So yeah… Rick Warren.

I’ve gone back and forth on Obama’s decision to have Warren give the invocation at his inauguration. On the one hand, it’s just a speech. It has nothing to do with policy. On the other hand… it’s awful, awful symbolism.

Warren will give the invocation at an historic event where millions of people will be watching. This is a man who campaigned for Prop 8, the passage of which was the biggest setback for American gay rights in years. This just rubs salt in a very raw wound.

I think it was a rare tone-deaf decision. And it means one of two things, neither of which makes me feel good. Either Obama didn’t expect the reaction he got because he doesn’t understand what a bitter thing Prop 8 is for gay people, which reflects poorly on his empathy for us; or he did expect the reaction but thought it was worth taking the heat because Warren could be valuable to him in the future.

My guess is a little bit of both.

He didn’t expect the vehemence of the reaction. After all, it’s not a cabinet position — it’s just part of a ceremony. It’s not an enormous news story at a time when people are concerned about the economy and the auto bailot. In fact, when I first read about Warren giving the invocation, it was contained in a New York Times post that gave more prominence to Aretha Franklin’s participation.

And there was politics involved here. We must always remember that Obama is a politician. That’s not a slur against him — it’s just reality. Even FDR, one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, was a politician. He didn’t lift a finger to advance the cause of black civil rights during his presidency because he couldn’t afford to alienate the southern wing of the Democratic party. You work with whom you have to work with in order to accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number of people. By most estimates gay people make up merely 4-6 percent of the American population. The Rick Warren decision makes me incredibly angry because I just happen to be among that 4-6 percent. But it still hurts to feel we’re expendable.

Including a gay marching band in the parade doesn’t really make up for it. Having Rev. Joseph E. Lowery give the closing benediction — he is apparently a friend to gays — helps somewhat, but on the other hand, as the head of the Human Rights Campaign states, “would any inaugural committee say to Jewish Americans, ‘We’re opening with an anti-Semite but closing the program with a rabbi, so don’t worry’?” Would Obama give a similar honor to a pastor who said that black people were inherently dumber than white people?

I admire Obama’s ability to be friends with everyone, to try to understand all points of view, to remain preternaturally calm. But sometimes it’s just too much for me. I don’t think he gets that not everyone can be as zen about everything as he is. Some of us are just human.

In the long run, this might not amount to much. If Obama gets rid of don’t ask/don’t tell; if, somewhere down the line, he works to get federally-recognized civil unions; if he speaks out forcefully for gay rights, rather than just giving us token recognition in one line of a speech — then I might forgive him.

Still — the invocation?

Barack Obama was elected president 38 days ago.

He won’t be inaugurated for another 39 days.

We are not even halfway through the transition period yet. God, this is taking forever.

What is it about a scandal that taints anyone connected to it, whether or not they were even involved?

Perhaps I just worry too much about people giving too much credence to wingnuts on the right. But still.

Look at Whitewater, where even though there was no evidence that Clinton did anything wrong, there was still this whiff around the whole thing, because people thought, well, if all these people are raising questions, there must be something to it.

There seems to be a perception that Obama is tainted by the Blagojevich scandal even though he and his transition team apparently refused to play ball with the governor. I’m trying to figure out why.

The only legitimate question I can think of — given that Obama’s team refused to enter into a deal with Blagojevich — is that if Blagojevich or anyone from his team even tried to play ball with anyone from the Obama team, then should the people on the transition team who were approached by Blagojevich’s team have gone to the U.S. Attorney’s office with the information? Did they? And if they didn’t, did they do something wrong?

Is Obama tainted because he endorsed Blagojevich for re-election two years ago even though there were corruption stories about him?

Look, lots of people during the primary season thought Obama was a gentle, idealistic naif who would be chewed apart by the Republicans. Few people thought he even had a chance of beating Hillary Clinton to the nomination. They were wrong. Obama has always been pragmatic and savvy.

On the other hand, some people thought Obama could walk on water and heal the sick. Obama encouraged this talk by giving amazing speeches and by holding himself to a higher standard, wanting to change the way politics is done.

But to get good things done in politics, sometimes you have to work with bad people. That doesn’t mean you have to make bad deals with them, but sometimes you have to at least work with them. In the last few days, Blagojevich has become radioactive, but he wasn’t two years ago, even if he was already being investigated at that time.

Obama is a politician. A Chicago politician. That doesn’t mean he or anyone on his team did anything wrong. But it does mean that sometimes you have to deal with scum, because the scum is there.