If you don't want to vote for Obama because of Donnie McClurkin, fine

but I'm still voting for him, because he is the ONLY of the major candidates who opposed this disaster of a bloody war from the very beginning.

While Hillary was voting for it, and Edwards was cosponsoring, speechifying in favor of, and voting for it, Obama spoke at anti-war rallies, calling this war a "dumb war, a rash war." He was saying it would turn into a quagmire, which it has.

This war has cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, our national credibility in the world, and possibly the stablility of the Middle East Region (and goodness knows what else).

Donnie McClurkin is an offensive man, yes it's true. Do I wish Obama would get rid of him? Yes. Am I going to switch my vote over it? No.

Obama and his campaign failed in failing to properly screen McClurkin. But it hasn't cost any lives, nor caused one dime to be spent out of the treasury. Hillary and Edwards failed when our country needed them most, to stop, slow down, or limit the scope of this disaster of a war before it started.

If we reward ANYONE who voted for this war with the presidency, we are voting for future wars. The lesson will be "I, Mr./Ms. Politician can vote for this bad war (on the off chance it might politically benefit me) and get away with it, look at candidate X who voted for the IWR and, even after the war turned unpopular, was still nominated in the Dem party and elected president."

Frankly McClurkin is the lesser of two evils.

Admit a mistake and boot the bigoted asshat.

Obama/McClurkin '08, for a gay ol' time...

i admire your resoLute stubbornness.

it's too bad there are no other candidates that fit your criteria, and you're forced to back the turnip truck driver.

I don't want any more Iraq Wars. I will not support anyone in the primary who voted for IWR.

I want to put the fear of god in anyone who comes across a similar war resolution in the future. We're not going to do that by putting an IWR supporter in the White House.

and you're forced to support him.

in fact, he's the onLy one who didn't have to vote on it, that was against it.

and if did have to vote on it, he'd have been the onLy one to vote against it.


too bad kucinich, graveL, and richardson aren't running. it's a shame, because not onLy do they fit your criteria, they actuaLLy have more experience, and haven't aLienated one constituancy, and possibLy another.

may wanna rethink that one.

Kucinich = never proven to me he's a serious candidate.

Gravel = Ditto.

someone eLse. obama showed his inexperience, and he's impLoding.

you shouLd Let go of the cuLt of personaLity, since you just contradicted yourseLf.

this is about who I think can best lead the country. Obama is not perfect but he impressed me by risking his budding Senate bid by speaking out against the war in 2002 when Hillary and Edwards were voting for it.

He showed he is prescient, level-headed, charismatic: all the qualities a good president should have.

Yes he made a mistake with McClurkin. No one is perfect.

Well, here IS what he said:

"I misunderstood the question, and I made a mistake in the way I answered it. I thought it was a trick question. I made a mistake and I apologize," Richardson told the Advocate.

"I've always understood that (being gay is biological); I just haven't thought about that in a very long time," he said. "Again, I'm very action-oriented. I deal with getting things done for gay and lesbian people, as I have as a governor. And I fully understand that it's something you're born with and it's not a lifestyle choice. I've always understood that, but when you're flying all night from New Hampshire as I had -- we're human too. We flew all night to get here. That shouldn't be an excuse.

"I am here in a symbolic visit to The Advocate to say I misunderstood the question, I handled it in a bad way, and I caused a lot of confusion. But my main message is that I should be judged by my actions, on what I've done, not words that don't accomplish anything, that had been misunderstood.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/08/13/2

how do you misunderstand that question?

He was tired, he wasn't paying attention, and he fucked up.

What, should he cut off his ear and hand it to you? What more can he say? What would you have him do?

I find it fascinating that you take issue with the guy even after he backed away from his idiotic answer, and repudiated it plainly and publicly.

That's what Obama should do--back away from this idiotic alliance, and repudiate it plainly and publicly.

actually I find it more amusing than anything. I was just surprised that Sniffa would mention him as a suitable alternative to Obama given that flap.

I am not a 'gotcha' type person. People DO fuck up. It happens.

I was one of the people here who was insisting a few days ago that this whole business was a mistake, that Obama would clear it up toute suite, that of COURSE if he'd ONLY KNOWN that this guy was a homophobic hate-speaker that he NEVER would have hired him, and ANY MINUTE NOW we'll be hearing that he's dumped the guy!

Tick....tick....tick.....

More like dig, dig, dig. This guy's going at it like a golden retriever with a big juicy bone to bury. If he keeps at it, he'll be over his head in no time...in fact, I think he's already there--well over his head.

I'm still surprised, bummed out, and sickened. I still am sort of waiting for the "Oh, it was all a BIG mistake!" press conference.

And I wasn't 'sold' on him, but I sure wasn't sold against him, either, before this.

the guy is singing, that's it. As far as I know he doesn't go around trumpeting his views to anyone who will listen.

His views are out NOW, Obama should dump him like a bad habit. If he has any sense he will, why do you support his decision to go forward with what is out now?? Sticking with a bad decision is a lot of what is wrong with BUSHCO.

Cogent point, and succinctly stated. I agree. Admitting a screw-up, apologizing and moving on would have been a better strategy.

makes perfect sense.

and aren't the views (not intending to be expressed) of someone merely associated with him.

dreidLe, dreidLe, dreidLe
i made you out of cLay
dreidLe, dreidLe, dreidLe
with dradLe i shaLL pLay

do you have any real rebuttal to my argument?

you have no argument. aLL you've continued to do is defend (quite LameLy) by obfuscating and moving the goaL posts when need be.

you're not going to change your mind, and it's your right to be stubborn. it's one of the rights codified in our constitution.

between the significance of words spoken by a candidate that are supposed to reflect his views,

and the significance of views of someone who is merely associated (pretty tenuously) with a candidate which are not intended to be expressed at that candidate's event.

but that's fine, throw insults instead and accuse me of "spinning."

So I guess we are even.

you're sadly mistaken...

thousands of human lives vs. one stupid concert.

The $10 admission fee probably won't cover the cost of renting the venues.

IT"S A FUNDRAISER!!!!!!!!!! The raise funds (money) there.

If so, then that is even worse. selling out GLBT in order to garner their support.

Chimpy's 29%. The one's who would stand by him even if he ate live newborn babies on live TV because, after all, he's a Good Christian.

i guess DU is an accurate picture of america, despite what the deniers say.

What do they know that we don't?

That idiotic letter he put out today just made a bad situation worse. He's like a well dressed Felix Macacawitz Allen. He keeps fucking up.

You don't tell Jews to sit down with Nazis in the "big tent." You don't tell blacks to join hands with the KKK. You just don't. There is no room in the big tent for bigots. The bigots belong in the GOP tent.

That's what happens when you put all your staff salary into the financial end, and go cheap on the political strategists, I guess. It feels to me like idiotic, hopscotching rank amateurs are running his campaign. And after a while, that does reflect on HIM.

Maybe he did it to bolster his support among black evangelicals. ???

That's his 'southern strategy' it would seem. Almost half the voters in South Carolina are black. But I don't think they're all one-issue voters. They aren't going to say, well, health care is important, but gay hating is MORE important.

He may pick up some votes in the short term, in one state, but in the long term...???

I think he may get a leg up in SC, but I think he's HURT himself nationally. Badly. I think he might have trouble convincing people that he didn't mean it. It's not quite Romneyesque, but it is a definite 'pander' and it makes him come off as insincere and weak, frankly.

I wonder what the effect of the white male aged 18-28 vote being thrown away on Colbert will have on that SC contest? If he's on the ballot, and not a write-in, you know he'll get some votes...

You really think Iowans give a flying fuck about McClurkin?

You really think people at the event in South Carolina this weekend, who will be there to hear a SINGER, are going to see McClurkin and say, "there goes Obama and his amateurish campaign again, trying to tap into my anti-gay instincts."

You really think Obama's SC strategy is now based on gay-hating because some staffer didn't properly vet McClurkin?

If so, so much for your so-called impartiality.

I have a cousin who is was a generous recurring donor and volunteer to the BO campaign in NH who quit and stopped the monthly contributions just yesterday. Over this "ridiculous" matter.

That's what happens when you have a gay brother. It's what happens when you have gay cousins.

It's not ridiculous in that context. I'll stand with family, and friends, not with a pandering politician. You just can't insult family and expect people not to notice.

And who knows, there may be a few Iowans who don't like their family members being dissed, too. In any event, I really don't care if you think I'm 'overplaying' this.

It's a human issue--you don't devalue people like that, and expect them to shrug it off because 'nudge, wink' he doesn't REALLY mean it. If ya don't mean it, you don't do it. He should dump that guy, he should have done it three days ago.

they are our neighbors and co-workers. What then friend? Should we ostracize them too? What happens when tens of millions of Americans are homophobic (I made this number up, but it's probably accurate)? Do we push them aside? Tell them they aren't welcome as democrats? Or should we engage them and try and change their mind?

Just a brief slightly related anecdote - my grandmother lives in Chicago, and over the years, has made some condescending, if not racist, statements about people of color. Should I never talk to her again because she is a "bigot"? Or is she just "bigoted" and maybe I can change her mind with some in-depth conversations about race?

As it turns out, my grandmother did some work with the Univ. of Chicago and had some direct and indirect dealings with Obama when he was there. He impressed her very much. Fast forward a few years and guess what? Would you believe she actually likes Obama over Hillary for President?

The point is, people can change and not everyone who is bigoted or ignorant or homophobic is necessarily the devil incarnate. This is my experience, at least.

Let's look at what you said, and do a little substituting:

What happens when tens of millions of Americans are RACISTS (I made this number up, but it's probably accurate)? Do we push them aside? Tell them they aren't welcome as democrats? Or should we engage them and try and change their mind?

What happens when tens of millions of Americans are SEXISTS (I made this number up, but it's probably accurate)? Do we push them aside? Tell them they aren't welcome as democrats? Or should we engage them and try and change their mind?

What happens when tens of millions of Americans are JEW HATERS (I made this number up, but it's probably accurate)? Do we push them aside? Tell them they aren't welcome as democrats? Or should we engage them and try and change their mind?


It all depends on whose ox is being gored, you see. When I see Democratic outreach to racists, sexists and Jew Haters, maybe I'll buy your argument. But we're the party of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, not the party of "Come on in bigot--I'll take your vote, oh, and maybe-nudge, wink-change your mind."

(and homophobes)that's just the reality of America. And yes, I believe the Democratic party should try and "convert" these people.

your post strikes me as the old DNC way of doing business, specifically, avoiding campaigns in the south and in small towns where it is perceived that all of the bigots live. if we are to change this country, it isn't going to be by turning away every bigot or ignorant person towards the GOP camp. there's too many ignorant people in this country to do that if we want to win national or red-state elections. we need to engage everyone and move forward together.

there are about 70 million Evangelical Americans, not too mention all the other religious groups out there that oppose gay marriage or even homosexuality itself on religious grounds. to write off that many people is frankly "naive and irresponsible". due to their numbers we have no other option but to engage this part of the population and try and show them why they are wrong. otherwise, we will lose again and again.

it's a winner.

"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus."

"If we do not learn to live together as friends, we will die apart as fools."

Martin Luther King, Jr.



Partitioning ourselves from the ignorant is not a winning strategy for our political party, or more importantly, for our country.

go on tour with a candidate?

How about reaching out to the sexists? Shall we have a comedian whose humor is based on denigrating women do the opening act?

And how about a rousing anthem from the White Citizens Council--they can do the honors in bringing the flag in at the start of the festivities.

You're saying that the Democratic Party should compromise a core value, a platform plank, so that a single candidate--not the party as a whole, a single candidate--can gain a few points in South Carolina.

That IS what you're saying. Awww, never mind, it's just those faggots gay people. They'll get over it, they always do.

Sorry, I just can't get onboard with your excuse. I can't tell you how disappointing I find all this, and especially coming from Obama. He sold out. It is also saddening to see how many of his supporters are so quick to say "Oh well...." and not hold him to account.

He got trapped in a mess by his staff, and instead of saying "This is fucked up, I didn't know, I am not angry at Closet McLurkin, but his views aren't mine so I asked him to take a powder, AND I fired the idiot on my staff who didn't vet him, and let's move on..." he instead, just threw a WHITE gay guy on the stage (Message to the black audience: Heh heh--we don't have gays, it's these CRACKERS that have gays--and here's one, be nice to him now, show how tolerant we are!).

And I'm not the only one thinking that, either.

You may gain easy votes by pandering to bigots and idiots, but you lose your soul. I have no interest in seeing the Democrats have the same base as the GOP--that's why I'm a Democrat, because I don't particularly WANT to affiliate with racists, sexists, Jew Haters and homophobes.

See, if our party starts "reaching out" to them, then it's no longer our party--it's the GOP.

Personally, I completely agree with you. I don't give a d**n who sings on that tour, I CARE about what this WONDERFUL man, BARACK OBAMA, can do for our country!!!:patriot:

I'm uncommitted still, but I sure would not go that far. To be that sycophantic that you don't care what a candidate does because your mind is made up that he's a WONDERFUL man? Hmmm, that brings to mind an entire different set of voters. Hopefully, you didn't really mean to convey that....:shrug:


I'm not saying NOT to support Obama, but whoever you support, we have to let them know when they stray from our ideals, right? I mean look at what is happening in Congress with those we support, failing to do what they were sent there to do, what they said that they WOULD do, and what those who supported them repeatedly let them know that they want.

I wish Obama would get of McClurkin right now (he may not be able to). He was wrong to let him slip by. But barring that, he is just one guy out of 12, and I don't know how well known his views were, so I don't know how much you can fault Obama.

Or was it not a "mistake"????????His view are out now, so man up and dump him.

is that they are binding.

It may have been an at-will agreement and he might be able to just dump him, and it might not.

isn't that just as bad?

Your grasping, now.

the views of the outrage-peddlers.

you've found me out.

CURSES!

wow, Gargamel reference. Reaching back for that one.

thanks for asking.

Every night at 10 pm I breathe a sigh of relief. This is because we've heard the US Army knocks on doors before 10 pm to give the awful news to families of soldiers killed that day, and this means my stepson has lived yet another day in the hellhole that is Baghdad. Michael has been in Baghdad for almost a year. He won't be coming home for Christmas, and he's told us he will probably be in Iraq until the fall of 2008.

I'm voting for Barack Obama because he spoke against the war when it wasn't convenient to do so, and I think as President he'll get us out of Iraq as soon as possible.

I've been a positive force for gays rights all of my life and I'm sickened by the McClurkin controversy. But I can't vote for anyone who is responsible for sending almost 4,000 soldiers and countless innocent Iraq citizens to their deaths.

*** edited to correct typos --- my mind is faster than my fingers.

to ignorant bigotry is OK ???

sLit our throats now, and then prop our LifeLess bodies when it's time for the GE, and demand our votes. maybe even ask for a handout too.

it's pathetic actuaLLy to watch them spin Like dreidLes.

I've spoken from my heart. If you want to flame me, go for it.

But I doubt you're doing much good for your candidate here.

is a hard-hearted and an all-round assholish thing to do.

who support Obama?

Go sit next to Fred Phelps on the Hate Wagon.

I got compassion for people.

Even if they support Barack Obama.

If your position is that supporting Barack Obama is akin to supporting Fred Phelps, I'm afraid logical discourse is beyond you.

If he does not, then I must conclude it was a conscious decision.

is THAT powerful that he can condemn an entire country to bigotry...

I can't imagine how horribly trying your life is, to live day after day not knowing whether your stepson will come home.

Anyone who would put you in that situation without absolute necessity is a sick person. That's why there is such frustration with our government. They act like politics is some kind of game, and that the IWR is a means to gain the highest political advantage, never mind the actual human lives at stake.

Bigotry is evil. Unreasoning, blind bigotry is evil. And bigotry wrapped up in a message that gay people need to "change" is an egregious form of evil.

Barack Obama is a good man, at heart. I believe that. But I do wish his campaign hadn't done this. And there is still time to do the right thing for the beliefs that he professes of acceptance and inclusion of GLBT people. And that is to dump McClurkin from this event. Now.

"Kucinich has criticized the foreign policy of President Bush, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq and what Kucinich perceives to be building American hostility towards Iran. Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only presidential candidates who voted against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He has since voted against funding it 100% of the time. In 2005, Kucinich voted against the Iran Freedom and Support Act, calling it a "stepping stone to war."<20> The congressman also signed a letter of solidarity with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2004.<21"[br />
From wiki, which is not the best source but in this case, it's factual.

Some people think he's a major candidate.

and I agonized over the decision to support Barack Obama over Senator Kucinich.

Newsflash, Dennis is NOT a Senator.

I couldn't possibly be a fan of Kucinich because I typed
Senator" instead of "Representative"!!!

If you're really a good little Romper Room "Do-Bee", you'll check my posts and find a number of positive posts on threads about Kucinich.

plus he has a questionable record on choice.

I think DK has been honest regarding this issue in the way Edwards has been honest when talking about gay marriage. I admire and respect both DK and Edwards in their honesty on these two subjects despite some of their reservations.

He's against the war big-time and you won't have to worry about any messy controversies including ex-gay black gospel singers. Because Ron Paul's events are whiter and straighter than a New Christy Minstrels show.

Oh my god! I haven't heard that name in years !! Thank God!

Getcha popcorn ready cuz the NCM are off da hook, yo!



http://www.thenewchristyminstrels.com/

Obama doesn't want my vote. This is the primary and every politician weighs their decisions in terms of support and votes. Obama's gambling that more people won't be offended enough to pull their support because of McClurkin, as opposed to those who will, and he'll pick up votes from those who actually agree with this bigot. Maybe he's right, time will tell.

Putting this bigot on his tour is offensive to me, and the way he handled the situation doesn't speak highly of his capacity for leadership.

It would seem to me in choosing a candidate, this should be the priority:

1) Iraq
2) the candidate's positions on LGBT
..
42) the spoken words of someone who sings at the candidate's campaign concerts and sings innocuously (assuming the speaking was done elsewhere at another time)

to act swiftly when his staff fucks up royally?"

Given the past 7 years, I would think this would be important too

remember, you are comparing him to other potential nominees who all have their own flaws and if they have all the right positions, they might not be able to be elected or even be viable for the nomination.

but absolutely, it's a consideration.

and hillary is running the smartest campaign overall. obama is politically more gifted than she is.

i do judge a candidate very much by how they run their campaigns they are a dry run for how they will run their administration, or at least, it's the one arena where they act as an executive and we get to see how they do it.

but those are not the only political gifts.

The most important political gift is not screwing up. That's 90% of what wins campaigns.

Edwards had the best stump speech I've ever seen in 2004, but I can't say he's politically gifted because he seems to have a knack for losing... for whatever reason.

The same was said of Hitler.......charismatic and inspiring.......BUT OH SO WRONG.

I know, low blow but I couldn't resist the tee up.

:applause:

the fact that he has voted to fund the war, up 'til the last supplemental, is why I'm not voting for Obama (and why he's at the bottom of my list along with the other of the big three). This Donnie McClurkin thing doesn't make me think any less than Obama than I did before.

It's very telling to see how each candidate handles a mistake. So far, Obama has taken the George Bush approach to mistakes...full speed ahead and damn the consequences!

We've had enough of that type for a long time.