Honestly, what is with the desperate WHINING re: Obama?

The vitriol towazrds Obama here on DU is just deafening - and it's hardly based on reality.

Do some of you not like his track record of fighting for things that matter? Do you believe he's wrong when he suggests ACTION speaks louder than words? Or the fact that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginnibng, unlike Clinton, Dodd, Biden, and IWR co-sponsor Edwards?

If you're gonna criticize someone, then bzase your criticism on facts and logic.If you can't criticize someone based on that, then could it be that they're the best candidate?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :hi:

i know it`s true because i just read it at the "democratic underground"

I'll believe Obama's ACTION in using McClurkin to pander to homophobes instead of his WORDS that he's okay with GLBT.

thanks.

I find someone who stands in front of people and tells them that gays can be "cured" offensive. And I wonder why Barack isn't offended by that as well.

And despite complaints, I've heard no apology and no retraction from him.

Why? Is this how he treats all equally?

Not to mention hundreds of thousands of others. And yet you still support him?

I'll take a candidate who happens to be supported by a homophobe over a candidate whoi showed a grave lack of judgment in co-sponsoring the IWR any day.

His non vote on Kyl-Lieberman was cowardice at best.

He wasn't in the senate yet. If he was a senator and was thinking of running for president...believe you me he WOULD have voted for the IWR.
So as far as I'm concerned it's a non-issue. By using that as an issue you are playing into Bush's hands. The senators had to vote for it or be tagged as soft on terror. Don't you remember?

But the gay bashers will still be with us. Everyone orders their priorities differently.

And Edwards admitted he made a mistake, and now he wants to do something to correct that mistake.

Perhaps someday when Barack grows up he too will admit he was wrong, and make corrections. Until then, no White House for Barack.

!

your thing, then any of the candidates will do.

If you believe in full equality, then you gotta vote Kucinich.

That's a fact.

he supports gay marriage he simply does not see it as possible currently, and as such he is offering unions with all the rights of marriage(which is a whole lot more likely to pass).

Now if a bill were to appear before him as president(assuming he wins)that gives it i am 100% positive he would be cheering as he signed it

He seems to do things in steps from what i understand, he has in his mind an goal, and will work toward it one step at a time based on what seems realistic for the time(a rather good stance in my eyes)

will into his statement.

Obama did NOT say, "I support gay marrige, even though I don't think the country is ready."

Just like all the cancidates with the exception of Kucinich.

Now maybe all the candidates actually support gay marriage but are too scardy cat to say so. And you want to vote for that?

If you're looking for facts and logic - about ANY of our candidates - GD: P isn't the place to look.

a post that they dont know how to answer? Just a guess... projection is a very interesting thing:)

and it's fine, except for the politically naive who actually believe they matter.

I have never ever ever ever seen a site where there is so many lies, manufactured vitrol, hate, dredging material from 20 years ago, she kills cats, she is a lesbian, she is a man chaser. blah blah blah blah blah blah smear smear smear smear flame flame flame against Hillary Clinton and then some has the nerve to say that people bash Obama...what a bunch of absolute crap but, then what do you expect from people who support Obama.

:thumbsup:

Clever, concise, insightful, eloquent, persuasive, unifying.
Your post catalyzed a personal epiphany.
How could I have been so blind?


Please start a thread with your post.

Nancy Skinner.

why did`t hillary run in illinois which is her home state? oh that`s right, hillary walked into an open seat in the senate and of course new york has more exposure to run for president than out here in illinois.

hard work. But by the time we were finished, Michelangelo Signorile could write

While the Democrats in New York seem to have anointed Hillary Clinton as their Senate candidate, much of New York’s gay community, which is overwhelmingly Democratic, has put her on a pedestal, turning her into a kind of gay icon

http://www.signorile.com/articles/advhvld.html

Now that's an endorsement with style!

Another of HRC's notable achievements was keeping Rudy from running at all for what he once thought was his safe seat ... honestly, don't you want that kind of political power on our side in the WH?

why didn't Obama run in his home state of Hawaii?

and spew homphobic filth from the concert stage to a room full of enthusiastic, like-minded bigots.

No apology yet from the so-called "candidate of hope"

from and you have your answer. Consider the source.

It will mean four more years without universal healthcare. It will mean four more years of a president who treats unions as a special interest. It will mean four more years without a leader who will speak out against corporate greed. It will be four more years of gays and lesbians being treated as second class citizens by the president of the united states.

I don't think I've bashed Obama on this board, but I do have a lot of hate for the way he has run such an anti-progressive campaign. The McClurkin fiasco is beyond reprehensible.

If you're really an OLD fireman, then good lord I would hope you would have learned the difference between political hype and reality by now. Go look at the man's goddamn record.

And for chrissake, his church performs gay marriages. He has said the only reason he supports civil unions is because he thinks it is easier to pass. He is the only candidate to speak to the black community about homophobia. He is the only one who went to the fundies and told them to stop being so hateful.

Wake up and stop listening to the goddamn political bullshit.

Nothing new for beliefs not to match up (witness Catholic pro-choice politicians), but he's specifically outlined a position (marriage is between a man and woman) that does not match the UCC position. So his membership with the UCC does not define his stance on that issue.

"You want the word marriage and I believe that the issue of marriage has become so entangled - the word marriage has become so entangled with religion - that it makes more sense for me as president, with that authority, to talk about the civil rights that are conferred" with civil unions, Obama said. Individual denominations should make the decisions about what to recognize as a marriage, he said.

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/index.php

He doesn't give a shit, as the quote I posted shows.

Sorry, that combined with the more standard small-mindedness of "marriage is a man and woman" make what he is willing to compromise to win the middle pretty clear. And I don't agree. I don't agree with the gay marriage position of any major candidate, but Obama's McClurkin incident puts him over the top. Pandering on that level just isn't excusable. Refusing him to drop him from the tour's program was even less excusable.

the "black church" is no more or less homophobic than the "white church"

I'm old enough to know that when someone speaks to another person with such an insulting tone as you just did, it rarely helps further any discussion. If you have a counter argument, maybe you could try to lay it out in an intelligent manner instead of insulting someone personally.

It's my belied that no political candidate who values gay rights would give McClurkin a platform to spew his hate. I don't care what happens at Obama's church. I'm not voting for the candidate who goes to the best church. I don't care if Obama speaks about homphobia. I care about his actions. His actions were to have McClurkin appear at an Obama rally and raise money for Obama. To me, that shows me where he stands on gay rights.

Edwards' don't. Period.

Edwards and Obama were CLEARLY different men in 2003 than they are now.

Barack Obama has veered to the hard right. Way back when, he opposed the Iraq war, but now he has announced his intention to prolong the Iraq occupation indefinitely. He has announced that he sides with the insurance companies against the people. He spread lies about Paul Krugman, a major progressive voice; he spread lies about John Edwards changing the theme of his campaign; he spread lies about a labor union using a legal means to spread a very mild message.

He pushed for the coal lobby more than any other Democrat in either House. Coal is a leading contributor to global warming.

Barack Obama has changed.

John Edwards has changed too. He's the only top-tier candidate who has produced a detailed plan to pull troops out of Iraq. His health care plan sides with the people, not the insurance companies.

So yeah, if you want to build a time machine and bring 2003's Barack Obama into the election, I'd consider voting for him. The 2007-2008 version is foul.

He has not proposed prolonging Iraq indefinitely, that's just ridiculous. His plan includes strict regulation of health insurance, requiring them to provide plans equal to the public plan he proposes. Paul Krugman is the one who has done the lying about mandates. And he's pointed out people like Bunny Mellon funding 527s in Iowa.

And if you got all of this shit from the Edwards campaign, then YOU need to think about who has changed.

"He has not proposed prolonging Iraq indefinitely, that's just ridiculous."

Under the Obama plan, American troops may remain in Iraq or the region. These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training othe Iraqi Security Forces.
-- Barack Obama: Turning the Page in Iraq. BarackObama.com

The Center for American Progress estimates that such an undertaking in Iraq would require a force of around 60,000 troops.
-- "Strategic Redeployment 2.0: A Progressive Strategy for Iraq." The Center for American Progress. By Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis. May 2006.

That's 60,000 US troops occupying Iraq indefinitely. From Obama and The Center for American Progress.

------------------

Paul Krugman did not lie. He gave a reasoned analysis. Some other reasonable people disagree. Like many issues of policy, there's room for thoughtful disagreement.

It was ONLY Obama that went, immediately, to attack Krugman's honesty. And he did it based on half-truths, distortions, and innuendo, in a purely personal attack. This was straight out of Rove.

------------------

Dude -- you don't even know what your candidate stands for! If you did, you probably would be out there going "Anyone but Obama."

It's right there on Obama's site.

To say that's the same thing as prolonging the war indefinitely is a BOLD FACED LIE.

Way too many people listen to the partisan bullshit out of their campaigns instead of screwing on their goddamn heads and thinking for themselves.

I'm adding the emphasis so you can see what you're trying to avoid.

"These American troops will protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq. If Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we would also continue training other Iraqi Security Forces."

Those are Obama's OWN words, from his OWN plan, from his OWN website.

"Continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." That's not protecting an embassy.

"Training other Iraqi Security forces." Uh, right.

60,000 troops is enough to fill a small city. That's just to protect an embassy? Riiiight.

As for this statement, it's good to see you have such insight into your own shortcomings:

"Way too many people listen to the partisan bullshit out of their campaigns instead of screwing on their goddamn heads and thinking for themselves."

:shrug:

You don't know where your own candidate stands on the issues.

You don't know where the other candidates stand on the issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq."

"Move troops and equipment into Kuwait, and to regional bases where we are welcome such as in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey."

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/iraq

Richardson would leave a small Marine contingent behind in Iraq to protect the U.S. Embassy. But, he said, "if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too, along with embassy personnel."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19307110/

Edwards has said the same thing and I am not impressed with his last minute shift to bringing troops home in 9 mos instead of 18.

THINK.

I proved that I was telling the truth. Then you nitpicked and said you're not impressed about Edwards' plan coming out late.

Obama plans to leave many tens thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely, as I said. This was why you called me a liar.

So come on, sandnsea, spend one moment in your life thinking. Was I lying? Does Barack Obama, by his own words, plan to prolong troop presence in Iraq indefinitely? Admit your mistake.

You owe me an apology for the claim that I was lying, but it's okay, I don't expect it. That would require some degree of decency, which Obama supporters tend to lack.

But it's BALD-faced lie, not bold-faced. It's a common mistake on the board here. Please take the correction in the exEnglish teacher sense it's intended. Love you.

"the bald truth."

Its such a catch-22 losers mentality. Some people will turn their back on any progressive who does what it takes to win.

I have actually seen data that shows Obama a click more liberal than Kucinich! He has a consistently liberal voting record and has rejected the DLC, but the dis/misinformation campaign about him at DU insists otherwise. He has the most individual donors of any campaign. He advocates a NO NUKES and NO TORTURE EVER policy. He has worked as a civil rights attorney and community organizer, and lectures in constitutional law.

And all his detractors can think to do is lie about him.

"Obama more Liberal than Kucinich"

BWahahahahahahahahahahahaha...Help Me....I can't breathe.....Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I'm sorry you missed it. And since you are obviously such an open person * sarcasm * I won't bother wasting my time excavating it.

Granted, there's always a little whining about every candidate here but compared to the vitriol heaped on, say, HRC (who I DON'T support so you can't instantly dismiss me as a Hillarite), Obama seems to have got off pretty lightly.

Meanwhile, stop whining about the whining. As someone who's had to deal with all manner of bashing re: Kerry, it's about par for the course here. Deal.

vote to it, is ONLY WORDS.