Why McClurkin? In a September poll of African Americans in SC 62% felt...

"sex between two adults of the same sex" is "strongly unacceptable."

Obama knew exactly what McClurkin's appeal was.

it goes with what I've been saying, that Obama used an anti-gay preacher to get an anti-gay crowd to vote for a pro-gay candidate.

Does that mean Obama is cynically using anti-gay fundamentalist voters? Yes.
Does it mean Obama himself is anti-gay? No.

I disagree with anyone who says Obama and McClurkin share similar views on gay rights. I think that's patently, demonstrably untrue. But I also disagree with anyone who thinks Obama was some sort of naive ingenue who didn't know what McClurkin stood for. All his rhetoric aside, Obama is, like everyone in this race, a politician. And being what he is, he knows what he has to do to get votes. To pretend otherwise is to be blinded by cult of personality.

the only candidate I can think of who specifically said homosexuality is a choice was Bill Richardson, and that happened way back in August at the LGBT-centered debate that featured Melissa Etheridge.

As for Obama, I think his stance against Don't Ask, Don't Tell; his sponsoring of hate-crime legislation based on sexual discrimination while in the Illinois state senate; his 2006 89-percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign; his co-sponsoring of including crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity in federal hate crimes laws while in the U.S. Senate; his support of expanding the Enployment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation; his vote against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; his outspoken criticism of the 1996 DOMA; and his support of gay civil unions (admittedly, not as great as supporting gay marriage, but none of the top three candidates are for that) all speak for themselves.

that he had trouble answering the question... which implied that he wasn't sure.

Thanks again.

I thought he said he was exhausted and talking out his ass, or some such?

So, yeah, I totally grant you that he somewhat went back on his statement, but not entirely. And for what it's worth, I don't think that one statement should necessarily define Bill Richardson's character. The man's done a lot of good for both New Mexico and the U.S. as a whole.

Thanks for the clarification!

I like BR--he's unpolished in some ways, but he comes across as very sincere. I actually think he'd make a fine VP.

I've been pulling for the To Hell With Whitey ticket (Obama/Richardson) for some time now. :P

He said with few exceptions, homosexuality is how someone was born.

You're right, of course, that he isn't naive. He knows what the deal is here. But one would be justified in wondering how he "REALLY FEELS" on the subject, because he's sending some seriously mixed messages. He owes both that crowd of homophobes AND the gay community/those who support their goals a, forgive the expression, STRAIGHT answer.

Back in LBJ's day, you could get away with that shit, because there wasn't a 24 hour news cycle and you could call one person DARLIN' and then turn around and tell the next guy that DARLIN' was actually an asshole. It would be YEARS before anyone put two and two together!

I know that some people are being torturous about this, but the "lying to get votes" argument doesn't sit well. Politics Of Hope has turned into Politics As Usual.

Will he then screw the faithful homophobes later on, by saying "Ah HA!! FOOLED YA!!! I didn't really MEEAAN it!!!"--after they helped him win the primary?

How will those voters feel about being used and conned out of their vote, do we suppose? To say nothing of the gay people who are also being used as a target for ire, to stir up the vote?

That's not triangulation, that's splintering. Short term gain, long term problem.

Show me a person who gives a 100-percent straight answer (to use your delightfully ironic phrasing :) ) 100-percent of the time, and I'll show you someone with no career in politics.

As for how he really feels about the subject, I think Obama's actions speak louder than McClurkin's words, and as I outlined in my response to redqueen, above, Obama's actions as an elected official have been reliably pro-gay rights for more than a decade.

As for the faithful homophobes, yeah, he's going to screw them. If/when he gets in office, he's going to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, and he's going to push Congress to pass a civil-union law, and you know what? Fuck'em, I say. No single group deserves to be screwed good and hard more than people who celebrate bigotry.

Seems to be working great for him, too.

in favor of, ....I don't know...maybe Ronnie? The Rethugs for Obama would like that.

the Bullshit Effect, there, too--a "Bradley" of sorts, but for gay people.

Of the somewhat lonely thirty eight percent who don't have a problem with it, he might be figuring some of THEM are lying so as not to appear un-PC to the pollster.

The target vote in SC is the African American vote. If you can grab THAT demographic, you're on your way to victory in that primary.

And it does nothing to establish that because the numbers for comparison aren't there. For all I know, 70% of the general population feel it is strongly unacceptable.

the African American community IN SOUTH CAROLINA state, when asked by a pollster, that they are homophobic to a considerable extent. It doesn't "imply" anything beyond that. You are reading into the poll something that isn't there.

Your comment that African Americans "may be more homophobic" is not borne out by this poll. It may be true, it may be false, but it doesn't matter.

This isn't a poll of US blacks, it's a poll of SC blacks. You can't extrapolate beyond that without data, and it is reckless to assume anything other than 'it is what it is.'

See, no one CARES, in the context of this poll, how "everyone else" feels. "Everyone else" isn't voting in the South Carolina primary. This poll is ONLY ABOUT those target voters.

The target voter, who was targeted with McClurkin, et. al., is the black voter--not the white, Chinese, or Latvian voter.

Now, if McClurkin starts headlining rallies in Orange County, California, targeting whites or Hispanics, for Obama, then we'll talk, and a request for more data might be appropriate.
------------------

Edited because I mistyped and cut half a phrase in the post!

The African-American community was singled out in the original post, and to deny that is an assist to racism which also constitutes racism.

and frankly, that's not my problem, that's yours. And it IS a problem for you. A pretty big one.

The PURPOSE of the poll was to guage sentiment IN the South Carolina AA community, there, Bright Eyes.

They weren't LOOKING for how Latvians or Englishmen or Polish baseball players feel about this issue. This was a poll of a targeted subset of voters.

Are you suggesting that African Americans in South Carolina don't have the "right" to be polled on their views? That their polling results can't stand on their own? That they ALWAYS have to be "compared" to WHITES in order for their opinions to be 'validated?'

Hmmmmmmm?


:eyes:

All these sidetrack dodges covering up the blatant racism of saying that the way you target African-Americans is to be homophobic!

I don't have to answer any of these lame charges, because they are bullshit and this thread and all agreers are bigots!

The poll is what it is, but using it this way, to imply that African-Americans are more homophobic than everyone else is bigotry flat out.

People will flock to reply to this reply and agree with me!

The only one doing any "implying" is you, and what you are implying is pretty goddamned ugly.

Shame on you.

Or do you just listen to what YOU want to hear?

It was on Cspan and available for your viewing there. It was also written up in major newspapers across the country and pretty much anywhere online you care to look. But no, you'd rather just attack and smear rather than actually listen with an open mind.

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