Barack courts the religious right and homphobes. Hillary doesn't. Why is Barack seen as more left?

This has puzzled me since Barack threw his name in the ring. I heard him courting the religious right on NPR - he talked about his male God and that there was only "His Truth." As a feminist with a belief that sexism in language and religion hurts women I knew then that Barack was probably not my candidate.

I have listened to Hillary talk abut going to church. I have also heard her recently, in response to press asking her about her religion, and her reply was satisfying to me: She said (I paraphrase) that 'religion is something that I was taught was personal and private.' I have also seen a solid record for women's rights. (And a good one for the environment.)

I have not seen her courting homophobic religious types. (I have seen Barack do this.)

So why is she considered more conservative than Barack?

our rights as citizens of the USA important? If you dismiss women's rights adn the rights of gay people....who is left?. That's really a lot of people.

that Hillary is a hawk and Obama is almost Jimmy Carter 2.0 when it comes to foreign policy.

I can't be so quick to denounce a candidate because of foreign policy when an opponent is dismissive of the rights of American citizens.

include me when he clearly talks about a male god. (Male dominated religion is at the heart of a lot of our problems. And by courting or kowtowing to them he is giving them a platform. Much like the platform Reagan gave the religious right in 1980.)

And, now he is doing the same thing with teh anti-gay religous crowd.

I have to say that I do not trust him.

In which case it's not time yet for us to have equal rights.

Except for K-L, which was so important Obama didn't bother showing up.

Why do you believe she's seen as a hawk and Obama as a dove?

that's from a few months ago, but that's what he said

I say this only to challenge the perception that he may be less "hawkish" than Hillary.


Clearly, he's not.

try to capture Osama? Hillary never said something like that.
So how is Hillary more hawkish? She is against unilateral invasion
of any country.

And so forth.

so that some posters here will recognize that she's "reaching out" for "inclusiveness"

:eyes:

Obama is seen as more left because he's always opposed the Iraq war.

'Just one week after criticizing Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to an “ex-gay” minister, supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)
are downplaying her connection to anti-gay figures.

Obama was assailed last week for allowing gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to appear at a South Carolina campaign event, but
the endorsement of Clinton by at least two anti-gay black ministers has so far not generated similar outrage.'

Full story at: http://washblade.com/print.cfm?content_id=11496

Hypocrisy is evidence of politics gone bad.

Sorry, I fail to see the validity of your points. Thus, I'll leave you to your selective outrage.

"Some of Clinton’s gay supporters, along with unaligned gays such as Wilson, said they’re generally unconcerned that anti-gay ministers Bishop Eddie Long and Rev. Harold Mayberry are supporting the campaign.

Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in suburban Atlanta once marched against gay marriage and hosts an “ex-gay” ministry. Mayberry has preached against homosexuality to his First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Oakland, Calif.

In interviews this week, Wilson and others said they were not concerned that Clinton had accepted a $1,000 donation from Long or that she recently thanked Mayberry for “fighting for civil rights and equality,” because she has not allowed either minister to speak for the campaign.

“There is a very big difference,” said Peter Rosenstein, a Washington political activist who is on Clinton’s gay steering committee. “This doesn’t impact at all what I think about Sen. Clinton’s campaign.”

Quel surprise

:eyes:


However it is really sad to see the (supposedly) unaligned gays using the official Clinton talking points. Really, which is worse? Openly associating with a homophobe (while making it abundantly clear that you don't condone his views) like Obama did, or accepting financial and political support from a bunch of them while downplaying their role in your campaign, like Clinton did (and is still doing)?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

"Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics

For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating—or living her faith?"

"God Sings Soprano: Discovering the Female Voice of God." and, she gave a summit oin 2006 entitled "Awakenign Eve: arousing the Spiritual and Social Concious of Women."
So far I like her. So if Hillary is getting money from her and her tour(which she is) I think this is good.

whose aim is to infuse Godliness into government.

Like I said, I'm not into selective outrage for partisan purposes.

Enjoy the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

There are christians who believe God is neither male nor female. Your statement is generalizing and offensive. Frankly, you need to read up on some things; religion and feminism for one.
Obama's statements on religion reflect one of two things: his dismissal of women's rights or his opinion that dismissing women is ok.

Christians believe that God is without gender

n/t

Hypocrisy and selective outrage are tiresome.

But Clinton has.

I know one homophobe for sure who endorsed Obama and that is McClurkin (he did endorse him at that concert) and I would bet my next paycheck that some donor of Obama's is a homophobe (if McClurkin wasn't paid then he would be the one) but even if McClurkin isn't it there is no way that Obama doesn't have a donation from some homophobe.

:shrug:

whose views are at odds with theirs.

That's not the same as putting them up on your stage, making them Master of Ceremonies, and giving them 30 minutes -- in front of your audience -- to spout off their homophobic views.

As offensive as McClurkin's views at the rally. Selective outrage is not my schtick.
Homophobes are mistakes for any candidate to have connections with.

It's because Hillary is a woman (stick with me here). She is aware that her greatest weakness is her gender; a liberal-sounding woman would come off to too many people as being an enormously powerful nanny. To compensate, she has followed in the footsteps of the Iron Lady Thatcher, and has adopted the right-wing frame of leadership. Rather than the left-wing Considerer or Provider, she acts as the Decider. She acts strong, aggressive, does not apologize, does not back down, and does not fear to attack outright. She does not shy from saber-rattling, nor does she shy from insulting the moderator at a debate. She is brash. She is headstrong. She acts, in every regard, like a Republican.

Now, she votes like a Democrat. She's voted with the Democratic party 97% of the time (if anyone asks me to back this up, I'll just stick the link in my sig again). She is a liberal through and through, and if she were a man who spoke like John Kerry the Republicans would already be smearing her as a out-of-the-mainstream super-liberal.

But she acts like a right-wing politician. And it's a testament to the ability of her spin machine that she's even managed to convince DU that she's not a liberal.

HRC's liberal politics than the average DUer.

I think you described her approach, and the reasons for it, very well.

by thinking they're smarter than the Freepers. In many cases, I don't see any evidence to support their flattery

on edit: see post #59 for an example

No candidate is flawlessly "liberal."

Neither Obama nor Clinton are off the hook for catering to corporations and bigots, IMO.

I've found that it is better to look at a person's record instead of drawing ridiculous conclusions from their words or associations.

I realize that most people are too lazy to actually look through the candidates' records, but the good news is that you can look at various different ratings systems and let them do the work for you.

The best one IMO is the National Journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm
They gave Obama a rating of 86 in 2006, which puts him in the top 10. Clinton had a rating of 70.2 which puts her just outside the bottom 10.

but I can't do it any longer. I think some people think that he has a message of change, but I think it is more of the same (he's closer to the born-again bible thumpers than I had ever known). It's important to get that message out.

Corporatism, Washington insider politics, the broken system.

It's time for a transformation. No more business as usual.

I guess only certain types of bigotry can be legitimized as just another "viewpoint."

And BTW, I know you've seen the light and all, but why don't you take a moment to read Barack's book. Wade through all the blather about hope and change and see how much he worships Clintonian "third way" politics, and then get back to us.

Why not reach out to them in areas where we do agree, like education and health care?

Clinton supporters downplay ties to anti-gay ministers

Some say Obama ‘crossed a line’ with gospel event

JOSHUA LYNSEN
Friday, November 02, 2007

Just one week after criticizing Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to an “ex-gay” minister, supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) are downplaying her connection to anti-gay figures.

Obama was assailed last week for allowing gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to appear at a South Carolina campaign event, but the endorsement of Clinton by at least two anti-gay black ministers has so far not generated similar outrage.

“I don’t know if that’s the same as, ‘Here’s a microphone — you can speak for my campaign,’” said Ryan Wilson of the South Carolina Gay & Lesbian Pride Movement.

Some of Clinton’s gay supporters, along with unaligned gays such as Wilson, said they’re generally unconcerned that anti-gay ministers Bishop Eddie Long and Rev. Harold Mayberry are supporting the campaign.

Long’s New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in suburban Atlanta once marched against gay marriage and hosts an “ex-gay” ministry. Mayberry has preached against homosexuality to his First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Oakland, Calif.

http://washingtonblade.com/2007/11-2/news/national/11496.cfm

but then, Democrats are notorious for keeping people off the ballot.

In the case of DUer "progressives", it's to call your enemies "conservatives" (even if they don't really fit that mold), and in the case of the freepers, it's to call your enemies "liberals" (even if they dont fit that mold). It's very transparent, but they apparently believe that they are fooling people.

of these issues which highlight Hillary's worst tendencies.

nothing that poster said was true

Maybe because she'd risk alienating the same religious types and homophobes that's she's courting?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/24/162436/74

http://www.sovo.com/2004/12-10/news/localnews/mega.cfm

Seriously, why HASN'T she (a) disassociated from these characters and (b) issued a ringing condemnation of Sen. Obama?

And if you're so troubled by courting religious homophobes then why do would you support a candidate who does it in any way, shape, or form?

BTW, don't bother with the equivocations of how it was different because Clinton didn't "hand anyone a microphone!" or "she JUST took money and an endorsement, it's not the SAAAAME!" Bullshit.

No Dem can win without working with the black church community. That's the gateway to the black votes a Dem will need.

And since I am an anti-corruption, open government Democrat who believes citizens should be respected with the truth, and not just as voters to be manipulated, THAT makes the biggest difference to me.

Did I miss something?

as our own Indiana variant did in supporting anti-gay rights laws.

Especially with the name IndianaGreen?

You can shove your comment about my moniker.

BTW, it's nothing personal. I really respect you as a DUer. I always read your posts when I come across them.

declaring that marriage was between one man and one woman (what about Mormon polygamists and Muslims with more than one wife), among the most hateful and homophobic speeches were the ones given by Black pastors. To a man, they all said that sexual orientation was a choice, that gays were sick puppies that needed Jay-Zeus.

The fact that they were Democratic activists made it the most hurtful.

BTW, the measure did not pass the legislature!

Rev. Harold Mayberry, featured on Hillary Clinton's web site, makes the pitch why he thinks Clinton would be a good president:

From the Hillary Clinton site:


Then we have the comments from SF Gate regarding how Mayberry equates homosexuality with "thievery":


Where's the outrage? :shrug:

Obama, who was not at the rally that McClurkin performed at with three other singing acts, clearly made it a point that he disagrees with homophobia within the religious community and elsewhere.

Since the Clinton campaign seems to keep wanting to bring up this issue for reasons that can only be to distract voters from her hawkishness and grandstanding phoniness (as is perceived by many), why does the homophobe on her web site remain there? Hillary Clinton needs to come clean and condemn people like Mayberry. As for McClurkin, Bill Clinton shared the stage with him in South Carolina last July at a rally. Certainly a statement from Bill is in order as well.

According to the increasingly convoluted arguments of the Clinton-supporting hypocrites, you can accept endorsements and contributions from bigots (Mayberry and Jackson), proudly display the endorsement via a press release on your website (Mayberry), and even hire one as a $10000-a-month consultant (Eddie Long). You only "Cross The Line!" if you engage in certain very specific activities and you just so happen to be the Obama campaign.

What's really disheartening is to see genuine GLBT advocates using (what should be obvious by now) the official Clinton talking points on the issue that minimize her associations while assailing his. Shame on the Human Rights Campaign, in particular, for participating in such a blatant political hit job.

BOTH of them have pissed me off with their getting into bed with the religious freaks.

just as reactionary and status-quo-conservative. I can't say either one has made a big difference in the way things stand, at this moment. To me, they're both in the same boat.

You pretend to be curious about things that make no sense.
Make sense of that one for me.

with anti-gay groups yet I see and hear and read people trashing Hillary all the time. I wonder why Obama seems to be getting a free ride while Hillary continues to be trashed.
I see her record on women and gays as better than Obama.

I am looking an explanation in this post.

http://gaycitynews.com
Obama's Anti-Gay Gamble
By: DOUG IRELAND
"One of the first to blow the whistle on the Obama gospel music tour was African-American political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson, author of "The Emerging Black GOP Majority." In an October 20 piece for the Huffington Post entitled, "Obama Should Repudiate and Cancel His Gay Bash Tour, and Do It Now," Hutchinson wrote, "Obama ripped a page straight from the Bush campaign playbook."

Are you unaware of Hillary's association with Bible and prayer groups like "The Fellowship"?

Senator Clinton goes for religion and preachers to advance her cause and at least one to do it in public. In addition to that, she's hardly above rubbing elbows with others who are decidedly homophobic. If she comes across as more conservative it's because of her infernal third-waying and consorting with the right.

of respectability to people who want women's rights overturned in our country.

He totally caters to the intolerant right wing of America. And he's doing it for votes.

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%