The XX Factor: What women really think.

Wishing for Wallis

But Sara, aren't there ways Obama can create that dialogue without selling out his own beliefs?  Picking Warren might make conservative evangelicals smile more kindly on Obama, but that choice also allows them to stay in a gay rights echo chamber, an inverted version of the liberal one you (and I) have put ourselves in. Instead, for instance, Obama could have asked Jim Wallis, the progressive evangelical who's a longtime friend, to bless his presidency. Wallis' work is mostly concerned with the plight of the poor. During his campaign to redirect religious-political dialogue away from social issues, he's in fact ended up saying some very interesting things about social issues. Like Obama, for instance, he's in favor of civil unions but not gay marriage. (Wallis: "I want churches that disagree on this to have a biblical, theological conversation and to live with their differences and not spend 90 percent of their denominational time arguing about this issue when 30,000 children are dying every single day because of poverty and disease.") People on both the left and the right recognize aspects of their beliefs in Wallis' work, but most probably also have serious disagreements with some of his teachings-isn't that sort of seductive nuance where dialogue starts?

Dahlia's absolutely correct to draw a distinction between public acts and private worship, but Obama's made it elegantly clear in the past that his religion and values shape the decisions he makes in public life. And, writer-in-chief that he is, he is acutely aware of the value of symbolism. That's precisely why this choice is so disappointing, because it means that he's given up a shot at intellectual honesty. He's not as far left on gay rights as I'd like him to be, but he could have publicized someone like Wallis who articulates the religious argument for his own position, in all its shades of gray.