Pro-LGBT rights and pro-Obama

Since I consider myself very pro-LGBT rights and pro-Obama, this whole McClurkin controversy has been very depressing. My reasons for supporting Barack Obama are strategic as well as issues-oriented. I think he can win people over and bring people together, something that is very important in a general election. I also believe that, while he is not nearly as progressive as Kucinich or Gravel, he is one of the most progressive candidates who can defeat the Republicans in a general election. While he doesn't go as far as I would on the issue of marriage equality, I do believe that he has a very pro-LGBT voting record when compared to most politicians.

Another thing to consider: the Supreme Court. I believe this is where the same-sex marriage debate will be decided. The Republicans want to stack the Courts with hardcore right wing justices. Obama has voted No on both Alito and Roberts and doesn't agree with Bush's "strict constructionist" point of view on judges. I don't think any of our Democratic candidates will try to add right-wing justices to the Supreme Court. The Republican candidate definitely will.

Republican victory = right wing justices = major civil rights setbacks
Democratic victory = non-partisan justices = civil rights gains, including full marriage equality

Obama is the most progressive of the top-tier candidates in my opinion. I believe that, compared to the other progressive candidates, the Senator has the best shot at defeating the right wing candidate due to his ability to win over those he disagrees with. The best thing we can do for LGBT rights and for civil rights in general is to save the Supreme Court from the far right. The best way to do that is to have a Democratic victory in 2008!

:kick:

I expected it, but it is still sad to see.

did not agree with Donnie's views. Therefore, I guess you read something I didn't please provide a link to I can read the article where he did.

How many times does this have to be explained to you? Obama PICKED THIS GUY TO PERFORM AT HIS (OBAMA'S) CONCERT! It doesn't matter if Obama SAID "I disagree with his views"! If he TRULY DISAGREED WITH HIS VIEWS, HE WOULD HAVE HIRED A DIFFERENT, NON-BIGOTED GOSPEL SINGER TO PERFORM! WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT??? He didn't HAVE to hire this guy! There are plenty of gospel singers out there that HAVEN'T written books about the "curse" of homosexuality! He HIRED THIS ASSHOLE BECAUSE HE'S ANTI-GAY! He was trying to woo the fundie vote! How can you not SEE that???

Dear GOD I need a drink!

I'm seeing a dirty martini in my near future.

:toast:

That's usually Clinton territory.

but the fact his campaign repeatedly told us one story only to have another end up being true makes a primary vote impossible for me.

?

but his horrible performance at debates and on MTP made me move away.

He needs to learn to relax. In NM, he's fine--very likeable and very funny at times. I don't know why he can't relax more in these national appearances.

Anyway, I've recently decided to support him in the primaries.

at least in my opinion.

I think Richardson would make an excellent pres, and if he can keep improving his stage presence, he might surprise a lot of people.

It baffles me because when he's in front of cameras locally, he's very much at ease.

I understand that he is determined to run a totally positive campaign but thats not realistic. Wake up and fight for the job or give it up. And the whole "Gospel Tour Armageddeon" was stupid. He should have dumped McClurkin at once and moved on. Basically, if Obama is going to make a run in 2008 its time to make his move. Otherwise, he's just dividing the opposition to Clinton.

Edwards is my personal choice in 2008 because I'm SURE he would win but I really believe that an Obama presidency could be the most healing event in American history. He has the potential to be a giant. Hope he gets the chance.

worried about his SORRY ass one way or the other. He will be off the radar in a few months and back to being just a humble Sentator from Illinois being mentored by Joe Lieberman. :hi:

on the Joe Lieberman remark. ;-)

I'm assuming that your vocal opposition of McClurkin is part of some strategy, that you have something you want to achieve by doing so. After all, there are other people who believe the things he does, and you are not going after all of them; you've made a strategic decision to emphasize this particular person. I'm not criticizing it, I'm just saying that nearly everyone has some strategy for getting what they want, and so do you. What's wrong with that?

While Obama would still almost certainly put in favorable judges, this recent debacle tells me that when push comes to shove, he'll pick African-American evangelicals over the LGBT folk. I'm left worrying about how it might creep up, especially in ways that aren't in government. Our fight is one that's very much on the ground, with the people, and right now, we're being opposed by a group that's supposed to be generally on our side. It would help a lot to have a president who will tell these people, consistently, that homophobia is absolutely unacceptabe.

I worry about the people who went to that concert, saw Donnie speak, and came away thinking their own homophobic views were being affirmed. After all, they're hearing those views being spoken from the stage at an event that's a part of a Democrat's campaign.