Also, I think I agree that "we need to look forward."

Good political move on Obama's part, and good post.

There are a lot of different reasons to support Israel. First of all, from the perspective of the United States, they are our strongest ally. That means they often support our actions, and they have one of the strongest armed forces in the world. That is probably one of the main reasons you see the right supporting Israel so much.

For me its much more personal. As a Jewish person, Israel symbolizes my safety in the world. I understand why that might not sound convincing to someone who is not Jewish, but it really makes a lot of sense to Jews. It has been only sixty years since the Holocaust. In the past, Jews have gone much longer without being targets of violence. It would be a mistake to assume that Jews will not be targeted again in the future only because they are accepted in most western nations now. So Israel, the tiny sliver in the middle east, is a place that Jews can flee to safety if something like that happens again.

So whether or not you think those answers are convincing is your own choice. But they are very powerful to me and are the basis for why I will always support Israel's existence.

But, of course, that does not mean excusing all of their actions. In cases like what is happening in Gaza now, that is nearly impossible to do.

I am a little surprised, though, by how many people on this site have been extremely against the idea of liberals criticizing Obama. Granted, you are all right that the invocation really is not much of a big deal. But I've been hearing a rebellion against any comment that hints at Obama criticism.

Generally, I think that Obama's decisions have been very good since he was elected. But we should be comfortable criticizing this President-elect who we have rallied behind for so many months if we think he falters. In the wake of Prop 8, choosing Warren to give the invocation was insensitive to the gay and pro-gay community. As I've said above, there are many popular Christian ministers without the anti-gay rhetoric who could also bring Christians into the fold (and I mean that both because of the political opportunity and the genuine desire for inclusion).

From above: "when it comes down to it, the Warren choice means nothing."

The reason that I had a more visceral reaction to Warren than Jones or Gates is because I find some of his past comments extremely offensive and I think that Barack Obama could have easily found another minister with clout in the Christian community to give the invocation. This would have had similar political benefits.

But there were clear political benefits to picking Gates and Jones that might not have been fulfilled by other appointments.

Once again, thanks for the insightful question.

You're right, in the grand scheme of things, the choice of who gives the invocation is close-to-meaningless. But Barack Obama could have gone out of his way to find a minister with serious clout in the Christian community who does not have an anti-gay, anti-abortion history.