I think the criticism of Obama is woefully shortsighted.

I have watched this debate rage for hours now and have concluded that this is a tempest in a tea kettle. If Obama caved on the issue it would be viewed as pandering to the GLBT community. Having the rally opened by a Gay minister while playing well the the gay community does not mollify the somewhat legitimate concerns that were raised and will certainly raise eyebrows in the evangelical circles he is trying to reach out to more broadly.

At the same time, I think the "demands" of the GLBT community that Obama dance to their tune is in some respects disenginuous and in others somewhat self-indulgent.

The guy is not playing a big role in the rally. He probably was not going to ever talk about what he believed, Obama clearly does not agree with him and probably had little if any thing to do with the selectionin the first place.

BVute here is the real issue. Obama is in second place nationally, and if he does not win in SOuth Carolina...the nomination is probably going to be Hillary's. Dissing the man for having someone you disagree with on a program when he is simply trying to finish first in a pivotal state, when the consequeces of a loss probably translates into a loss for the democrats in November, may be "righteous indignation" but is woefully shortsighted.

Can we stop with the histrionics already?

statements, but, it's you, and it's DU.

"self-indulgent"?

"pandering to the GLBT community"?

You really, really have some nerve...

Then why won't Obama cut him from the fund raising Gospel Tour?
What signal is Obama sending to the bigots who support that person?

only Obama is to be excoriated.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

at the arguments people think will actually help their cause. Every day I see stupidity and am surprised. I should be used to it, but every day, someone comes up with a new and improved way to surprise me.

Jeebus H friggin fitzmas on a trailer hitch, when did "histrionics" become the new "N-word"?

I can see how you'd prefer Obama pander to the evangelist community than "pander to the LGBT community". After all, it would be better for him to lose 80% of our votes to gain even 20% of theirs.

Signed,
Atheist Lesbian

but the GBLT community demanding that he do so probably meant that he couldn't. Ithin the Gay minister is monumentaly stupid, not because he is gay but because it simply serves to extend the stupid debate.

I told you so:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3589009#3589135

:wow:

...yourself for even one little bitty minute -- your position has always been crystal clear:

"I would rather pick up 20 percent of the evangelical vote and I would gladly sacrifice 80% of the atheists if that is what it takes."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3589009

If they sacrifice 80% of the atheists and 80% of the LGBTs, that's an awful lot of votes. Those evangelicals must be worth a lot, at least in some peoples' imaginations.

But I stand resolute on what I said about the atheist vote. If reaching out to evangelicals offends atheists..too bad. It has nothing to do with religious preference.. it has to do with winnning elections. It's the math and it really is that simple.

If Atheists represents 5% of the voting population and Evangelicals 40% I would rather have the one in five evangelicals (8% of the population, but higher nubers in the South),...Obama is not saying atheists are wrong in their beliefs and he has emphatically said that many times. and I am not saying Athiests so not have the right to be upset about the appeal to evangelicals. But how can you ignore 40% of the voting population solely becuase you risk offending 4% of the voting populatiom that are likely diproportiantely in deep blue states already?

According to the Pew Research Center (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103), self-described "white evangelicals" (Democrats already receive the vast majority of black evangelical votes, so there's no sense in including them here) constitute just 23% of the population. And as I demonstrated to you in your "dump the atheists" thread, 2/3 of them STILL voted for Republicans in the scandal-saturated elections of 2006. Let's just go ALL OUT and assume that somehow we could win 20% of that 2/3 of 23%. Get out your calculator and confirm for me, that translates to just a hair over 3% of the American population.

Meanwhile, also according to Pew (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/09/16/the_nonbelievers), 12% of Americans 20 and older identify as non-religious, atheist, or agnostic. And 80% of their vote translates into 9.6%.

You'd gladly dump 9.6% of eligible voters to woo 3%.

Smart, Perky. Really smart. :eyes:

First of all, I said the voting population not the population as a whole. as a percentage of voters evangelical make up far more than their population in the general population

Second, Evangelicals are a far more powerful subset in the South and their for their voting strength is somewhat amplifies in Southern states like South Carolina.

Third, because evangelicals make up a higher percentage of the vote in southern states, their electoral influence is a substantial part of the Republican coalition and quite honestly they feel let down by the GOP. That is not to say they are going to abandon the GOP in droves just that 20% certainly could not see themselves voting for Guliani, Romney or Clinton. Obama has high acceptables across a larger swath of voters than any others so it stand to reason that the right message would appeal to some portion of disenfranchise Evangelicals. Please not that I am using the term evangelicals as opposed to fundamentalist. ONe ins note the subset of the other. but there is some overlap. those that overlap and those who are fundamentalist to the core are not who I am talking about. I am talking only about the non-fundamentalist evangelicals (regular/nominal churchgoers whose political lives are not dominated by Fox news or Dobson). I freely submit that 20% is a swag but certainly the GOP hold is tenuous on those voters.


Now as for thee atheists math. I submit that the 12% you identify in one breath as atheist and in the next rightfully identify them as non-religious , atheist and agnostic are not one in the same. So let's assume have of the Pew group are in fact Atheists. or six percent ot the gen-pop. Is that fair?

So what percentage of Atheists vote?
On a Percentage basis, does the atheist population mirror the evangelical in terms of how they are dispersed across the nation?

If you can show me with evidence that on a percentage basis that the 80% of the atheist vote is strategically more valuable in winning swing and southern states I will surrender the point. I will do so publicly.

Now honestly any message from any candidate that attacks that attacks Gays or Atheists would cause me to work against such a candidate. But there is a big difference between attacking some group and appealing for votes in language and situations that some find offensive.

Obama never should have been put in a situation where he was on stage with this guy.. Somebody did not do their homework. But the hostility reaped on Obama by the GLBT community likely made it impossible for him to walk it back without making it into a bigger story in South Carolina. Having a Gay Minister on stage will certainly be seen-as tokenism by some and pandering by others... but he will have to dig himself out of that hole.

The point is that I certainly understand that it upsets the Atheist community when a politician panders to the religious. It is fine to be upset with it.But understand in the final analysis (unless you can show me evidence to the contrary--and again I am open to empirical evidence, as you are free to poke holes in my numerical assumptions as well) I still say it make more campaign sense to reach out to any large identifiable demographic group, even if it wind up upsetting, offending or worrying a far smaller, less identifiable demographic which as a group has no organizational infrastructure.

If there was organizational structure..... if there was a get out the atheist vote effort,,, if their was an atheist phonebank or an Atheist, agnostic non-religions coalition with deep pocket behind. My view would be totally different.


If Obama was bashing Atheism, my view would be totally different,

But until you show me that atheists are anything close to voting bloc that pure evangelicals are, then I have to stand by what I have said. It has nothing to do with what you believe or what I believe, It has everything to do with winning elections.

You're imagining this huuuuuge group of "evangelicals" who would vote for Democrats if we'd just pander enough to their religion. But you haven't even shown that A) they truly exist, or B) would be willing to overlook the typical single-issue items to vote for someone who was pro-choice or in favor of homosexual rights.

So I'd love to destroy your argument AGAIN, but since I can't argue with someone's imagination, I'm done. I will admit however, that you clearly and conclusively proven one thing: that you're willing to jettison the non-believers and the homosexuals to "win." Have fun trying to out-Jesus the fundies, Perky.

homophobes that tell gay people they can 'embrace the change' and become hetero if they just ask JEEEESUS to fix them? It's 'pandering' to cuddle with a guy that says "gayness" is caused by having your uncle rape you?

Come on. There's pandering going on up in here, all right. Obama's campaign is pandering to Holy Haters.

I wish his campaign WOULD stop with the histronics...already.

And do some plain, honest apologizing and disassociating.

I'm a bit stunned at your inability to see the larger issue, frankly.

Like this?

Btw, didja know the March on Washington, and the Freedom Rides, were organized by one of MLK's closest advisers, Bayard Rustin... who was gay? True!

I'd tell you something very interesting Rustin said not long before he died, about LGBT rights and AA rights -- but I don't want to spend my evening cleaning the exploded brain matter of many DUers out of the inside of my computer.

Let's just say he was even more blunt than Coretta Scott King.


On edit: typo

Do tell. I'll do the clean up.

That does seem to be the most popular character-assassination technique of the hour.

At least you didn't specify it had to be YMCA

"Dissing the man for having someone you disagree with on a program when he is simply trying to finish first in a pivotal state"

Trying to finish first is not an excuse!

If Obama did this stuff in the general I wouldn't much care if it was a solid campaign move nessecary to getting a Dem in the WH.

Win at all costs.

But Obama is not doing this monstrous shit to put a Dem in the WH. He his doing it to promote HIMSELF in the Democratic Primary, as if he is the Alpha and Omega of the Democratic party.

Disgusting.

If Hilary wins it is all over.....

If Obama wins.....We have a fight all the way to the convention floor

"If Hilary wins it is all over....."

So your whole "embrace the bigotry" party in this thread is based on a woefully ill-informed theory that Obama is clearly more electable than Clinton, based on no evidence whatsoever?

Your transparent hate has over-ridden your reasoning faculties.

If you want to sell your soul, ask for a better price.

What is it with progressives who think it is more important to be principled on a transient issue and lose then be on the fence and win?

Winning is everything. Do you really want a rethug to be in the oval for another four years? with possibly four or five Supremes dying or retiring? DO you really want that with this bloody war going on endlessly? Do you really want the narroweset of victories but losing a couple of Senate Seats as a result of an HRC nomination?

Winning South Carolina is the ONLY WAY to stop the inevitable......Short of genuflecting towards Bob Jones University, Obama should do evertything he can to win the state,

ANy other view is politically addled.

Wow...

No Not hardly.,.I was referring to this moron singer being on the same stage as Obama. THat's it...nothing more nothing less... what does that have to do with anyone's right being transient????

..uh, keyboard...

Good o.p., but I see logic and rationality are not welcome here. Thanks for the effort, anyway.

Apparently.

Never mind that the SCOTUS justices then appointed by another republican pres, will be far less favorable to their concerns than the SCOTUS justices Obama (or any dem) would appoint.

If Obama is that unprincipled to reject any moral code during the PRIMARIES, then he certainly isn't the person to represent this party.

This isn't about supreme court nominees or war or anything Dem vs. Republican until the general election.

Disgraceful attitude you've displayed there.

:applause:

AS I said in the OP.

:crazy:

:rofl: Grow a skin, you persecuted DUer...

I reject your assumption as foolish and unsupported by any facts, and your attitude as unprincipled and disgraceful.

If Edwards does not win Iowa he has to win NH. he is doing poorly there.

HIllary is ahead in Iowa and NH if she wins in SC it really is over.


If Obama wins Iowam he has a smallshot in NH, but NH sitll probably goes for Hillary. So SC either ratifies Hillary or we will have a horse race all the way to the convention becuase of the math behing Tsunami Tuesday on 2/5. There willnot be enough left to win the nomination outright if no one gets the lion share on 2/5.


No one else has a real shot at the first three tilts base on every unbiased poll out there.

So in large measure... SC is critically important to each candidate.

I hope he wins a lot of evangelical votes in South Carolina to make all this worthwhile.

:silly:

I would never ever support a candidate if they actively bashed the Gay community, or evangelicals or swing voters. Weez all God's children and everyone knows that Jesus is a Democrat.

to claim that your political beliefs are endorsed by Gawd, REGARDLESS of whether you're a Republican or Democrat.

Once you've thrown down that gauntlet, politics is over. It's a holy war from that point on. Way to go, Perky!

the GLBT community in SC (and elsewhere) will rally 'round the man who gave him the platform to do so. Yes they will. Really. They will.:eyes:

What, Hillary can't win? Where's that "well reasoned" argument? Where's the data to support this "well reasoned" viewpoint?

Sorry that's B.S. Swallowing it doesn't reflect any better on your thinking process, than your opinion that Obama is okay to do whatever is needed in order to win a PRIMARY. I'll say it again, it's not the general election, it's a PRIMARY!

Just disgraceful thinking and poor reasoning.

... and don't you forgit it.


(Sorry, just couldn't resist the obvious joke - which will only be funny to those of us of a certain age.)

Can we stop with the histrionics already?

Translation: Shut up, you uppity *******, before you cost us another election.

My argument is completely about the the shortsighted of the argument given Obama's solid record on GLBT issues and given the potential consequences should Obama lose South Carolina to Clinton.

Obama has a solid record on GLBT issues but that does not give him a free pass when he makes a mistake.

People have expressed concern about this, beyond politicking. And once again, we're being told to STFU, in the name of politicking.

My gods, did we learn anything from the aftermath of the 2004 elections around here?

But the level of angst and anger is disproportionate to the impact of the guy being on stage with Obama for a couple of hous where he will have the spotlight for maybe five minutes.

This sort of attitude is why GLBT DUers, POC DUers and women DUers feel like this site no longer welcomes them or their voices anymore.

You might think the "angst" is disproportionate, but a lot of people don't, and the constructive thing to do would be to ask why we feel this way and seek to address the underlying issues.

This is what we mean when we say Democrats pay us lipservice for votes, but don't respect our thoughts or opinions. This is why so many of feel so alienated by this site, and this party as a whole.

So STFU and don't you dare have the GALL to tell the GLBT community what histrionic "tune" they need to dance to.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3589009

I said the GLBT should not "demand" Obama dance to their tune.

people supposed to have confidence in the guy handling difficult international crises once he's actually in the Oval Office??? Sorry, but he's blown any chance he had of getting my vote...

... because Obama has the only real shot at taking her down.

I hope people have thought this through.

we can't deny them their fun, can we?

WAR Without End, Amen, AAAAAAAMen.

And be a little more blunt about your lack of understanding of this issue for the GLBT community. This is not a "somewhat legitimate concern" for those affected by hateful homophobic rhetoric. It is, UNEQUIVOCALLY, A MOST LEGITIMATE CONCERN: to minimize it is a failure to empathize with our GLBT brother and sisters. Obama should not allow an anti-Gay bigot and self-avowed homophobe to sing for his campaign. No matter how you slice it or dice it, Senator Obama is wrong in his decision. I can't support him if McCloset is on the program.


Good job at adding more fuel to the fire by the way.

wait for it...

And, have a blessed day.

:rofl:
Perfect!

But I like to call it a "Queen O.D.".

My goodness, sometimes we go into HISTRONICS over them.

Imagine...a Democratic Presidential candidate, who says (and I believe him) that he is for GLBT equality...and yet, some dimwitted advisor suggests hiring a bigot for an Obama fundraising event who says that homosexuality is a "curse" and who is a proponent of the "ex-gay" sham and fraud backed by hatemongering groups that are the GLBT community's enemies.

It has, for the umpteenth time, NOTHING to do as to whether you're for Hillary or John or Dennis or Chris or Joe or Mike. It has everything to do about GLBT people (especially GLBT supporters of Senator Obama) who are genuinely, understandably outraged about this choice.

What is so goddamned difficult to understand about that?

He thinks that Democrats can win any election they want if they just pander enough to the "evangelical" vote. Screw GLBT, screw non-Christians, screw all of us who aren't exactly like Perky.

It all sounds very Republican.

When did I ever say that?

I respect you as a poster here, but I disagree completely with your post. And let me preface this by stating that a.) I am a straight female and b.) I like Obama (in fact he and Biden were the two candidates I was trying to decide between)

1. "If Obama caved on the issue it would be viewed as pandering to the GLBT community."

I wonder, what's more damaging to Obama's Democratic credentials? Being seen as a panderer to the evangelical community, or as a "panderer" to the GLBT community? I'm all for reaching across the aisle, but I believe there are certain values that cannot be compromised and human rights ranks among the top.

". Having the rally opened by a Gay minister while playing well the the gay community does not mollify the somewhat legitimate concerns that were raised and will certainly raise eyebrows in the evangelical circles he is trying to reach out to more broadly."

The homophobic "concerns" of the evangelical community while I acknowledge are real concerns for those people, they cannot be considered legitimate. By labeling them "legitimate" it means they have validity and in my opinion they don't. Their concerns are that by granting equal rights to the GLBT community, heterosexual marriage will be in jeopardy. Their concern is that children are in danger of being molested. Their concern is that GLBT individuals will "burn in the eternal lake of fire". How are these concerns legitimate in any way, shape or form? By having this individual, even loosely associated with his campaign allows the impression, or the assumption there is truth in what they claim-and even raises the question to a small degree "Does Obama believe that?". There are other ways for Obama to reach out to the evangelical community without compromising his support of the GLBT community. People are sick of IRAQ. People want to see reform in healthcare and education. People want something done about poverty...are these not issues that could bridge the divide between the GLBT and the evangelical communities?

At the same time, I think the "demands" of the GLBT community that Obama dance to their tune is in some respects disenginuous and in others somewhat self-indulgent."

I don't believe it is "self-indulgent" to expect to be treated the same under the law as any other human being. Personally, I am disappointed that Obama chose to dismiss the rights of the GLBT community. It illustrates to me clearly where his loyalties and priorities lie. Equal rights for the GLBT community are not something that should be compromised or used as a bargaining chip on the campaign trail, and yet we allow the individuals who want to be our leaders continue to do just that. I keep thinking...how many election cycles would I be willing to wait for the right to marry my husband again? How much support from various demographic groups would it take for me to sacrifice my right to make critical medical decisions for him? What would I be willing to accept in exchange for not legally being allowed to be covered by his insurance? The answer is NONE! NONE! NOTHING!
I find it to be dismissive, and insulting for anyone to suggest that the outrage of the GLBT (and many heteros) is not genuine or even warranted.

Now, that being said Perky, I will repeat that I have always respected you, and look forward to your posts (even if I don't always agree with you.) ;)
For me personally, I looked to Obama to set a higher tone. He made me feel hopeful, and he inspired me.I didn't think of him as "just another politician" and that made it harder to accept when he behaved like one. Maybe it wasn't fair of me, but I expected more from him.

I liked your post but you misinterpreted something I said.

". Having the rally opened by a Gay minister while playing well the the gay community does not mollify the somewhat legitimate concerns that were raised and will certainly raise eyebrows in the evangelical circles he is trying to reach out to more broadly."

The homophobic "concerns" of the evangelical community while I acknowledge are real concerns for those people, they cannot be considered legitimate. By labeling them "legitimate" it means they have validity and in my opinion they don't. Their concerns are that by granting equal rights to the GLBT community, heterosexual marriage will be in jeopardy. Their concern is that children are in danger of being molested. Their concern is that GLBT individuals will "burn in the eternal lake of fire". How are these concerns legitimate in any way, shape or form? By having this individual, even loosely associated with his campaign allows the impression, or the assumption there is truth in what they claim-and even raises the question to a small degree "Does Obama believe that?". There are other ways for Obama to reach out to the evangelical community without compromising his support of the GLBT community. People are sick of IRAQ. People want to see reform in healthcare and education. People want something done about poverty...are these not issues that could bridge the divide between the GLBT and the evangelical communities?


The point I was trying to make is that the level of Hostility in the Gay communinty and the demands that he get the guy off the stage mad it impossible for Obama to do what the GLBT community wanted. His "solution does not work."
What I was trying to say wwas the the concern of this singer and his views are not going to be mollified by putting a Gay minister on stage to try and balance this somehow. And that quite honestly putting a gay minister on stage is goiong to lose him some support in the evangelical community.

I honestly don't think McGurkin being on stage was calculated pandering....T%he guy simply was not vetted enough and then it was mismanged. Totally Obama's fault? I dunno but he certainly has mismanged the aftermath.


At the same time, I think the "demands" of the GLBT community that Obama dance to their tune is in some respects disenginuous and in others somewhat self-indulgent."
I don't believe it is "self-indulgent" to expect to be treated the same under the law as any other human being. Personally, I am disappointed that Obama chose to dismiss the rights of the GLBT community. It illustrates to me clearly where his loyalties and priorities lie. Equal rights for the GLBT community are not something that should be compromised or used as a bargaining chip on the campaign trail, and yet we allow the individuals who want to be our leaders continue to do just that.


I don't think that is what I said or implied. How is sharing the stage briefly with this guy being dismissive of equal rights of anyone? The connection between the two is tenuos at best particularly given Obama's voting record. I have no problem with the GLBT community being upset with this guy being on Obama's stage. I just think Obama history on the issues of concerns ought to far outweigh the concerns raised. It was bungled from the start by Obama's people but it hardlt rises to what you suggest.

Now your point about reaching out to the evangelical community is an intersting one. DUers typically think of the evangelic community's concerns being framed solely by Abortion and Homosexuality. There is a play to evangelicals as evangelical on other fronts. Poverty, Hmelessness and the environment are all very key concerns that could be raised in evanagelical or religious terms. Obama has doen this on a couple of occasion is very public venues such as his speech at Rick Warren's Church and in Selma..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that's what's so sad...