Obama and the Gay Community - Wariness

Many in the GLBT support the Clintons and many support Obama. I still haven't decided.

Here's one reason why:

I would never vote for Hillary.

What if it comes down to McCain and Clinton?

it doesn't mean they're LGBT.

What if it comes down to McCain and Clinton?

Your question is about as sensible.

It's sensible to consider my scenario as oppose to yours which is not only unrelated but unlikely.

What will happen is that Clinton will kick the crap out of McCain. Not merely because she's Clinton and he's McCain*, but because the likelihood of a Republican winning the GE is about as likely as the earth careening into the sun. A rock could win the GE if it had a (D) after its name.


* Although, McCain is such a loose cannon, he only helps the Democratic cause. That "bomb, bomb Iran" crap and the occasional racist slur get a free pass when he's talking to right-wing groups, but it won't fly on the national stage; that sort of thing is what sank George "Macaca" Allen. McCain is compelled to reckless ad libbing, and his next major gaffe is always just around the corner.

What are you suggesting? :evilgrin:

You say the same goddamned thing in every single post, all nice and hit-and-run like, and never explain yourself. You hit and run every thread across DU with the same goddamned one-liner, and you never come back. You never discuss anything.

"I thought we were friends... I thought we were friends... Just when I was going to give you coffee... Oh, Joanna! My new dress! How could you do a thing like that? Like that... like that... like that..."



Your record is broken. Your microchip is fried. ENGAGE, Bobbie, ENGAGE! Or do you not exist? Are you a macro?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/23/politics/politico/main3743835.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3743835

I think it's clear that Obama will advance the interests of LGBT people in this country.

.......... not sure if and why my link didn't work.

Regardless, I'm not so sure why you think that.......... not if he is surrounding himself with people who think otherwise.

candidates. It seems pretty clear to me that the strategy was to take identical positions on LGBT issues so that LGBT issues didn't come up during the primaries. I suspect it was a party decision or a group agreement of some sort to support civil unions (one that Kucinich wouldn't sign on for...) in order to obviate such a wedge issue that could leave the party vulnerable to Republican manipulation and character assassination for such a long time before the general election.

Not only is Obama attached to McClurkin--who not only sang, but was permitted to emcee the event despite (or maybe because?) he had said that gays are responsible for the murder of children on the 700 Club--Obama also has aligned had Kirbyjon Caldwell stump for him. Caldwell is a megachurch pastor who runs an ex-gay "reparative therapy" mission to "heterosexualize" his membership.

With friends like these....

Oh, for counterpoint: Clinton allowed a supporter who made openly homophobic statements to become precinct captain. Personally, I think supporting homophobic pastors at megachurches is far more egregious because it gives these people a podium to spew their lies and hatred. But the Democrat party, in general, is full of shit when it comes to supporting its LGBT constituency.

My vote is for Edwards because he seems to "get it" once exposed. For example, when a transwoman explained the expenses of hormone therapy for trans people at a public debate, Edwards said that he believed universal health coverage clearly should cover hormone replacement and called it a matter of equality. He's the only one who isn't triangulating on our issues, in my opinion. Will he in the future? Who knows. But he's been pretty solid, thus far.

the whole gospel acts{remember there were four} thingy just did me in -- no apology -- etc.

and then there is this --"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force


we aren't animals that need to learn proper behavior so we won't be discriminated against.

it's all too much for me -- but good luck with your search.

........ that's a pretty insensitive statement when you break it down.

Allow them to experience their relationship? Gosh...... thanks.
Live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination? Talk about blaming the victim.

i think it's pretty self explanatory.

remember too -- that while obama distanced himself from donnie -- at the same time he defended donnie.

And that both sides have valid points and just need to "come together and work it out." That's why he had to remind us that the antigay Christian activists are "good, moral, decent people" and that he just "disagrees" with them on LGBT equality. Can you imagine someone saying that the racist white churches of the segregated South were filled with "good, moral, decent people" with whom they simply disagreed? Or that antisemitism is just a "simple disagreement"?

His whole candidacy has been a horror.

Evangelical Christians who say Jews need to be "perfected" through Christ.

Imagine a Candidate letting one of THOSE on a stage to speak.

the nose-holding candidate for me.

I'll vote for him if he's the nominee.

But I won't be happy about it.

...when the response is pro-Obama, and "that's a pretty insensitive statement" when it's not pro-Obama.

Fascinating.

is that like a training bra version of real civil rights?

it's funny and very, very weird.

it creeps me out.

to see how we do with them --and so we don't upset anyone with all our lovin'.

As if our equality is something they have the right to give and take...

:spray:

''so we don't upset anyone with all our lovin'.'' -- and there it is -- cause we are all so busy gettin busy all the damn time.

yeah.

My life is exactly like a Cher video.

and we are imbued with magical powers of mass seduction.

If only they knew --my idea of a fun Saturday Night is--

curled up on the sofa with my cat and watching an old movie classic on PBS

the movie is usually some lavish MGM musical.

I'm such a queer!

if i'm not having fun with being gay -- no one else is going to do it for me.

You write: they think ' we are imbued with magical powers of mass seduction.'

Tell me it's not true. We're not? Oh ......... how disappointing. Are you sure?

and i've always wanted to -- well you know --

so maybe if it's true --

.............there's hope.

(Whoops..... that's not an endorsement of Obama)

:)










.

That's a perfect analogy.

I'm expecting nothing for GLBT Americans from an Obama administration.

isn't going to feel joyful -- it's gonna be -- ''uh -- thanks -- hope you didn't hurt yourself reaching down this far''.

for faith-based conversion therapy ministrys?

I mean --he's got to reach out to them too -- That's how they embrace us! With the love of their God.

...........with all due respect....... because I haven't decided who I'm supporting..........

How is that different from gosh........Billary's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or "DOMA"?

DADT was a failed compromise at getting gays to openly serve in the military. People forget --DADT was at least better than before DADT.

DOMA was stupid --but it was at least a misguided attempt at keeping a Constitutional Ban off the table.


For the real difference between these and "Conversion Therapy", I'd encourage you to read this:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N11/col2.11c.html

.....not unlike Obama's approach.

How is that different?

Obama's actions are his actions.
Billary's actions are his/her actions.

Neither support "Conversion Therapy" although both have had supporters who do.

if any Democrat was President at that time.

I don't like either of them...both are shameful. But, political realities being what they were, I don't think it would have been any different if another Democrat was in the White House.

:thumbsup:

the republick party was going to clobber us with something -- these were things that in one instance stopped a ball from rolling and in the other was the best that could happen with the asshole commanders at the time.

and i mean that seriously.

so why not?

A gay man or lesbian...if we're lucky and we play our cards right....will be getting that coveted Ambassadorship to Micronesia.

And....again, if we're good boys and girls and we support him and send that money to his campaign...a gay man or lesbian we'll get that oh, so special appointment as Deputy Assistant Under Secretary of Commerce. Gets the pulse racing, doesn't it?

....... Billary.

of "Billary"


from my point of view --it makes it hard for me to see you entering this with an open mind.

Bill and Hillary are two different people.

Quite frankly, I think Bill Clinton's involvement in Hillary Clinton's campaign has been the biggest disappointment. She earned the right to have her party's nomination on her own and he keeps chiming in in a way that does nothing to further her campaign. I liked Bill Clinton. I voted for Bill Clinton. But in recent weeks, he has completely turned me off to 'their' campaign.

Obama was completely right when he stated 'it's hard to know who I'm running against.' That's no one's fault but the Clintons.

It's the media's fault.

Bill is campaigning for his wife --he's not telling the media what to cover.

He is diminishing her influence and that alone is reason to question his motives with or without the media.

Blaming the media is an easy cop out given that Hillary and Bill are masters of it.

:patriot: -- sort of -- kind of -- not really.

I know, I guess I'm supposed to be dazzled with the "I have a strong record on GLBT issues" stuff (which, btw, I'm not happy when heteros here tell me I'm supposed to be excited about a candidate on their attitudes on GLBT people). But...I'm not getting a whole lot of support or committment to the GLBT community from Obama.

not to be hatin on homos.

ridiculous.

I am seriously underwhelmed by Mr. O's intellectual capacity.

at the dem conventions. i thought he was the future of the party. he is not. he is exactly like every other politician and w. far less experience than HRC.

so i support her.

"They are young and old, rich and poor. They are black and white, Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who've never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business as usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again."

Black, white, young, old, men, women, latinos, native Anericans... And denouncing the politics of division. But no mention of gays in that context.

to begin with.

that he'd need the homophobe vote yet,

say you are for change but provide more of the same.

:hi:

It's hard to tell.

Do you NOT think there is not a reason GLBT or Equality or Gay Marriage where not listed in the ISSUES section of either?

Ya know?

Oh........ give me a break........

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?splash=1

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Now, scroll across the top navigation bar for each and tell me which one includes GLBT as a drop down field.

Are we to assume Clinton is a homophobe because of that?

(PS - the quote you had did NOT include men and women.)

and rattling off a list of "peoples"

.... and that is so much better than no including us on the front page of her website.

why are you even pretending that you haven't decided yet?

I had your number at "Billary".

If that's the best you can do, fine. I'll move on.

I can vote for Santa Clause too.

At least I'm honest when I say I'm looking for answers or information to make a "decision"

Right...........your signature HILLARY endorsement not withstanding.

The only thing you have done is turn me off to her.

Good job.

as if you were really deciding.

"Billary"

sheeeesh


try harder next time.

Dissent is not allowed with your candidate not unlike ........... gosh.......... who? George?

Dissent is certainly allowed.

All I ask is be honest about it.

I'm dishonest? Whatever.

Still waiting to hear how the Clinton's distinguish their positions. Heck, even the Edwards disagree on some things.

For all your talk about them being separate people, I'm still waiting to hear how they differentiate the two.

That's being honest.

which you brought up.

They certainly differ on that.

Me think she doth protest too much.

Sounds alot like her Iraq history.......... revisionism.

you sound just like someone who is "undecided"

Look, I don't begrudge you your choice, I generally applaud people when they make a decision.

It's not an easy thing to do, but it certainly was disingenuous of you to post as if you were looking for a decision.

When I thought you were undecided, I provided you with some information. It's quite clear who I support --so no deception on my part.
Instead --you obviously were just wasting my time, because it's quite clear you had reached a decision.

So if anything I post that supports Clinton's candidacy will be met by you with acrimony, I see zero reason to continue this discussion with you.


I'm a person who has made what I think is an informed choice --I am sure you are the same.

They are both flawed and I would prefer either over any of the Republican candidates.

You write: 'I provided you with some information.'

You've offered nothing to support a Clinton candidacy, at least from a GLBT perspective. I've pointed out how I think each major Democratic candidate is flawed. What's deceptive is your notion that Clinton is not flawed on GLBT and Obama is.

What I said is that I find Obama has worse flaws.

Did you even read the material I linked to on "conversion therapy"?

...... and then why you support her over Obama.

are for civil unions with full rights, though there are differences on how to achieve this.

Edwards and Obama have stated that they oppose same-sex marriage for personal and religious reasons.

Hillary does not oppose same-sex marriage, but she does consider it a States' issue.
This is flawed in my view, but not as flawed as JRE and BO, because her objections are not anything more than politically wonkish (ie she believes the path to same-sex marriage must be pursued by judicial activism)

I support Hillary over Obama because of several factors.

1) Obama's giving McClurkin a platform to speak his "ex-gay" views from
2) His involvement with Rev Caldwell --who actually runs "Metanoia Ministry" --a faith based conversion therapy institution
3) When Obama speaks on LGBT issues, he speaks as if he doesn't quite "get it". I've seen no clear indication from him that he doesn't think it's a "choice"
4) Hillary is the only candidate of the three that I've heard address deeper issues such as the high suicide rates of LGBT youth

You write: 'Hillary does not oppose same-sex marriage, but she does consider it a States' issue.'

Citation please.

Have not heard that. I have no reason to doubt you, just haven't heard it before.

http://realitycheck08.org/2007/06/20/hillary-clinton-shifts-on-the-defense-of-marriage-act/

As a NYS Senator she has come out in support of Spitzer on legalized same-sex marriage in NY State

You write: 'Did you even read the material I linked to on "conversion therapy"?

Yes. It was a staple when I was growing up queer. My guess is it's a new concept to you. So, please don't lecture me on 'conversion therapy.'

Bush has been to communist China, it doesn't make him a commie. If you are fond of 'guilt by association', I'd be careful supporting Clinton.

and used him to pander to the homophobic vote.

That's more than guilt by association.

BTW --it's not a new issue for me.

I'm a 47 year old transexual that's been a gay rights advocate and activist for a third of my lifetime.

What has Clinton done to get an inclusive (including the T in GLBT) ENDA passed?

She was in support of NY States' ENDA which included Trans issues

-- and she supported the version of ENDA with trans-inclusion that was in the House.

You write: I'm a 47 year old transexual that's been a gay rights advocate and activist for a third of my lifetime.

Activism is good at any age for any duration so I thank you but have some respect for your elders. :)

Good grief.

Got it.

If you are trying to win me over, you are not. Don't get me wrong, Obama clearly doesn't understand our issues beyond the surface, but Clinton's 'experience' has only hurt us as well. At a time when I want to hear how she is different from her husband, I'm reminded they are one in the same and that has got to be yet another reason to call them "Billary."

Not only that, she has put us in a 'feature' in the back of the bus no doubt so as not to offend anyone. How nice of you to point it out.

Why didn't you?

........and it still wasn't on the front page.

I wrote: ' At a time when I want to hear how she is different from her husband, I'm reminded they are one in the same and that has got to be yet another reason to call them "Billary."'

You don't want a 'co-presidency'. Neither do I.

on media fabrications

:shrug:

My take is the MEDIA wants Clinton !!!

The media has been played by Hillary Clinton.

It's insulting and naive to think this wasn't a calculated political maneuver of the Clintons. Only problem is, it backfired.

Thanks for your opinion :)

........... calls into question your honesty........ not mine.

thanks for your opinion again :)

you're welcome.

Thanks for yours.

:)

Why does Obama put our issues in a special "people" section, when every other position paper on the site is under "issues?" Why aren't LGBT issues put in the same place as other civil rights issues on the site?

That's why. :sarcasm:

To be fair, though...I went to the Hillary Clinton for President web site...and damned, if I couldn't even find anything on there about our issues.

Just a focus group.

Not listed as a civil rights "issue", which is the whole problem. Gay Rights ARE a civil rights issue. Obama denies that.