My take on President Obama's first speech, first posted at MotherJones.com....

With over a million exhilarated Americans filling the space between the civic shrines of the Capitol and the Washington Monument on the National Mall, President Barack Obama, in the first American inaugural address delivered by a black man, acknowledged the enthusiasm and hope he and his victory have inspired, but his speech was not overly celebratory. Instead, he attempted to guide the nation into what promises, due to circumstances heretofore beyond his control, to be a somber time and a trying presidency.

Underneath clear skies on a crisp, slightly-colder-than-usual day, the 44th president began, "I stand here today humbled by the task before us." He noted that he had just become one of the few presidents who takes office "amidst gathering clouds and raging storms." He outlined the obvious problems his administration faces: war, a weak economy (partly due to the "greed and irresponsibility" of "some"), job losses, businesses closed, homes lost, a broken health care system, and failing schools.

Vowing to meet these daunting challenges, the new president offered not policy details but, yes, hope. He praised the unsung workers (including slaves) of America's past, "obscure in their labor," who built this country. But, he added, the current challenges "will not be met easily or in a short span of time." He maintained that Americans "must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America." And that renewal, he said, would demand "bold and swift" action, including the building of roads and bridges, electric grids and digital lines. It also would entail reforming health care, developing alternative energy, and revitalizing schools. He acknowledged this is a big job.

Obama portrayed his response to the moment at hand as ideology-free: "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them--that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works--whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Obama can try to depict his agenda as post-ideological, but these words do convey the opposite sentiment of Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." And Obama did challenge another fundamental precept of conservatism when he noted that the free market cannot always be trusted: "without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control." This was a speech of progressive notions--without explicitly championing them.

Will it never end?

I'm referring to the seemingly endless stream of parties, receptions, and events that have been transpiring in Washington since last week to mark the inauguration of Barack Obama. For those of you not in Washington, the past few days have been like a combo of Mardi Gras, Times Square (on New Year's Eve), and post-World Series victory partying. And it's both low-end and high-end. Town cars dart about the city. (Cabbies have asked to be hired out a $700 a day.) The politerati chatter about which hotspot is the hottest. Maureen Dowd's Sunday night bash was a maxed-out mash-up of Hollywood and Washington: David Geffen, Chris Matthews, Ron Howard, Howard Kurtz, Larry David, Tom Brokaw, Tom Hanks, Brian Williams, George Lucas, Andrew Sullivan. Wait--scratch Hanks. He couldn't get in the door. The house was so packed it became physically impossible to enter.

Gwen Ifill's book party. (Great crab cakes!). Al Gore's environmental ball (a hot ticket). Jamie Foxx at Norman Lear's Declare Yourself party. Oprah at The Root's ball. (What did she wear? I missed her by minutes.) And out on the streets of DC, there are people strolling about, looking happy--damn happy. On Saturday, folks were just hanging on the Mall, looking to catch the spirit. On Sunday, hundreds of thousands hoofed it to the Lincoln Memorial to see Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, U2 and others celebrate America and--let's face it--Barack Obama.

It's all been a blast--even if exhausting. The Lincoln Memorial show had its poignant and signficant moments.

But what's a bit odd is that all this excitement and celebrating is occurring at a time of...well, desperation. The economy is in the tank, and two wars are ongoing. I'm not suggesting that people should be moping at home in the dark. Obama's election is historic and we can hope (!) it will be consequential in the best sense. Yet come Wednesday, the parties will matter little. And the new president--and the entire nation--will be faced with one long horizontal to-do list. Despite the glitz of recent days, Obama's fundamental job is to clean up one helluva mess left behind by...oh, what's-his-name?

'Tis the season, so....

I was on Rachel Maddow's show on Friday night, discussing the Rick Warren wrangle. What a surprise, we agreed--mostly. But she seemed to think that the Warren controversy could remain the story of the inauguration from now until January 20. I noted that it was clear to me that the Obama crew had calculated that the current dustup is not nearly as big as the holy war that would ensue should the president-elect rescind his invitation to the super-pastor. Unless the present outrage widens, I observed, the controversy could fade.

But before it does, I'd like to take one more (polite) shot at Warren. I do find him an intriguing fundamentalist, given his interest in climate change and poverty alleviation. And he has certainly tried to oppose gay marriage without appearing like a hate-monger. I suppose that's worth something. But while campaigning fervently against gay marriage, he recently said:

The issue to me is, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Warren's critics have pointed to this quote as evidence that he equates gays and lesbians with incest-lovers and pedophiles. (Indeed, when asked if he thought these other examples are "equivalent to having gays getting married," he said, "Oh, I do.") But I'd like to note Warren's adherence to this 5000-year definition of marriage.

Why doesn't Warren know his Bible better?

I'm no biblical scholar. But I can use Google. And I found BibleGateway.com, a searchable version of the Bible. I plugged "wives" into the search box and came up with the following results:

A week and a half ago, I published an article in the Washington Post in which I reviewed the reasons for progressives to be concerned about Barack Obama's first rounds of appointments (Clinton, Gates, Summers, etc.) and noted that the president-elect seemed to be pursuing a change-by-cooption strategy. He was, I speculated, recruiting centrists and conventional members of the Establishment to advance a left-of-center policy agenda.

That might still be the case. But what to make of Obama's decision to hand over a slice of his inauguration to Rick Warren, the best-selling evangelical leader?

Warren is not your father's fundamentalist. He has talked much about addressing climate change, poverty, and AIDS. But he does share with his fellow fundamentalists a passionate aversion to homosexuality and gay rights (and, of course, opposes abortion). He has fiercely opposed gay marriage. According to People for the American Way, he has compared homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. (Warren also has said that nonbelievers are indeed going straight to H-E-double hockey sticks.) It's no surprise that some progressives are mighty ticked off.

They have a right to be.