Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SC and the McClurkin factor - exgays ascending?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:47 PM
Original message
SC and the McClurkin factor - exgays ascending?
It would have been fascinating to find out if the ex-gay pandering had anything to do with Obama's stunning victory in SC - if a question about it was on any of the exit polls. My thinking is that he could have won without appealing to the prejudiced against gays side of some of his supporters. But now I'm worried that there was no consequences for hiring McClurkin, and gays will be cast conveniently aside for the general based on the success of anti-gay appeals in SC.

I hope Obama and his campaign prove me wrong. I truly do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. We will be totally invisible to an Obama presidency.
Count on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Why are you so sure of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. C'mon.
You know why.

Can you even name one prominent GLBT politician in his inner circle? Someone close to him, with whom he appears in public often? Even a really strong, notable advocate for GLBT rights?

If he ever mentions us it's in passing and the words he uses are deliberately ambiguous. He just isn't someone who takes strong stands on truly difficult issues, and we will be no exception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Agreed - but we won't let Obama silence us
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 09:55 PM by Politicub
Screw that - it may be a setback, and a depressing one - but the GLBT rights movement is bigger than the blip of Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. True.
If he gets the nod DADT and DOMA are probably going nowhere - he won't invest any political capital to reverse them.

On the other hand, he probably won't go out of his way to oppose us at the state level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yes - at least he isn't calling for a marriage amendment
unlike all of the GOP front runners. So if he's our candidate in the general, I will be voting against the GOP, not for Obama. But that's really all he needs from us, isn't it? And we will get nothing in return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. The only thing we might lose is the support of the Democratic base
who would fight with us against a republick president. I worry that they'll only pat us on the head and tell us to shut up with Senator Obama in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. absolutely...
not a good development at all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why would gays be 'cast aside'? Keep on trying to milk that crap for all it's worth.
You just look small.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. If we're really a big part of the Obamanation, why didn't he mention the gay/straight
Edited on Sat Jan-26-08 09:51 PM by hulklogan
divide in this country in his laundry list of divides during his victory speech?

edited to clarify my accusation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. I've never heard him do that
At least in the speeches I've seen after primaries or on the stump. I guess it bothers me that we (GLBT) will be invisible in an Obama administration, but I won't ever get used to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Small? I won't avert my gaze for you
Just because Obama is riding high doesn't erase what he did by including ex-gays - not once, but twice. So instead of attaking those of us who were truly hurt by Obama's gesture, why don't you try to use some empathy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. In my opinion, the HUGH margin of victory only proved
that his use of McClurkin was completely and utterly unnecessary!

All it did was totally alienate a significant group of people who could well determine the difference between winning and losing the general election if he ends up as the nominee...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I'm so with you - it was unnecessary
I don't think he needed to do it, and I and a lot of other GLBT folks would have been able to enthusiastically support Obama if he had not gone there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-26-08 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. South Carolina is 53% evangelical.
Obama pandered, and he knew exactly what he was doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC