If a large contingent of Obama supporters

had given a rat's ass when Barack threw gays and lesbians under the bus, in a blatant, hateful effort to exploit homophobia, I might take the cries about Hillary's campaigns supposed racial undertones more seriously.

But I can't.

Come back to me when Hillary Clinton headlines a fundraising concert with a Master of Ceremonies who says "black people are evil" and talks about the "curse of African Americans" and declares "war" on people of color.

Come back when that occurs and I'll gladly join you in fighting both her and bigotry.

Until then, all I see is a foul double standard that reeks of political expediency.

As many of you said to the gay community a couple of months ago: get the fuck over it.

The outrage imbalance is quite striking.

Hillary fans should hold her to a much higher standard. Saying 'HE DID SOMETHING KINDA LIKE THIS TOO!!!" doesn't hold a lot of water.

If Kerrey said what he said to deliberately swipe at Obama, then it was dirty and I don't condone it. But at least there was some factual basis for his statement. Obama's middle name is Hussein, and schools in Indonesia, whether secular or religious, are called Madrassas. Obama better get used to dealing with this crap if he wins the nomination.

Obama legitimized the views of someone who calls GLBT people nothing less than child murderers and says we should establish a "dialogue" and find "unity" with people who hate us, who attack, brainwash and psychologically abuse our youth and cause hate crimes, suicides and homelessness of GLBT youth by the thousands. He expressed his deep "disagreement" with McClurkin--as though bigotry is just another "viewpoint" you can agree or disagree with--and let the man go on a 30 minute public tirade against an entire segment of the population. To win votes. Meanwhile, people on DU who took offense were branded as anti-religious by Obama surrogates, who praised their candidate's pragmatic approach to the cultural divide. :eyes:

You're right. There's no comparison.

If you don't like those tactics, you should not like them regardless of what candidate is engaging in this type of politics. Furthermore, if you feel so strongly, I was expect you to hold your candidate to a higher standard.

..

she's not my candidate and secondly, the "offenses" you and others are complaining about rise nowhere near the level of what Obama did with McClurkin, which is the point of the OP. Too bad, you only can react when it's your oxe that is being gored.

The difference is, I will admit to it.

Why can't you?

if a candidate did to blacks what Obama did to gays and lesbians, I would be on the front lines of outrage about it. But, no candidate has done that. Call me when they do.

Yet, instead of knocking Clinton, you bring up Obama. That makes you a hack,in my opinion.

n/t

If you wanted some credibility, you could have at least started a thread admonishing Clinton before you went straight for this one. As it stands, you accept one act of bigotry and you defend another.

That's lame.

so what is there left to say? Reread the OP. There's no comparison between the two situations.

Link?

the premise that you maintain that there is some kind of parity between the two events. Notice the OP employs the word "supposed," meaning I don't buy the fact that there are racial undertones to what Kerrey said. I might listen to your complaints more seriously, if I thought you were consistent about human rights (which you self admittedly are not), but that doesn't mean I would buy into your logic.

Thus, I don't accept your premise.

You're attempting to quantify bigoted actions. How can you even begin to that? Thats the real question of the hour.

I don't buy that they were bigoted on Kerrey's part. So, how can they be quantified when they weren't something to begin with?

more then proves my point.

until even you believe what you're writing, but it still won't make it true.

but I stand by the notion.

Obama, not Edwards
Concord Monitor

I write as an out lesbian activist and pastoral psychotherapist who is committed to my life partner of 18 years and our children. I strongly support Barack Obama for president. Though the Freedom to Marry organizational leadership has endorsed John Edwards, I believe Obama will serve the interests of the GLBT community much more effectively.

Obama is the only candidate who has gone on record stating that he supports civil unions with all the benefits of marriage. He is a member of the only Christian denomination that fully supports same-sex marriage. He has already addressed and tried to negotiate a conflict between GLBT leaders and some African-American religious leaders who oppose gay rights. He has spoken about the importance of civil rights and legal protection for transgender persons. Like Edwards, Obama has said that he will work to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act in its entirety. (enacted during the Clinton administration). In an op-ed piece entitled "A Call of Equality," Obama wrote, "As president, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." He has stated his commitment to outlaw hate crimes and to support a fully inclusive Employment Non-discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination base on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Along with many other GLBT persons I know, I am excited to support Barack Obama. Don't take my word for it. Check out his web page, ObamaforAmerica.com.

LEANNE M. TIGERT

Concord

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071217/OPINION/712170314/1029/OPINION03

I support Obama as well. I also know that he will support the GLBT community as much as anyone. You may not know this but he recently spoke to a GLBT group about why he supports civil unions as a path to marriage. That's been my position for a long time, and I'm glad to see that feels the same way.

The only ACTIONS I have seen from Obama is to give a platform to hate..


If he feels so strongly about these issues, then he needs to introduce and campaign for the legislation he is talking about. So far, NOTHING.

on why he/she supports George W. Bush also. Why do you post this anecdotal stuff? DO you think this one example you provide should make the rest of us pesky fags shut the fuck up and get in line? I guess you think we should all THINK the same. so fucking TYPICAL.

Just because there are people out there who won't give a damn what Hillary or her campaign say about Obama, his name, his religion, etc. that doesn't mean the rest of his supporters won't or have no right to.


Accordingly just because that woman and others don't care that Obama threw LGBT people under the bus by hiring McClurkin and several other rabid homophobes to win votes and campaign cash from other rabid homophobes does not mean that we don't have the right to care.

==Obama is the only candidate who has gone on record stating that he supports civil unions with all the benefits of marriage. He is a member of the only Christian denomination that fully supports same-sex marriage. He has already addressed and tried to negotiate a conflict between GLBT leaders and some African-American religious leaders who oppose gay rights. He has spoken about the importance of civil rights and legal protection for transgender persons. Like Edwards, Obama has said that he will work to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act in its entirety. (enacted during the Clinton administration). In an op-ed piece entitled "A Call of Equality," Obama wrote, "As president, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." He has stated his commitment to outlaw hate crimes and to support a fully inclusive Employment Non-discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination base on sexual orientation or gender identity.
==

All of them do, except Gravel and Kucinich who support full marriage. Sorry, but Obama of all people should know that Separate but Equal simply isn't.

And all he used the bully pulpit to do was to get $$$ and votes for himself. It worked quite well it seems.


Sorry. All the words in the world won't undo the dump he took on us.

Why has he never admitted that what he did with McClurkin was wrong and apologized for it?

Why has he never owned this?

as you know; here was the statement:

==I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the GLBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.==

And then, of course, McClurkin went and proselytized at the event anyway, which pissed everyone off. Would a direct apology have been appropriate; I think so. But this is politics and he obviously calculated it was better to stick with the above statement and move on.

The whole thing was not good, a net loss for Obama, but it's one incident in a career that has been marked by strong political support for and, just as important, genuine personal empathy toward the GLBT community. I don't expect any of the explanations to turn you around, and I understand the meaning of being pissed. I don't buy the view that Obama was doing a nudge-nudge, wink-wink with homophobes in the black community, as he has been the only candidate in memory to go before black audiences and criticize them for their homophobia. But I also think it's reasonable to completely disagree with that interpretation. Where I part company is with the thought that this one incident matters more than a lifetime of support.

I've seen many people call him a bigot, a homophobe, and hating the gay community. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

It's really sad.

He just condones bigots speaking on his dime.

So long as he's not saying it directly, actually at the vote, or is voting "present" instead of yay/nay he can avoid those indelicate situations that might make it look like he's taking a stand.

Then he would actually have to defend his decision based on principle in a way that would please certain people and displease others. That's just not very...hopeful, now is it?

Plus Oprah likes him. :silly:

Where is my "whoop-dee-dooh" smiley?

And it would...change the way people fawn over him like he's the second coming. No doubt he'd lose votes, which would be very, very bad. For him, anyway.

I have never heard him directly criticize gays and lesbians.

Link please

About time. Headquarters will be very mad if you don't get your double-secret gay decoder ring working faster.

VERY CLEAR.


Anyone that gave a damn about Equal Rights for all could see that.

Ah, the politics of parsing. Where have I heard that before?

Just in case you still don't get it, let's just say that Obama made a choice and his choice displayed his bigotry. The fact that you can try to justify it by asking a question like that shows you're right on board with enabling the bigotry at hand. The whole affair disgusts me to know end, and this is coming from someone who's straight. There should be no room for intolerance in this country anymore, let alone the Democratic Party of all places.

I just don't get why it's such a big deal about his name. It's his name for christsake. I said it before, and I'll say it again, neither Obama or Hillary will be uniters. Obama also leaves out "baby boomers" too, and I am quite upset about that. Oh, sure, his supporters always say it's not true, but it is. He didn't even go to the AARP debate, stating; "there are too many debates scheduled", but he still had time to go to all of the college events. This tells me that baby boomers weren't important enough for him to address. He caters to the young, and screw us 45+....while he, himself, is a baby boomer.

as long as it suits them.

and anything else Saint Obama spews out. For he can do no wrong.

Bullshit. The double standard is yours.

It would be if McGlurkin attacked Hillary for being pro-gay or pro-white... but he did nothing of the sort.

Hillary's people have gone after Obama....personally..... it is not the same thing. :shrug:

and millions of families like mine.

Where is the parallel to Hillary surrogates backhanding Obama.



I am not defending mcGlurkin I am just saying that there is no direct parrallel between the two thisn you are comparing.

is that some Obama partisans are accusing Clinton campaign surrogates of exploiting bigotry to gain votes.

Which is exactly what Obama did in South Carolina.

I am just saying that there is a lack of logical parallelism in the argument of a double standard.

with coordinated talking points about Clinton, as if that had anything to do with the issue. (Many supporters of gay rights who wouldn't vote for Clinton for anything were surprised to be denounced as lying Hilbots)

Some were so aggressive they were tomb-stoned within 24 hours. Many were openly contemptuous of homosexuals in a bluntly-bigoted way... not merely unsympathetic, but overtly and aggressively bigoted, writing with the intention of harming people who dared complain about McLurkin, not merely to contradict or defend.

ObamaNation must have ruggerson on ignore.

Kick & rec!

:kick:

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

and you know hillary isn't one iota better in regards to GLTB issues, and you don't care.

But if you are trying to win an election in a country where most people follow a religion, then you have to accept that the church plays an important role in the lives of many people.

As an atheist who believes in developing ideas based on reality and experience in the real world, I have a problem with ALL god-based religions ALL of the time.

Not just when someone claims that God wants a man and a woman to get married and have kids. Which is something that MOST Christians believe whether we like it or not.

For me, the question is not whether God loves gays as much as he loves straight people. Which is what a lot of Christians seem to think about.

For me, the question is why should anyone care what God thinks, given that there is no evidence for believing that God exists in the first place? :eyes:

I guess we know what the talking points were about, don't we...

hypocrisy. :-)

I've never called Hillary "racist;" however, Obama's advisors didn't use racial overtones to get votes.

We agree to disagree. Apparently, you will hold your nose to vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. In 1992, I had to hold my nose to vote for Clinton despite what he did to Rickey Ray Rector and his dissing of Sista Souljah.