Warren's planned delivery of the Inaugural Invocation. The progressive community is outraged and one important venue where criticism is being voiced is the transition hub, Change.gov.

A quick glance at the discussion page yields numerous comments like these:

"I'm saddened to hear that Rick Warren will be involved in the official inauguration procedures. We've had eight years of policy made by the greedy, with injustice inflicted on the poor, ill and minorities and justified by right wing religious leaders who divide people into "us" and "them" to gain power and money. "Hope" to me means policy based on science and priorities on human rights and fairness. Warren opposed fair treatment for gays, and his views on abortion and stem cell research are scientifically absurd. We "reality based" Americans worked hard to elect President Obama because we can no longer afford this kind of divisive nonsense. Surely there is a religious leader available who is more in tune with reality and who doesn't use divisive positions that play one citizen off another to build big empires."

"Giving a voice to those who have different opinions IS important. However, Rick Warren is using his voice to take away the rights of others. I am a staunch supporter of women's rights, LGBT rights, and Mr. Obama, but this decision is making me wonder if those three aren't compatible. Is this a sign of things to come?"

"I am profoundly saddened and personally insulted, Mr. Obama, that you have chosen a representative of hate and devisiveness as a participant in your inauguration. The selection of Mr. Warren goes well beyond "reaching out to those who disagree". It represents an endorsement of bigotry, ignorance, and hatred."

"I am so disappointed in the choice of Rev. Warren. I cannot understand why the Obama team would try to justify this selection as an olive branch to conservatives and in the process alienate so many people who helped to put President-elect Obama in office. This is a sad day. This is a slap in the face to LGBT people and all of their supporters like me."

For online political operatives and observers this is a prime example of the truism that the medium can quickly flip from being an asset to a liability (which is a good thing from the perspective of citizen empowerment but often a headache for elected officials, campaigns and organizations).

A commonly referenced example of this is the FISA protest against the Obama campaign, described by Micah Sifry:

The online mini-rising to protest Barack Obama's support for the Congressional compromise to renew the FISA legislation has been getting a lot of attention, with much being made (by us and plenty of others, including Ari Melber in the Nation, The New York Times, et al) that activists are using Obama's own social networking platform, my.BarackObama.com, to organize and channel their efforts to get him to alter his stand. Indeed, as of today the Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right group has swelled to more than 14,000 members, which makes it the single largest self-organized group on the whole platform, which reportedly has close to a million registered members.

This is certainly a good example of what thinkers like Clay Shirky and Mark Pesce have been talking about, when it comes to "ridiculously easy group formation" (qua Shirky) and how "Hyperconnectivity begets hypermimesis begets hyperempowerment" (qua Pesce). But right now the main reason this development is important is NOT because the group itself is that powerful; it's because attention-amplifiers in the blogosphere and the MSM are covering the story and thus threatening some of Obama's hard-won image as a change agent, which could conceivably weaken his vaunted fundraising and organizing machine. So while the Obama campaign is keeping a poker face about the importance of some of its members using the master's tools to challenge his position, it is no doubt paying attention, too.

Although the FISA episode is cited more often than other similar instances, the fact is that managing an Internet program for a campaign or organization is a constant balancing act between the need for message control and the laudable aims of openness and transparency. (I should add that message control and openness are not always in opposition -- but it would be naïve to think that they are always harmonious.)

At the Clinton campaign, my experience with the problem was the huge influx of 'trolls' at HillaryClinton.com in early 2007, a unique challenge that greatly hampered our site-based social-networking capacity -- since we had to moderate the budding community extremely tightly to prohibit offensive content and to prevent the overly scrutinous media from using a stray comment to tarnish Hillary. For example, a death threat against Hillary that showed up on the Obama website received scant press attention. The Obama team deleted it, the Secret Service was notified, and that was the end of it, correctly so. Now imagine the reverse; it's safe to say it would have erupted into a larger story.

Which brings me back to the incredible challenge faced by Obama's Internet team. Not only are they confronted with what I think is an impossible task of maintaining the online momentum generated during the campaign, but now they have to deal with the transition website becoming a sudden rallying point for critics. It speaks well that they aren't using a heavy hand to moderate the outrage on the site. It's also encouraging that across the web, activists see Change.gov as a place to express their views. Bloggers have been sending readers there to tell the transition team how they feel about Warren's selection.

For me, this is the raw power of the medium, the ability to communicate and aggregate at will, massively and instantaneously. It's not the YouTube addresses and the capacity to ask questions and receive boilerplate policy answers that will mark Obama's as the first truly wired presidency, it's the freedom to speak out on a global scale, both in support of -- and in opposition to -- the incoming administration. Kudos to Obama's team for providing an official platform for that to happen.

Comments

[DontSpin]

I encourage you guys to read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/on-abortion-pro-choice-is_b_152744.html

[ramsha]

Rick Warren is a "holier than thou" phony like most other religious purveyors. Do we need these controversial pastors and other religious zealots for the invocation on the inauguration day when it is very easy to find somebody less divisive? OB says he is inviting RW because RW invited him to speak in his church two years ago. Is this a good enough reason, to invite him to address the whole nation now? Our country is based on secular principles where the religion is expected to be kept out of the government. OB should invite RW to his church to address the congregation if he desires some payback. I hope OB will reconsider this issue.

[CindyV]

Obama is not about change. For the LGBT community it's the same old, same old.

[DogTown]

OBAMA KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING...GIVE IT A REST!

[artsandminds]

tell that to the gay man who was killed last week in New York. You rest, those who care about civil rights for all, get busy.

[mlcastle]

you mean the straight man who was killed last week in new york merely because he was perceived to be gay and latino?

ending hate doesn't even just benefit gay people.

[FearlessFreep]

We'll have to hope he knows what he's doing, because he's acting he doesn't.

[Vurz]

Warren lied about McCain being in seclusion. Warren softballed the questions to McCain while phrasing the questions to Obama in a confrontational manner, but stated thta he treated both candidates equally.

Whatever your feeling on homosexuality, it isn't mentioned in the 10 commandments. Lying is.

Too bad Obama couldn't pick a real Christian for the invocation.

[jssmith4]

The transition web page has disabled further comment on change.com.

[drizzt396]

...and that's when I quit caring about any of the supposed "changes" Obama's going to bring.

[kissnahug]

I wonder how many people who are bashing on Rick Warren really took the time to understand his position. He is not opposed to gays having equal rights or having a civil union, he just doesn't want it to be called Marriage. In the bible, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. He doesn't care if two gay people have all the same benefits as a married person. Marriage is a word that came from Christianity and he does not want to change the definition of the word. Just as much as Chrisians wouldn't want you to change the definition of Communion to mean that you can must now include vodka as an option alongside the wine. While you all don't agree with Christianity, I would think that you would respect how they define their religion.

Gays are fighting the wrong battle. Don't fight for the name, fight for the benfits. It will be the same thing, but just in a different package. Do you really care of your christmas gift is wrapped in green paper wrapping vs. red paper wrapping. That's all Rick Warren is trying to say.

He is not a gay hater, and he cares about your rights. I don't see anything wrong with that and I, an Obama voter, am honored to have him give the invocation. Gays make up 2% of this population and they, alone, did NOT make Obama president.

[RLForsythe]

With all due respect, Kissnahug, go to the website of Rick Warren's church. You will find that it is his church's policy, and it's HIS church (not Catholic, or Presbyterian, or Baptist; it's HIS church) that unless one is "repentant" of one's homosexualty you cannot be a member of his church,you cannot join, you cannot belong. Periiod.
And, his church supports programs and gives money to organizations that try to "cure" people of their homosexuality. So, you see, Rick Warren IS opposed to homosexuals, far beyond from his position on "marriage" vs. "civil unions."

[mjc]

How marriage is defined in the Bible is not important actually. What is important is how it is defined in law. Interesting that the dictionary has a definition of MARRIAGE as a relationship between a man and a woman but the verb MARRY as 'to take as husband or wife', to 'take as in marriage, and 'two people who wish to be husband and wife, as in wedlock'. The verb does not specify gender. CIVIL UNION is not seen by most institutions in our society as the same as marriage and the rights and privileges of married individuals are greater than those who are or might be in civil union. It's not a matter of the color of the wrapping. BTW, wine is NOT the only liquid used in the rite of communion; ask any Baptist. That's an interesting definition also and perhaps you should look it up. And although I was not an Obama voter, I am very, very disappointed that Obama chose such a bigoted preacher to give the invocation; had hoped for better from him

[CatladyLinda]

How can you think that Rick Warren does not hate gay people when he said in an interview that they are the same as people who commit incest or who sexually abuse children. Following that logic, he believes that gay people who engage in a loving relationship with each other are commiting a depraved crime and should be incarcerated for it. Now before you start quoting the Bible about how homosexuality is an abomination, please go watch this short video clip from an old episode of The West Wing. It should enlighten you and bring you into the 21st century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ

[SolarPowerGuy]

The Christian bible is a religious book, not a dictionary.

I think we can all agree that, before there was Christianity, there were marriages. Marriages are not merely of religious significance: they also have legal and emotional significance.

The people who revere that particular religious text may be able to to lay a special claim to defining such terms as "transubstantiate" and "Holy Trinity" -- but not "marriage."

[ChrisR]

Man oh man , Barrack just can't seem to pick the proper religious folks, eh? He's successfully pyssed off both sides - I am truly impressed. Really.
Perhaps the issue is, whether it's Wright or Warren, these are folks who believe there's an old man who lives in the sky and personally determines who's been naughty or nice. Never mind that their religious symbol is a chunk of wood which they nailed someone on to die.
So who cares?
Religion supported slavery. Religion supported inquisitions. Religion supported wars. These same religions then eventually grow up and change those attitudes (most times), so give this guy a chance to grow as well.
That's what Barrack's saying.

[Tom Payned]

FiSA, Lieberman, now Warren. BIG DISAPPOINTMENT.

Not surprised, however, just no longer a fan. As I said once Lieberman was given a pass, don't contact me anymore for donations. Contact your new buddies' supporters and ask for their help.

I'm still out.

[ThatOne4Me]

Sign, I'm almost there Tom.

[Kartoffel]

Obama supporters are becoming serial excuse-makers.

[Sinclair]

How about Obama and his team of George W. Bush-like incompetent bigots invite an openly gay or lesbian minister to replace Warren. Someone like the Reverend Elder Nancy Wilson from the Metropolitan Community Church or Bishop Gene Robinson from the American Episcopal Church?

[mjc]

Excellent choices IMO!

[Winthorpe]

1) I do not agree with Warren on much.

2) I am waiting for Hilary Rosen to tell us which clergy person everyone would like. On CNN, she suggested that such a person exists.

3) Hilary Rosen is gay? I never saw that one coming.

4) I support the decision to reach out to Americans from throughout the political spectrum.

5) This is not a gay America; this is not a straight America. This is the United States of America.

[antaeus]

False argument. There is no "perfect" all-appealing pastor. The actual point is that the Prop 8 election was only one month ago, and Warren played a key role in that stripping of court-granted rights. This is too soon, and it's an undeniable insult to gays and lesbians. This was an unforced error

[sedum]

Isn't United States of America a misnomer?

[Jezreel]

This is an excellent article. It gives voice to my concern about the Obama Web sites. We saw during the primaries that they can very easily become 2 edged swords. I was hoping that the change.gov site would be monitored and to avoid its use as a parking lot for anti-Obama protests by either the extreme left or right. I hope our new President will find a way to minimize the inappropriate use of the site really soon.

[bbrecht]

Why suppress dialogue? I know that the internet isn't exactly the best place for civil conversation most of the time, but our lack of dialogue is part of the problem in this country. I think its great that Obama is open to criticism. This is one of his strong points.

[martinspringfield]

"Civil" conversation is overrated. And what passes for it in the USA is actually just media-filtered conversation, wherein Rush and Joe and Ann can say whatever they please.

If not for the uncivil discourse of Thomas Paine we'd all still be British wankers.

[drizzt396]

Since when is disagreeing with a candidate you support, and letting someone affiliated with said candidate know that you disagree, inappropriate? You should wake up to the fact that eventually (many years down the road) advancements network technology will create a new 'virtual' democracy, wherein much like in Athens we can have a full democracy, not just a representative republic. We will no longer elect leaders, we will decide the policies of the nation as one nation. And those of us that are using the voice granted to us by the candidate we support to let him know that we disagree are just hastening the process. You should be thanking us, not praying that Obama can 'shut up all this dissent'.

There's a difference between hate and dialogue.

[allonfla]

The Obama team is loving this. This is exactly what they wanted. Do you think they didn't expect this to happen at some point or at several points? If you think this is a problem for Obama, you don't know him at all. You guys are getting engaged in the process and then when you come down from your tower and stop the screaming - he'll have all of your e-mails.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Here's why I'm not a big fan of Rickie Warren: Warren called the Terry Schiavo case "an atrocity worthy of Nazism," even though an autopsy of the poor woman showed that she had close to zero brain function because her brain had become liquified. Warren was a huge and vocal supporter of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative. In 2004, he sent letters to 150,000 of his fellow pastors urging them to cast their votes (and implore their flocks to cast their votes) for George W. Bush. He might hold the all-time record for collecting cash at a religious service: $7 million in one Sunday. He has a behemoth Southern California church in the form of Saddleback: 120-acre campus, three-hundred employees, and sixty franchise churches. Pastor Rick is James Dobson-Lite. He's among the most retrograde Southern Baptist Biblical literalists who believes David really did slay Goliath with a slingshot and other children's stories from the Bible. He has ministered to George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Rupert Murdoch -- and now, Barack Obama.

[Bagger]

But I don't think the guy is evil. I honestly believe Rick Warren is a good person. The most important thing Obama and Warren agree upon is their belief in Christianity. If Warren were appointed to a cabinet I would be angry but the guy is giving a prayer. Whoop dee do. It's not like Obama is appointing him to the Supreme Courth.

[idabamaho]

You can't be a "good person" when you work to strip the rights of others.

[pokemon]

I really believe that Obama is more calculating then people think. If the "right" thinks they have his ear, be it that he listens or not, they feel more ownership towards this president then we thought about Bush. He is engaging all Americans, and no matter what he does someone is going to be feeling the anger.

We can like or dislike what he does, but for one until proven otherwise (and I am a fairly good judge of people) I will do something I rarely do.. and that is trust a politician by trusting OBAMA. I am watching these moves, like a game of chess or poker he is thinking steps ahead of others. If you really stop, write this stuff down, it begins to make. sense if you really believe we finally have a president that wants to be everyones president. I think in Obamas eyes he did not win the presidency.. he lost 47% of the votes. He has to get those votes, and win the country's confidence.

[partyofone]

And as much as you and I may disagree with Rick Warren and his millions of followers, they are Americqn ctiizens who participate in a democracy.

Obama promised to be president of the entire United States. He is Rick Warren's president too. Some how the "us and them" "with me or my enemy" mentality in politcs and society has got to end. It has dominated Bush-Clinton politics for 25 years.

Among evangelicals, Rick Warren is not the extreme right. If Obama can find ways to bring evangelical leaders and their legions into a coalition on some issues and solutions, not all, he will accomplish a great deal for this national and ALL of its ctizens. I believce in Obama and his leadership. I disagree strongly with some of his decisions (like Hillary as SoS), but I want him to succeed and will be patient.

[Kartoffel]

For anyone who hasn't figured it out yet, getting Warren on board is another indicator that Obama is already campaigning for reelection. Warren is a powerful fundraiser who has the ear of millions of followers. He is a political force. Don't believe for one minute that Obama won't continue to cultivate Warren. If you have political clout, Obama will kowtow to you. If you don't, he won't. The leftist blogosphere only has major clout in the Democratic nomination process, but incumbent presidents don't have to worry about nomination fights. Ergo, people like Warren have Obama's ear, and orgs like HuffPost and Kos don't. You have outlived your usefulness to Obama, but Warren has not.

[Simone]

It appears you are correct.

[ThatOne4Me]

Howard Dean out Rick Warren in. Nice pay back to the people who had your back in the first place.

[drizzt396]

Perhaps the "most liberal voting record in the senate" lie was believed by too many around here. Obama's a centrist politician in a right-leaning state (internationally). On an international scale, he's both more authoritarian than not and more fiscally conservative than not. I would argue that most of the people that surf this website are less authoritarian then most and more left-leaning economically (internationally). So considering that we're in the opposite quadrant of the political spectrum from him (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008), it's not surprising that we aren't finding much to be happy with in his appointments. Maybe we should've used our "major clout in the Democratic nomination process" to get someone more aligned with us ideologically, like Denny Q, elected.