Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The McClurkin issue

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
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:30 PM
Original message
The McClurkin issue
I think the problem with Mcclurkin at this point is that the GLBT community has run him into an alley and has given him no face-saving way out politically. He obviously kbow it has hurt him, but to get out of the woods on this one seems to require crawling hands and knees across glass.


He can't make a huge aplogy because everyone is going to accuse him of pandering.


The GLBT community will say it should have happened months ago and will view it as insincere. Quite honestly have given it the same importance as the IWR vote is in the case of Clinton's oppponents.

If he makes a public apology maybe he gets props in Dem circles but it will be fodder for the right wing 527s in the fall.

Someone need to throw him a life preserver or just realize that you are going to have vote hor Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. If people up here didn't keep bringing up this guy
I wouldn't know who he was. I'm sure he's happy you pay so much attention to him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jlake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Totally. I mean who cares if Obama lends his stage to an "ex-gay" who thinks
gays want to kill children. I mean, as long as I don't have to hear about it it's like totally cool with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maximusveritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Agreed. Most gay people I know have never heard of him
Even those that do don't see it as a major issue in deciding who should be President. Most of them support Hillary, but not because of McClurkin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
52. That's why some gay newspapers have endorsed Hillary
and specifically mentioned McClurkin.

McClurkin is about as much a "DU issue" as the Snub was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
89. What all three of your gay friends? Thanks for the anecdote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
123. Well, they need to know about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
116. Obama already adressed the incident. on that same week, ages ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jlake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. It is not the GLBT community's responsibility to help him save face. He was warned before
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 12:19 AM by jlake
he did it. An honest apology is all that will save Obama now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cjmastaw Donating Member (195 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
33. He doesn't have to apologize for anything.
Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean you don't speak to them. That's how we're in the mess we're in right now with Iran.

And besides... it's not like the Clintons haven't spoken to him time and time again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jlake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #33
48. Wow. Let me know when he has the KKK MC a fundraiser for him and we can talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. I respond with DOMA and there are glbt orgs that have supported obama
Gay City News for one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
170. WTF is "Gay City News"? You have real, live gays here telling you we're wounded
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clinton clearly lost tonight
The only time McClurkin comes up is when Hillary is going down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. He could introduce legislation
safeguarding against the abusive practices against minors that are part of these "conversion therapy" camps.

Hell --he could just address the issue and denounce the practice.

That'd help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. I wouldn't view it as insincere, if it was a sincere apology.
The fact is, he could have at least made a stronger statement about the danger of "ex-gay" programs, which prey on GLBT youth and cause suicide, homelessness and greater homophobia that leads to hate crimes. He could have made an affirmative statement that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic that cannot (and should not) be "changed" or "cured." He could have showed real understanding of the pain and hatred these people cause. But he didn't. He came out with some lame statement about "disagreement" with their views, as though thinking that GLBTs have an affliction that needs to be eradicated is just another opinion we should entertain. He could have done a lot, but he didn't. His priorities were absolutely clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. yes...like ending the war and brining heathcare to 15 million people.
Those are the priorities of most americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Why did you ask the question, if your intention was to belittle the issue?
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 11:43 PM by Harvey Korman
Wait, I just answered my own question. Translation of your post: you don't fucking matter. :eyes:

I'm sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt. It won't happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. you were the one who seemed to claims it should be his priority
I am not belittling the isse I jst think there has to be some grace given for what he said and there has to be some recognition that a demand for an apology has to be reconciled both with political realities and other priorites.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. He chose to gamble on hate.
He chose. We didn't. The onus for "understanding" is on him, not us.

And I would like to think that human rights are a priority for any Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:53 PM
Original message
One of many and I think Obama has a great record on Human rights Issues
I am not saying what happeedwas not a huge mistake.....I am saying that you have to discount a whole lot of other issues of concern to all american if you vote pivots on this.

Obama does not endorse thoe practices and you know he doesn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
103. I understand that his record otherwise is pretty good
I think it was an instance of gross pandering. I'm not happy with him for that. But there are things I'm not happy with re: Hillary either.

He's lucky Kerry endorsed him, or I'd still be sitting here with my finger up my nose, trying to figure out who to support.

But it's not just that. I rather like him too. I can see the appeal. But that is a lingering issue I don't know what to do with. Supporting him still feels like something of a betrayal to my gay friends.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. One of many and I think Obama has a great record on Human rights Issues
I am not saying what happeedwas not a huge mistake.....I am saying that you have to discount a whole lot of other issues of concern to all american if you vote pivots on this.

Obama does not endorse thoe practices and you know he doesn't
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
64. It's odd some posters think civil rights aren't a legit campaign issue, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #64
124. That would be too big a stretch.
First, you'd have to define the word "civil" for them.

Of course, you could frame it as a "human rights" issue -- but then you'd have to get them to admit that we're human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #124
171. Oh, they believe in civil rights. Just not for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
writes3000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. I applaud Obama's stance on GLBT issues
And I respect his decision not to humiliate someone just because they disagree with him on this. Has McClurkin continued to be invited to Obama events? Has Obama explained that he disagrees with McClurkin?

If the GLBT community expects to change people's minds, they need to understand that we have to do it by reaching out. Speaking up. Not by bullying and slamming the door in people's faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. It's not a matter of "disagreement." It's a morally reprehensible practice
that destroys lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. and so was voting for the war in Iraq
WHich is more important to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Both are important. It's not an either/or, so stop trying to make it one.
Edited on Thu Jan-31-08 11:50 PM by Harvey Korman
He didn't need to appeal to bigotry to address the war in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. I think you are the one who is making the either or Argument
Either genuflect and grovel or you don't get our votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Did I say genuflect and grovel?
No.

I said admit it was a mistake and show genuine understanding of the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. or else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. Or else what?
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 12:02 AM by Harvey Korman
GLBT rights are a big issue for me. They may not be for you. I don't have to disregard an issue that is central to my life because you think I'd be serving the "greater good." There are other reasons I don't support Obama, in any case. I'm not as single-issue as you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #37
82. So what is a greater failiure of judgement in your view?
Being at best insensitive to the GLBT community re: McClurkin or Voting for the IWR?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
writes3000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. If you honestly think...
that Obama sought out McClurkin for his anti-gay stance then you're ignoring all of the evidence. If Obama's goal is to "appeal to bigotry" then why is he speaking against homophobia in churches?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #26
47. That's ridiculous. McClurkin was chosen specifically because of his "ex-gay"
crap. He was Obama's cue to some religious bigots that he's cool with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #47
49. No he wasn't. He was chosen because he's a popular gospel singer. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. A popular gospel singer who would convey the right message to the bigots.
Obama was warned. He ignored the warnings. He never apologized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #47
57. You do not kinw that is a complete strawman
First I am not sure if Obama has the time to select artists for a concet....Second, even if he liked McClurkin as an artist,, that does not mean that he knew of his connection to those groups kinor that he wanted him in the mix to to appeal to bigots... there are some very large leaps in logic.

WHo got to the Obama leadership to warn them about McClurkin? When did that occur?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. You're full of shit. HRC warned Obama.
Secondly, liking a singer isn't the same as giving him a platform to air his views.

And you don't know what STRAWMAN mans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #60
73. Hillary warned Obama?
got a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. Not Hillary - the Human Rights Campaign. See how it benefits you to
know what you're talking about first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Ok When and where did they "warn" him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #77
85. Uhm, here's one article...
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 04:03 PM by Solon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. I just want a clear record before I eat crow, (edit)
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 04:30 PM by Perky
So it seems there was a good bit of heat in the Blogosphere about this before HRC chimed in. If I understabnd the timeline correctly HRC demanded immediate action or else and then they annouced that they demandeded immediate action

Seems to me....that it quickly became a rock and a hard place for Obama. On the one hand. he has a pretty substantial mantra about inclusion and discussion and shutting McClurkin down would rail against that and potentially hurt him in what at the moment was his firewall state. Not that he was endorsing theses veiws and catering to bigots nearly as much as it would appear that he was caving to angry GLBT concerns. That is how it would have played.

On the other hand, to allow McClurkin to continue would still leave the GLBT community very upset....but since this guy had his own microphone he could turn around blastthe campaign and hurt him.


No easy choice here from Axelrod's perspective. But we need to understand that neither McClurkin or Caldwell have given any money to the campaign and their have been no flair ups of this sort since,

Given these facts and given Obama's long recors of support for Human Rights issues I think he deserves some befit of the doubt here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #87
128. If it were a case of simply forgetting the vet the guy, that would be giving Obama...
some leeway, but the fact is that he knew, ahead of time, that this guy was anti-gay, he should have fired this SOB's ass, period. Any calculation about whether this would appear to be "caving" into the GLBT community is fruitless, because I would have preferred Obama to cave to THEM rather than to homophobic assholes. Don't you see, this actually makes Obama look WORSE, in my view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #26
66. Of course he did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-03-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
193. What "evidence"??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
94. What the fuck are you talking about? What the fuck does Iraq have to do with McClurkin?
Can't we be against homophobic preachers who drive children to suicide AND the Iraq war? Or is that just too goddamned complicated?

Strawman bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. He let McClurkin stay on his SC campaign trail after the issue became known.
He chose black evangelicals in SC over glbt'ers everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
65. "Not by bullying and slamming the door in people's faces"
THIS has happened to GAYS, not people who want us to stay on teh other side of that door.

Think of the tortured gay teenagers if nothing else. You know, the ones who kill themselves because of garbage spewed by poeople like "Rev. Donnie."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #65
192. It's so obvious Obama has been
pandering the the religious right and independents. If the GLBT community was larger it would never have happened.

I'm really sorry that it was so hurtful for so many people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. Vote for Senator Clinton.
Obama and McClurkin should never have been in the "woods" together to begin with. Obama threw the gay community under the bus. I hope that they vote against him, and vote for Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #10
70. i for one will.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. Hillary has homophobes on her web site and her payroll
I could dig it up if you want to see the gory details.

Obama spoke out against McClurkin, who played at one concert one night in a small town in South Carolina.

Hillary has homophobes endorsing her on wer web site as well as on her payroll. That is a LOT worse than the McClurkin concert.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You keep telling stories you like about what McClurkin did
There is video of him speaking, not singing, but speaking at that concert. There is video of him calling gays out for having the audacity to call him on his bigotry. He spoke not for five minutes, not for ten minutes, not for fifteen minutes, not for twenty minutes, not for twenty-five minutes, but for a full half hour. At the very least, it is incumbent upon you all to admit what was done before you ask for forgiveness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Here! See about Obama/McClurkin with video and Hillary's homophobe fans
Links/videos/quotes/issues...

Hillary's homophobic links:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/zulchzulu/101

McClurkin details:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/zulchzulu/111

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. Oh zulchzulu.....I will say you're a loyal soldier.
Fortunately you're not an Obama adviser...at least for his sake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #31
42. What the hell does that mean?
You either can't read, didn't read or you are stuck in never wanting to...ah nevermind...

Bye!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. It means that you're an apologist for Obama, and he
doesn't need apologists guiding his campaign.

That's what it means.

Just like Hillary cannot admit voting for the war was a mistake, you can't admit McClurkin was a mistake.

Do you understand now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
126. You can post bs in your journal until the cows come home and give birth to aliens
but until you at least get your facts straight, why should anyone listen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #126
174. You said it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
20. If you mean Obama ("him" / run him into an alley)...
He had, like, 6,000 chances, BEFORE that piece of shit self-loathing "ex-gay" clown went on stage. He had, like, 6,000 chances, AFTER Preacher "Gays Want to Kill Our Children" Shitforbrains took the stage. It's not like we didn't fucking TELL HIM, repeatedly, or give him umpteen chances to divorce himself from these loathesome "ex-gay" fucks.

He blew every chance. He didn't want to divorce himself from the fucks who think I need to be "cured."

How fucking stupid are we LGBTs supposed to pretend to be?

Sign me,

Better The Devil I Know (Who Already Voted for HRC Via Absentee)

P.S. Give it up, Perk-O. Just. Give. It. Up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. OP is convinced that pandering to bigots is necessary to get out of Iraq.
Don't ask me how, but that's the argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. hardly
when did I say that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
86. Here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3674657

Seriously, the first sentence alone makes me wonder if you aren't a homophobe yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Maybe it's all part of Senator Obama's plan to send McClurkin to Iraq
and help the Iraqis pray the USA away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. I'm just sitting back watching you pin everyone
into a corner while Perky tries to throw teh gays under the bus.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #23
56. Well, at least...
...we know there's a reason for his pandering to bigots, no matter how far-fetched it is.

Silly me, I thought he was pandering just for the sake of... um... for the sake of... wait, I have it here on my notecards somewhere... Bringing us all together, so we can hope for... so that he can change... Hope for change? Change our hopes? Crap, that's not right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beausoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
43. You do have a special way with words.
And I love it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #43
54. You're too kind, Beausoir.
Not that you should, like, stop or anything. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #20
45. Well said as always Saph
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #45
55. Thank you, thank you, cboy.
There's no bowing emoticon, so... ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #20
74. 6,000 chances?
were their quiet overtures? By whom? WHen?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #74
95. Amnesia, Perky?
Or are you just hoping the rest of us can't retain a memory for three months?

I'll make it easy for you:

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/10/human-rights--1.html

That's not "6,000 chances," but 700,000 -- the total membership of the HRC.

Did you forget that the National Black Justice Coalition made its displeasure known to The One? Yes, I'm sure you have conveniently forgotten that, too, so here it is:

http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/SenObamaMeetRequest.pdf

Even Obama supporters were kicking the issue around, on Obama's own campaign site:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/lcherryvincent/Cn9W

Of course, if you're going to say Obama doesn't pay attention to his own supporters, on his own site, then you've got a bigger problem with your candidate than you do with us pesky gays.

And if you can remember how to work The Google, you'll find, oh, I dunno, probably a few thousand blog posts on the subject. And then there are the columnists -- everyone from Green Greenwald to Earl Ofari Hutchinson. (I'm sure writers like Keith Boykin and Jasmyne Cannick and Pam Spaulding won't count in your book, 'cause, after all, they're gay.)

And since your memory banks seem to be fried, I'll remind you that while DU Obamaites were insisting that nobody outside a few uppity queers on DU ever heard of McClurkin, much less cared about his fuck-the-gays-for-Obama speech, the story was picked up more than a few times by CNN, Fox, WaPo -- why, just about the whole damned MSM.

Finally, why do you think Obama tried to appease LGBTs with his hamfisted gesture of hiring a gay preacher in a lame attempt to offset McClurkin's vile spew? You think St. Barack came up with that stupid idea for any other reason? You think it came to him in a dream?

You know, Perky, I should really thank you for giving me the opportunity to refresh a lot of dulled (or dead) memories with the very truth I'm sure you didn't want resurrected here. So: Thank you.

Any other questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #95
106. Show me evidence of any quiet entreaty to the campaign by HRC
or any other organization before the press releases started flying.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:51 PM
Original message
What the hell are you talking about now?
"Quiet entreaty"? What is that, some sort of Christian buzz phrase? It sounds like it's from the Book of Ruth.

I don't have to prove a thing to you (sorry, dude, but impressing you has never been on my list of Important Things to Do). And if you're asking me to "prove" to you there were some sort of back-room discussions going on between the HRC and the Obama campaign, then I'm going to ask you to prove to me that Jesus ever existed. In other words: Stop moving the goalposts -- your lame attempt to squirm out from under this one is so transparent, I could read a newspaper through it.

Sorry you didn't like hearing the truth, Perk-O, but tough noogies. Just admit you're wrong, eat your crow, and be done with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
125. It has everything to do withit.
some element of the GLBT community tried to bludgeon Obama with this before giving him the opportunity to walk it back.

Seems to me that HRC gave him a public ultimatum and refused to supply him any reasonable political vocer to get out of the mess before it broke in wide circulation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. Maybe you want all your candidate's flaws to remain hidden from view.
I thought Obama supporters touted "transparency" as one of Obama's greatest assets.

And you know perfectly well that if Hillary had done the same thing, you'd be all over it -- quite publicly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #129
134. No I would not have. Is that part of the anger? Are yoyu doing this because yousupported Hillary
before this happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #134
149. Gee, ya caught me!
Yeah, it never even occurred to me to generate all this "faux outrage" over the way LGBT Americans get fucked over every single election cycle until I discovered the Mighty Hillary! Hail, Holy Queen of DLC! Alleluia! :sarcasm: <= for the sarcasm-impaired

Perky, I don't know if it's the game you play, or if your memory cells really have dried up -- now you're pretending not to remember how many times you and I have gone 'round and 'round on LGBT equality. (I'm for it, and you're for it only if we STFU, don't cause trouble, and vote as we're told.)

I'm a Kucinich woman, remember? And when Dennis threw us to the wolves, I turned to Hillary as my only defense against Obama. (I'd have preferred Edwards, but he was too far down in numbers to even consider.) She ain't purty, but with Hillary, I know what I'm getting. Your guy scares the bloody fuck out of me -- he stands for NOTHING... except pandering and double-talk.

Now, excuse me -- I'm going to a Hillary rally. Seriously, I am.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #129
138. I am just saying that there are ways to do this that would have allowed
the Obama Campsign to save face....and that option was never given to him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #138
150. That's rich!
As IF you would have extended the same courtesy to Hillary! Perky, I'd laugh in your face if I thought you didn't really believe your own bull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #150
152. I have one concern with Hillary
and that is my beliefe that she is to polarizing to get anything accomplished. I think she can be elected. I just do not think she is able politically to get anythhing substantgial accomplished.

If she had a mcClurjing issue and if I were supporting her. my view would be the same as they are for Obama. As an Obama supporter, if this happened to Hillary, I seriously doubt I would chime in and rag on her. I might enjoy seeing here sqirm but I would not partake...Largely cecause it is not an issue I am particualry well versed in or would care aboput if it happened to another candidate.


I have come to understand the genuiness of the anger at Obama. For some I think it is just a reason to bash you candidate's opponent. For others it is very real and very painful. It would be grossly insensitive to mock real pain. what gets me riled is not that the anger is misplaced. It is simply that it totally discounts Obama's strong record on human rights isses, his repudiation of McClurkin's view, and the demand that he do more..publicly...immediately.

I think in purely political terms that the tact is petty even when the issue is painful...Obama never intended to cause anybody pain. He is a politician. he has to appeal to a broad audience. I do not think it was meant to be a direct appeal to bigots.....as some have suggested....He was trying to reach a community that has been largely ignored by democratic candidates. They did not come together to celebrate bigotry or to hear a bigot's views. The advertising of the event certainly did not emphasize McClurkin as "ex-gay". Had the promotion focused on that at all...I would be outraged and very angty at Obama's campaign and would have joined those who oppose him because it would have been a direct appeal to bigots by emphasizing bigotry.. But that is not what happened.It probably said something like "recording artist, Donnie McClurkin". It was never meant to be an appeal to bigots to join the Obama campaign.


Parenthetically, Most of those in attendance are probably not bigots at all. They might if they thought about it, ask questions about whether someone can be born gay. But I assure you that most Christians do not think in those terms. Most live in their own insular faith ghetto of sorts and the issue never comes up. But their focus is on Bible study, prayer. fellowhip and evangelism. Now having said that, thare certainly is aomw latent ostracism within the Christian community and the issue of being born gay is a difficult issue for most Christians not because they are anti-gay but because it does not fit their theological grid and their understanding of sactification. But bluntly in my thirty years in the church. I have never heard a sermon on the issue. I have never had a conversation about it with any of my churched friends. I say all that to emphasize that most christians are not bigoted, Obama was not making an appeal to bigots....but McClurkin certainly is a bigot.


Again, I do not dispute your pain...I have never disputed that the ex-gay camps are as has been suggested. I just think that the tact taken has been inappropriate and ugly and demanding. When other courses of action were more conducive to an opportunity to blasting "ex-gay" camps and McClurkin. Obama distanced himself from McClurkin, but that is not enough. You want an apology and I suspect a news cycle worth of national coverge that would leave Obama wounded and exposed to 527 attacks should he win the nomination. Is that in your interest; WHen there are so many reasons to get a Democrat in the White House? Particularly when Obamae has a sterling record otherwise? Would you really trade all the good that can come as evidenced by the rest of his record for McCain and Huckabee? Simply because the regret expressed was not big enough?

I am not accuring I am asking the question. Is that how you feel about this?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #152
175. No, that is not how I feel about this.
First: It doesn't matter if Obama apologizes or not -- he's refused to address the issue directly, and I don't think he's going to do it a full three months later. And that is something that terrifies me about Obama: He is stubborn as hell, and refuses to admit his grave error (much less DO anything about it). He does indeed remind me of Bush that way: A man too stubborn to admit his errors and do everything in his power to right them. Where he and Bush part ways was summed up best by Duane Wells (of Gaywired.com) in a quote I've cited many, many times:

I never thought I’d say this, but Mr. Obama’s duplicitous stance on gay and lesbian rights circa the Donnie McClurkin controversy has given me something of an appreciation for George W. Bush’s no-nonsense approach to politics. I may not agree with a thing that comes out of curious George’s mouth, but at least he doesn’t piss in my cornflakes and tell me that he filled the bowl with whole milk. No sir. If there is a good thing to be said about President Bush it’s that he will tell you he’s going to piss in your cornflakes, then he will actually piss in your cornflakes and then he will hold a press conference defending his right to piss in your cornflakes. There’s no deception. It’s honest and clear… whether you like it or not. With Obama that is unfortunately not the case.
I'd have a lot more respect for Obama if he'd just admit he's pissing in my cornflakes, and admit he just doesn't give a flip if I don't like it. But don't give me some cock-and-bull line about "reaching out" when it's clear I have to do all the "reaching out," while the homophobes have to be "respected" because of their "deeply held religious beliefs." Get your religion OUT of my government, Obama!

Next: Don't try to make it sound like I want a Repuke to beat Obama in the GE out of spite. I do not want Obama in the GE in the first place.

Understand this: It isn't just the gay thing, and it never was; the gay thing is only what sealed the deal for me. I have NO CONFIDENCE WHATSOEVER in Obama on any OTHER issue, either. Not the war, not the economy, not healthcare, nothing. None. Nada. And I believe, to the bone, that if he is elected in November, he will be a one-term president, and fuck up any chance of the Dems winning back the White House until 2020, and will make it very difficult for the Democratic Congresspersons and Senators (and Democratic Governors) up for election/re-election in 2010. Believe it or not as you will, but there it is.

To turn it into a black-and-white issue of "if you're against Obama, you must be willing to have another Repuke in the White House" is just wrong. I want the best Democrat, and Obama has nothing -- no plans, no roadmap, nothing. Just a pretty face, a great voice, a good tailor, and a knack for convincing people that the answer to everything is some bullshit about bringing everyone together, and... If we just hope hard enough, there will be change. Yeah, well, I've had more than enough of the current "uniter, not a divider" occupant of the White House, who united no one but radical religionists and made them feel all warm and fuzzy about... well, uh... about something. And that is exactly what Obama is doing. His supporters just don't see that yet -- and God help him when they finally do. It isn't going to be pretty.

And mine isn't entirely an anti-Obama vote: I actually feel positive about Hillary. Not thrilled -- but positive. I know where she stands, I know what she's offering, and I have confidence in her ability to deliver. The idea that she is "polarizing" is completely moot, because she will be working with a Democratically-controlled Congress (and if you think the Dems are in control now, just wait until those juicy 28 vacant Repuke seats in the House go up for grabs).

What is in my interest -- and yours -- is having a president with a roadmap of solutions, not tasty, frothy, filling-but-calorically-empty good vibes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
131. Your quote
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 05:36 PM by Perky
"He had, like, 6,000 chances, BEFORE that piece of shit self-loathing "ex-gay" clown went on stage. He had, like, 6,000 chances, AFTER Preacher "Gays Want to Kill Our Children" Shitforbrains took the stage. It's not like we didn't fucking TELL HIM, repeatedly, or give him umpteen chances to divorce himself from these loathesome "ex-gay" fucks.

He blew every chance. He didn't want to divorce himself from the fucks who think I need to be "cured.""

There were no quiet pleas. It was a mugging... Its the same type of crap the Moral Majority and Focus on Family and those nut jobs do to rally their base and fundraise. by demonizing any one for anything they decide to say is outrageous.

I am not suggesting it was not a mistke. but the demands of the HRC were thuggery.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #131
154. An oppressed minority asking for decency is "thuggery"?
Fuck that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #154
158. No I did not say that either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. You can't decide what you said, but you did accuse gays of thuggery for asking for decency
from a presidential candidate.

Enjoy living with yourself. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #160
163. No I specifically accused the HRC of thuggery
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 09:36 PM by Perky
and I stand by that assertion based on the my understanding of the sequence of events.

They told the blogosphere in a press release that they would issue a public demand if Obama did not "cancel the event"

And yeah I have a link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #163
165. How dare they demamd 0bama not give a bigot a platform?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
27. Please stop opining on things you don't care about. And theres Kirbyjohn after McClurkin.
He doesn't learn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Kiryjon has no official fucntion in the campaign there was no letter or press release
thanking him for the "endorsement" the guy is a creepy gadfly.
who has not been seen since SC and it took him four monthe to endorse Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-31-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Not true. They used him again for an event in December.
At least when they got caught a second time they distanced themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. first I have heard of this any links?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #39
78. did he attend the event?
I know he is linked to an ex-gay program at his Houston Church. But I also know that the Colawell bit is a bit of a Red Herring


http://www.americablog.com/2008/01/obama-and-gays-again.html

Monday, January 21, 2008

Obama and the gays, again
by John Aravosis (DC) · 1/21/2008 06:02:00 PM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: Comment (0) · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!


Obama's relations with the gay community were off to a great start yesterday morning. Obama had just addressed the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, MLK's own church (text of the speech and video here), and Obama went out of his way in the speech to call the black community to task for having "scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."

Not bad, considering candidates don't usually admonish their own in order to get votes.

Then, word started getting around (i.e., I started getting lots of emails) that Obama was embracing yet another homophobic friend-of-Bush, a la the controversy a few months ago in which Donnie McClurkin, a gospel singer (and Bush supporter) who advocates that gays can (and should) be "cured" emceed an Obama fundraiser. This time around, it's Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a black minister who says he's been asked by the Obama campaign to travel around the country on their behalf. The controversy? The minister's church runs a ministry that tries to cure gays.

Or at least they did. The ministry's Web site no longer contains the page promoting their anti-gay/ex-gay ministry, but I still have a copy that you can see below:


(click image for a larger copy)

The really important part is the lead that reads:
We are pleased to announce the creation of “ The Way, The Truth and The Life”, a program created to provide Christ Centered instruction for those seeking freedom from homosexuality, lesbianism, prostitution, sex addiction and other habitual sins.
Oops.

Why I'm actually not that upset about all of this (and much more), after the jump...

Caldwell, for his part, issued the following statement today:
"Metanoia Ministries is not an active ministry of my church. It was run by an outside group and I was not aware that it was still linked to my website. Neither Senator Obama nor his staff knew of this outside ministry, nor have they expressed any agreement with my church's beliefs on gay rights. I support Senator Obama because of his ability to bring Americans together, not because of our agreement or disagreement on any one issue."
Well, not so fast. The ex-gay group wasn't "linked" from Caldwell's Web site, they were a part of Caldwell's Web site. An entire page was devoted to their "ex-gay" services, and the director of the ex-gay program, Barbara Hicks, has an email address at Caldwell's church. There's nothing outside about this at all (though it is good that Caldwell is feeling the need to distance himself from the "cure the gays" crowd).

I've talked to the Obama campaign about this, and they assure me of a few things:

1. Caldwell has not, and will not, be asked to do anything for the campaign (and this means, we hope, that Obama won't be doing appearances with the man any time soon).
2. Caldwell was simply wrong when he told the papers this weekend that the campaign asked him to travel around the country on their behalf. In other words, Caldwell was freelancing when he called the paper for an interview.

The reason the McClurkin controversy really got my goat wasn't that Obama had scheduled a homophobic superstar to emcee a campaign event. (I doubt Obama knew about McClurkin's dark side when the event was scheduled.) What bothered me was that even after Obama learned that McClurkin was a real jerk he still kept him on the schedule (and surprise, surprise, McClurkin then spent half an hour at the event railing against gays). From what we know, Caldwell isn't McClurkin - Caldwell may embrace the "ex-gays," but he's not an ex-gay leader like McClurkin (though I'm not going to give the guy any PFLAG awards). But more importantly, Caldwell doesn't appear to have any role at all in the Obama campaign, nor will he (though he did appear previously at a few Obama events). If that's true, and coming on the heels of Obama's rather gutsy pro-gay comments at MLK's church yesterday morning, I'm a lot less troubled by this controversy than I was the previous.

Bottom line: Obama gets some some major chits for what he did yesterday morning, and with that in mind, I think on this one we can give him a pass.

UPDATE: A reader emailed me this link, noting that Caldwell was invited by Obama's campaign to appear at the McClurkin fundraiser. I knew that already, and the campaign didn't lie to me about it - in fact they acknowledged that he was there. But, the issue isn't what the campaign did before they knew he was a problem, the issue is what they do now. If they say he's not going to be asked to do anything for the campaign, until proven otherwise, that's a darn good answer.


But I have also noticed that those who call the loudest for an apolgy did not chime in when this was posted on DU and they continue to draw a link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4150818#4151121
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. And here's a story from BarackObama.com dated July, 2007
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. The whole Kirbyjon story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
46. But Obama Does Not Triangulate, or So We Are Told
What was it then? Does Obama really believe what McLurkin was saying?

That was a deal-breaker for me in the primary, and I'm not even gay.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
51. poor barack -- the way you make it sound -- he is just hounded by the evil gays --
FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS!!! -- for fucks sake -- he's in just about the best position a human being could be in -- and you still paint him as a victim -- a victim of his own hateful pandering.

fuckin nuts -- just nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. It's strange, isn't it?
We're told that GLBTs are such a small group that we just can't be considered when it comes to the issues--that other people have to come before us (meaning everybody in the entire country).

We're told that those of us who even give a damn about the McClurkin/Kirbyjon etc. issue comprise such a small subset of the already tiny group of Americans that it's laughable to take our "faux outrage" seriously.



But notice how we're repeatedly taking the blame for causing so much harm to poor Obama? How can that be if we're such an infinitesimal and marginal group?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #53
119. Hey, you forgot to mention...
...that we singlehandedly lost the Dems the election in 2000... and 2002... and 2004!

Pretty good for a minority that's so small, we don't have any power, eh? We're more powerful than The Mighty Clenis!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #119
191. Ironic, isn't it?
We're both so powerful we can cause the loss of elections, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and other major disasters yet so insignificant that we mean nothing when we disapprove of St. Obama. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #51
58. No. Very clearly he mad a huge mistake with this
whether it was pandering or not is a second issue. What I am saying is that that there was an insistenece of a public apology that would make him look like he was pandering to the GLBT community.
There was not way for his team to put the genie back in the bottle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. pandering was most assuredly part and parcel.
not a second issue.

donnie and the others were a known quantity.

he defended donnie -- never forget that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. So he's afraid to tell the tuth?
what a tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #61
80. Did I say that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. Yeah, actually.
"What I am saying is that that there was an insistenece of a public apology that would make him look like he was pandering to the GLBT community."

By your reasoning he is afraid to admit the truth: that he made a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #84
98. The fear was the perception that he was catering to the gay community
not that he made a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #98
143. You said it was a mistake. So if it was a mistake, he should admit it.
But he won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #143
155. Because he can't without looking like he is pandering
and it would give away the news cycle. Thi s is no longer a story in MSM....Why would he want to make it one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #155
178. So instead he panders to bigots.
This was never a story in the MSM. It is a story that matters to GLBT people.

I'm not making it one.

And since you clearly do no gve a fuck about GLBT people, you could at least just stop talking about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. Andy ou clearly do not care about voters are religious.
You proceed from the assumpticn that those attending the event in Orangeburg must be bigots. because they only came to hear McClurking erog they must all be bigotts and homphopbes.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #181
189. People who cheer and clap after a homophobic sermon
are clearly homophobes. Do you not understand that? Donnie McClurkin gave a 30-minute homophobic rant during the event and they all cheered and clapped. People do not cheer and clap unless they agree with what the person said. Ergo they are homophobes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #51
63. cos and apology and crawling on glass is ofcourse the same thing.
how would we live without straight people telling us how we should vote and whom we should forgive and how insignificant this is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. how right you are. -- and of course the donnie thing really does have meaning.
we are being excoriated instead of obama -- because we see the meaning and call it for what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. ex gays cause death in our families and nothing on earth will convince me otherwise
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 11:02 AM by lionesspriyanka
i just heard of a young guy in georgia who hung himself because people find out he was gay. (my coworkers best friend). ex gays perpetuate this ignorance and fear and hatred.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. and the stories haven't yet begun to be told.
we are at the beginning of this -- you and i know this -- the others will -- i guess -- find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #63
75. I do no think it is the least bit insignificant. ANybody who spends anytime
on DU understand how serious the LGBT community is about this episdode. It is very clear that you are withholding your votes from Obama until he apologizes. My concern is no that ythe community is wrong to upset, but rather that there is such a strond serire to see Obama apoligize that you are willing for it to consume a news cycle, give fodder to 527s and give benefit to the GOP to make what to the rest of the voting propluation is a huge shrug.


Again its not that you are wrong. It is simpy that you are unwilling to accept what Obama has offered as a renuncuiation of what the gay-bashing idiot believes....Particularly given Obama's strong record on Human Rights otherwise.

It comes across as a demand for a pound of flesh and given the other issues that confront the nation, somewhat myopic.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
79. If Hillary had a KKK member MC a rally for her but said "I don't agree with him"
she would be rightly crucified. But 0bama gets a pass for doing much the same to GLBT people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
109. In other words...
...it's "significant" to you not because you recognize yet another injustice against a powerless minority and it upsets you -- it is "significant" to you only because you think it will hurt your candidate at the polls. Got it.

That's all I get from your post -- the rest of it, you must admit, is almost completely unintelligible. If you can rewrite it so that it makes sense, I'll respond to it.

I do see you think Obama seems to have "offered ... a renuncuiation of what the gay-bashing idiot believes". If you mean Obama's clumsy statement that he disagrees with McClurkin's views -- which, as summarized by the Obama campaign itself, are that McClurkin does not want to change "happy" gays -- sorry, that doesn't work. (So, Obama doesn't agree that only unhappy gays should be "cured"? Or he does believe happy gays should be "cured"?)

Obama's so-called "renunciation" makes about as much sense as the bulk of your post.

P.S. I am not "withholding" my vote from Obama until he apologizes. I decided long ago that Obama was not the better candidate among the last two standing, and the McClurkin issue only added to my unease about him. I'll happily accept a proper apology from Obama, but that won't change the fact that I have already voted for Hillary in the California primary -- nor would it have changed my vote to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
62. i will vote for hillary clinton and be very happy with my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Apollo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
67. Obama should stand up for diversity and human rights.
Defending diversity should not be seen as "pandering to the GLBT community".

As much as I like Obama, this is one issue where I have my doubts about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UALRBSofL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #67
72. We will have to work with Obama
On these issues of diversity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #67
81. But you discount hi whole political history because an aide in SC
Did not sufficitnly vet a performer at a single event that Obama clearly disstance himself from after the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Totally inaccurate. Human Rights Campaign warned Obama. Don't blame it on
an aide. They HAD TO know what they were doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #83
110. They warned him publicly in a frigging press release,
They threatened him publicly...It's bad political form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #110
144. You think there was no call to his campaign prior to press releases?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #110
183. Wah they threatened him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #81
88. McClurkin is only the tip of the iceberg
But he's a glaring example of Obama's hypocrisy with GLBT issues.

Obama flat-out refuses to tolerate racism or allow it in his campaign (his own statement), then goes as far as publicly demand the firing of those who make racist comments (Don Imus, John Tanner). But homophobes of the worst variety are handed a stage and microphone in his name, on his behalf--after protests from prominent LGBT community leaders. Then even after that event Obama continues to work with Kirbyjon Caldwell, another "Ex-Gay" industry monster, until news of their association hits the media. Next thing you know all the Websites are scrubbed and they're all playing the "I don't know what you're talking about" game like it never happened and we're all going to buy it.

You don't "reach out to" homophobes by using other homophobes to spew homophobic filth to them. That just reinforces their behavior and breeds more homophobia.

Then, of course, is his "we're all sinners" schtick that he manages to slip in whenever discussing GLBTs or HIV/AIDS (which he always associates with GLBTs). More of that "hate the sin, love the sinner" garbage. Well guess what, we're not "sinners" and we're sick and tired of people, particularly freaking presidential candidates, perpetuating the notion that we are.

When Obama can say in no unequivocal terms that homophobia, like racism, is unacceptable, and that he won't tolerate or "reach out to" homophobes, then maybe I'll take a look at him. Of course there are a boatload of other issues he has that I would have to deal with as well, but that would be a start.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
90. I'm getting tired of hearing about the McClurkin issue.
It has already been discussed ad infinitum. It's time to move on to something else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Been here less than a month and you're already "tired" of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:32 PM
Original message
Delete
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 04:32 PM by readmoreoften
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #90
96. Hey, it's a member of your Obamacan family who reheated it, so don't blame us.
He just couldn't stand not inventing a new excuse to gaybash...so he had to reheat it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #96
108. It doesn't matter who started the thread.
It has gotten to the point where nobody's mind will be changed on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #90
113. Then move on.
Nobody's holding a gun to your head to read about issues that bore you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
91. Yes the evil gays ran your poor candidate into the alley.
We're almost as unreasonable, stupid, and childlike as the stupid blacks and the stupid women. Thanks for looking out for our interests. Where would we be without conscientious straight folks like you taking the time to teach us right from wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
93. For the life of me, I can't fathom what the point of this OP was.

I swear, some candidate "supporters" are their candidate's own worst enemy.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #93
99. This is quite typical of Perky though...
It doesn't surprise me that he posted this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #93
101. There were some OPs which suggest they would support Obama
if he publically apologized for McClurkin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #101
117. I'd send him a really nice letter of thanks
But he still wouldn't get my vote. There are myriad other issues beyond McClurkin for which he's not getting my vote.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapphocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. Other issues? You mean like...
...flip-flopping on single-payer healthcare, and his foreign policy advisers composed of a bunch of big-time warmongers, and his admiration of Reagan, and the way he claims he was always anti-war even though he couldn't prove it with a vote (and if the issue was so important to him, why he didn't show up for the Kyl-Lieberman vote), and stuff like that there?

Wait, wait, you can't say all that, 'cause if you do, people will get the idea that gays might not be just single-issue voters after all!

Make everyone understand we're not just a bunch of self-centered jerks, who, like, might actually care about issues beyond our own little world, and the heat from all those melting brains would be unbearable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #122
139. That's what I mean
You'd think this place was fundie land the way people believe we're nothing but our "sexuality". There's life beyond that. We vote for reasons other than LGBT issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #101
137. So... your response was to start a new thread scolding the GLBT community...

... and its many supporters for being... what, exactly?

Here's what I heard behind your words, echoes of an old and really ugly tactic for deflecting legitimate complaints: "If only those uppity gays would quit makin' waves, maybe we could get along with them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #137
142. You are reading my OP completely incorrectly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
97. Thing is, I've met supporters of his who don't think it will hurt him
Before I was a supporter, I asked them about the issue, looking for their reaction. I got a "it won't hurt him". I had to ask it twice more, trying to get them to understand that I wanted their human reaction, not their "political analyst" reaction. Still didn't get much of a reaction from them. It was maddening.

I am supporting him despite this issue. But I am still not pleased. If the staffer's answer I remember reading here is accurate, the one where he was asked about McClurkin and he said they got what they wanted out of the event, is accurate, it shows a certain cynicism and a trading of Southern voters for GLBT ones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:36 PM
Original message
Thank you for your integrity. I wish more Obama supporters were like you.
If more Obama supporters were like you--LGBT advocates who investigated such cynical and strategic uses of homophobia to bring out the vote--then stunts like the McClurkin episode wouldn't work. I blame the apologists as much as those who were actually swayed by the event.

Thanks again for your support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #97
102. self-delete
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 04:36 PM by readmoreoften
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #97
107. No doubt cycical....and it shouldnot have been said... but that is how politrcs works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #107
114. Cynical maybe
But it looks like the truth slipped out. Ooopsie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #114
118. but you seem to be blaming Obama for the comments of an aide.
btw....The iade had a huge chip opn his shouler....I think he got pissed over the controvery and made McClurkin emcee just to piss the GLBT community off. Is Obama ultimately responsible...yes....but is he guilty of gay bashing or directy appealing to bigots? I think that is a bit of a stretch.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #118
136. I'm not blaming Obama for the comments of an aide
I'm blaming Obama for what he did. The comments of the aide just lay bare what Obama did, which is what many of us suspected all along. Obama used a crew of homophobic bigots to garner votes and campaign cash for himself . He had the chance to do the right thing by putting an end to the event, or at least yank the worst offender (McClurkin) before it happened and he chose not to. He needs to live with the consequences like an adult now.

And if you don't believe that a bigot delivering an anti-gay sermon to the cheers of an audience of thousands isn't an appeal to bigots then you're not very attuned to what bigotry is. People who aren't homophobes don't cheer homophobic rants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #136
140. I submit that he was never given the opportunity to walk it back
because of the tact of the HRC which publcaly demanded" that he reove McClurkin. It was terribly bad form by HRC leadership....but I suspect it was very intentional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #140
148. He's had a chance every minute of every day. You may think gays are ATMs for cash and votes,
but the account is in the negative for Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REDFISHBLUEFISH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #148
167. I am straight but will make another donation to Hillary in the gay communities honor.
We are all born with rights. They are not to be granted. The laws need to be changed to reflect these rights equally for every American, and hopefully one day the whole world.
I increase my donation this evening to Hillary to back up those words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #140
168. Terribly bad form?
You mean that Obama can publicly demand that Don Imus and John Tanner be fired, but HRC is supposed to slip in some back door and whisper in Obama's ear that they want him to, pretty please, not put Mr. Raging Homophobe on stage? :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #168
176. I can't believe you using Imus as a parallel.
First of all Imus offecnded a lot of pople not by allowing someone to use his microphone but by uttering bigoted words himself

Secondly the criticism of Imus came AFTER he sais those things.

Third insofar as I am aware Obama has never uttered a bigoted thing in his life,

HRC publicly went on the attack BEFORE the event took place by telling bloggers that they has thretended Obama that they would publcal demand hecancel the event. HRC picked the fight with the OBama Campaign.



Obama pressured on gay ‘cure’ preacher
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 10/24/07 07:35 PM
The nation’s biggest gay rights group is trying to force Sen. Barrack Obama (D-Ill.) to cancel presidential campaign event with a controversial preacher who claims he was homosexual but has been cured.


The Human Rights Campaign has expressed its strong reservations to Obama over his campaign-sponsored tour that features gospel singer Donnie McClurkin.



The influential organization, representing a powerful Democratic constituency, let Obama’s campaign know that it would issue a public demand if Obama did not immediately cancel the event, said a person who had been briefed on the exchange.


Obama will not be present on the so-called Embrace the Change Tour, but public denouncement by the Human Rights Campaign could damage him in his quest for the White House.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #176
179. Imus/McClurkin. Both offensive. But 0bama only thinks one is not worth his "outreach".
Double standard for anti gay bigots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #176
184. Imus is a parallel
Barack Obama stated unequivocally that he would not tolerate racism and would never allow a racist in his campaign. Then he went as far as to publicly demand the firings of Imus and Tanner. After that he puts McClurkin and other open homophobes on stage in his own campaign event despite protests and pleas to remove them. Why the profound hypocrisy? Why does he denounced racism and even demand racists be silenced, yet give homophobes a stage and microphone?



HRC publicly went on the attack BEFORE the event took place by telling bloggers that they has thretended Obama that they would publcal demand hecancel the event. HRC picked the fight with the OBama Campaign.


Donnie McClurkin had already made many horrifically homophobic statements prior to the Obama campaign event. Why should HRC have felt compelled to wait for him to go on that stage and make more before they raised their voices in protest? That's exactly what they were trying to prevent.

You, along with Obama, seem to have double standards for the black and LGBT community. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #97
111. Thank you
There are many of us who believe deep down that Obama knew exactly what he was doing by using McClurkin and the others for that event, and that his behavior before and after WRT LGBT matters is very much in tune with that. It's unusual to see an Obama supporter here being both honest and polite. I commend you for that. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #97
132. Dude, he stood up against homophobia in the black community, on the EVE of the SC primary
That in his speech in Ebenezer Church. So much for "trading of Southern voters for GLBT ones". That's utterly bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. Dudette. Do you have a link?
I'd like to read that speech if it's online somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. It's his MLK day speech, here are the links:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #135
147. Nice speeches, but very poor actions, with McClurkin and Kirbyjon.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #147
185. Very poor actions from the Clinton's with Don't Ask Don't Tell...
The acid test is policies. And on policies the Clinton's have done fuck'all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
100. That is the reality of the situation.
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 04:34 PM by rucky
Sadly, Obama's biggest mistake of the campaign. He'll have to take it on the chin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. How did we "run him into an alley"? If he apologized immediately it would've been a non-issue.
He could've said "I did not know about the ex-gay movement. This was a learning experience." The LGBT community would've been ecstatic. But that wasn't going to happen because the use of ex-gay ministries was intentional in Obama's campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #104
112. You do not know that.
it was a single instance. it a small town in South Carolina.

Was it mangles by his camparign...yes... but to say the use of Ex-Gay ministries(Plural) was intentional reuire bothe substantial evidence and political rationale. You don't have either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #104
127. He could've/should've said alot of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #100
105. .
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 04:39 PM by readmoreoften
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #105
115. He apolgized for it ALREADY. The same week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. I don't see an apology there, I see an excuse...
He said he disagreed with McClurkin, not that he was sorry that McClurkin was at the concert at all. That is the apology we want, that Obama admit that allowing McClurkin on the stage was wrong. Instead he said that we have to "reach out" to assholes like McClurkin. That's unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #115
121. Obama has apologized for McClurkin as much as Clinton has apologized for her IWR vote
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 05:09 PM by hulklogan
Excuses, obfuscation, rationalizations, but no apology from either.

edited to correct spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magatte Donating Member (323 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #121
130. He knows what he's done his whole political life and that is to fight for civil rights for EVERYONE
You DON'T compare someone appearing on of of hundreds of events organized on your behalf with voting to send thousands of Americans to their death in an unfounded war.
You just don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #130
145. The IWR vote was not to send the troops to Iraq
It was to authorize President Bush to send the troops to Iraq. There is a difference.

And if the Obamanauts never brought up the IWR thing whenever they saw the name McClurkin posted here, the two issues wouldn't be intertwined. Don't blame the anti-McClurkin crowd for the tangling of the two, we didn't bring them together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #130
146. Go learn what an apology is. This wasn't one. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #130
169. He sure voted to keep funding the war, though, didn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #115
141. That's not an apology
"I disagree with him" is not an apology. He let the man spew homophobic filth in his name to garner votes and campaign cash for him.

If Hillary Clinton let David Duke spew racial filth to a bunch of white people in a campaign event then just said "I disagree with him" but kept the votes and cash would that be an apology? Would that make her use of him OK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sybbis Donating Member (82 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
151. Predictable, but messy...
I have a problem with Obama and the McClurkin thing. It was wrong - period. He was advised ahead of time what the issue was with the guy and he chose to give him a platform. His statement at the time and his statements since then have been weak and embarrassing. He's trying to steer a middle-ground course. Although it is difficult to make his case to political junkies, it's playing well enough with non-junkies and superfans.

I believe he used McClurkin on purpose to strengthen his appeal to church-going black women (and to a lesser extent men) in S. Carolina. They were the key, he had to take their votes away from Hillary Clinton. That's the only thing that makes sense of this mess. To have pulled McClurkin from the appearance would have hurt him in that primary and he wasn't willing to do it. Not pulling him has hurt Obama nationally with the GLBT community, their families and friends. He was willing to do that.

Now he is effectively boxed in. He cannot apologize. He still wants religiously conservative blacks to vote for him. He still wants liberal GLBTs to vote for him too, but he can't get one without offending the other. He is willing to sacrifice the GLBT vote in order to make his stand for the churchy black vote in the South (and elsewhere) on Super Tuesday. It's obviously calculated and there's no getting around it. The thing is, he's a POLITICIAN so how is this a surprise? They all make calculations, it's in the job description. Obama's a good guy but he's running for office. He cannot come out and say why he did what he did, but I would wager that it has nothing to do with any personal homophobia on his part. It's politics.

The reality is that while I like him a great deal, Obama was never going to get my vote on Tuesday. It's Hillary for me and has been from the beginning. As far as Obama, McClurkin and the GLBT vote - any Republican will be a thousand times worse than Barack Obama on the issues facing that community. It's a no-brainer to vote for Obama if he takes the nomination and that's true for the GLBT community and the churchy black vote.

If John McCain, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee make the next Supremes appointments - we're ALL screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. I agree.. I just do not think that McClurkin was chosen for his ex-gay views
I think he was chosen as an enterainter who would appeal to the goups mentioned and was not vetted enough.


I think HRC could have raise concerns more quietly. but when the publically demanded that they get him off the satge after they had already advertised he was going to sing would have been difficult to explaing given the loudness of the protest. That is when he was boxed in

What I have never understtod is how he got tapped as emcee after this whole thing blew up. I think some folks in the Obama camp must have gotten royally pissed at some folks for something... that was a stupid move.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. Please, spit out the koolaid. McClurkin was a known element and he was given a platform
to express his lies about gays.

HRC doesn't serve the 0bama campaign - it serves its constituents.

If 0bama wants to pander to bigots it's his choice - don't blame us for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #156
157. Do you have any evidence that suggest the promotion was of McClurking and
his homphophobic and bigoted views?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #157
159. Only if you consider reason and common sense to be evidence. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #159
161. of which you are expressing niether on that point
You have no evidence to support the assertion you made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #161
182. You're so completely ignorant of LGBT issues, you have no idea what is reasonable.
Go pick on some African American or Latino folks or something. You've focused on us for too long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulklogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #157
162. Whether the event was held to promote McClurkin and his bigoted views
or was held despite McClurkin's homophobic and bigoted views, Senator Obama and his campaign are still responsible for hiring McClurkin to MC a campaign event and allowing him to spew his homophobic filth for 30 minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #162
164. That I think is a fair criticism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
166. Right. The gay community ran HIM into an alley. Poor, poor Obama.
He can't do this, he can't do that.

Poor, poor man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
172. His stance on GLBT issues is good. There is no real issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #172
173. There is no issue for people who don't care much about GLBT issues. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #172
177. No issue for straight folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #172
180. Senator Clinton did an interview with the gay and lesbian Logo channel.
Edited on Sat Feb-02-08 10:46 AM by terrya
So, when, exactly, will Senator Obama do this same kind of outreach to the GLBT community? Besides faxing a press release touting his stance on GLBT issues? And using the words "gay" and "lesbian" in a speech every so often?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x64226
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #180
186. Sorry, this is not a real issue. Straight people have determined that for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. Right you are
How silly of me. I forgot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
188. more proof that Obama walks on water.
No matter what his actions (or inaction) he gets a pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #188
190. "The gays ran HIM into an alley."
:silly:
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 06:29 PM
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