Obama refuses interview with Gay Philadelphia News, Hillary does not

The Clintons actively sought the endorsement of Richard Mellon Scaife, an ultra-rich monster who funds a group that wants to kill homosexuals.

"Scaife also funded the Western Journalism Center, headed by Joseph Farah. Farah has been connected to reconstructionism, a movement to replace judicial law with Christian Old Testament law. The organization is antigay, and would move to punish "practicing homosexuals" by sentencing them to death."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mellon_Scaife

Why doesn't anyone really see this as a problem? It blows my mind.

This is a disappointment.

And blow his creds with the ex-gay contingent?

http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/clinton-fellowship.php

Oh, I know, it's Her Majesty so it's diiiiifferent. :eyes:

Sorry, you can't run away from that.

It's a senate group

Then has the unmitigated gall to stand up there at a press conference piously proclaiming how she wouldn't belong to Rev. Wright's church.

My distaste for Obama does not translate into a love for Clinton except in your Bushian little minds where anyone who doesn't fall at the feet of your anointed one MUST be in the Clinton camp. Either you're with us or you're with the enemy. Sound familiar at all? We've been living with that crap for seven long years and I've had my fill thanks.

Move's afoot to offer Gore as the "Dark Horse" at the convention.

Does the DNC/DLC attempt to "close ranks" before the convention make a little more sense now?

Maybe you'll have to explain that one too, but I hope not. I'm in the same boat as YOU. I don't "love" Clinton, I just want a candidate I don't have to projectile vomit while voting for.

I've asked this before. Is Obama capable of standing on his own or does he require Hillary as a prop? Seems like the knee-jerk reation of Obama supporters when confronted with criticism of the man is to a) assume that the you are a Hillary fan and, b)shift the focus to Hillary and how much worse she allegedly is in whatever area is under discussion.

I think we already are pretty up to speed on Hillary's failings. I would like it if the Obama folks focused on their guy rather than on the competition and tried answering some of our questions about him and sorting out for us some of his seeming contradictions and inconsistencies without the constant fall back on the sins of Cruella DeClinton.

As for Gore, I love him but I'm not sure that this is his time or place unless he comes out Gandalf-like as vastly more powerful entity on the campaign trail than he was last time. I'm defintely ready to be convinced.

Gore is JESUS, BUDDHA, VISHNU, ALLAH all rolled into one.

Why he isn't the candidate NOW is one of the political mysteries that will be debated for the next 50 years IMHO.

Couldn't you just SEE Gore getting right in Boehner's FACE?

She's my second to the last choice. I will say this it's getting harder and harder to tell Obama-nables from repubs with their relish to trash a presidency that is head and shoulders over what we have now. While I don't love Hillary, I am deeply offended by the behavior of the O devotees who will stop at nothing, including defending Randi's vile description of fellow Democrats.

I've pretty much stopped posting over there until some sort of sanity and balance returns, if ever. And Malloy was almost foaming at the mouth last night as he defended her, trashed AAR, and lit into anyone perverse enough, in his view, to think that perhaps Randy might have crossed the line just a little. This is becoming a major turn off and the Rethugs have got to be loving it.

Sean Hannity!

Obama does not pick and choose when to support the rights of gay people. Here is a good summary of his support. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58317
He has consistently and publically supported gay rights in interviews, in rallies and town hall meetings. http://bloggernista.com/2007/11/21/obama-gay-rights-not-special-rights/, and yes in the 2004 speech at the DNC in Boston when most everyone else was afraid to raise our issues.
He had ads out before Clinton in Ohio and Texas http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2008/03/04/1&page=5

He has addressed GLBTQ events and fundraisers. http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid53048.asp


PGN set him up by its timing of their request for an interview and are now using this in a hateful manner. People are raising the McClurkin event again as a way to denounce Obama’s support for us.

Obama recognizes that it does not benefit our cause merely to shut out those who maybe (or are) bigoted. http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp. (he addresses the McClurkin issue here)

Think back on your life and recall the former bigots you have known who have changed their minds through knowing you and having conversations with you. We need to have those often difficult conversations with bigots openly if we are going to move forward in our quest for equality.

Check out these posts that talk about his record and support:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/obama-stands-up.html

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

http://365gay.com/Newscon08/02/022808letter.htm

Nothing to gain, politically.

Who will Obama have to play off of, once he doesn't have Clinton to piss on anymore? McCain is a seasoned, hardened and hard fighting campaigner, and Obama will get so shot full of holes he couldn't float in salt water.

You're a Dem; you should be used to holding your nose:yourock:

To be fair though Obama, Clinton & Edwards participated in the LOGO debates. So I find it hard to believe Obama has something against GLBT.

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

Gee, an INTERVIEW! Wowwee! Guess that makes her the Second Coming for my people! Never mind that her husband fucked us over every way he could, and her entire claim to "experience" rests on her years of backing him up. This makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE!

God, I hate my people sometimes...

and it isn't as if he hasn't given plenty of interviews to GLB publications before.. He participated in a LOGO debate and has shown time and time again that he is against job discrimination and supports civil unions. I'd like marriage support, too but his position is MORE progressive than Clinton's as he wants to roll back the anti-gay DOMA that he husband signed into law.

Its not as if he has time to interview every publication which asks for it.

then we'll see who really had the interests of GLBT Americans at heart.

since she doesn't want a full repeal of DOMA

but keep on ignoring that

I certainly don't think trading DOMA for a federal anti-marriage amendment is a good thing. Do you?

if DOMA was repealed?

I respect your opinion but I think you're wrong

I just don't think that opposition to FMA will be anywhere near as strong without DOMA as a shield. The FMA people would only need to get the support of a smallish number of Democratic congress people to flip. And with possibly more than half the states having a state amendment after this coming election, how will those Democratic Senators and Representatives in those states be able to vote against FMA post-DOMA?

I just don't see either option as a great one, and trading DOMA for FMA is the worst possible outcome - something I believe is a realistic outcome should a President Obama manage to push a DOMA repeal through congress.

which would give some in more conservative districts a way to vote for FMA but still know that it would be defeated

even with the repug majorities, FMA never made it out

and they kept saying that DOMA would be overturned by the Court one day and that it wasn't enough

You forgot the "T" in GLBT, btw.

BTW, do you understand the history surrounding DOMA?

Where is the "T"? Given some of the things I read here that always makes me mad.

Our esteemed associate doesn't believe "T" s should be included in ENDA, and shouled get their own movement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x70375#70400

There's a misinterpretation. He does believe transgender should be included. He is taking Barney Frank's stand that it is not the right political moment. Whether I agree with that is not the point. However, I do believe we should report and discuss it accurately when we have the info.

"In terms of ENDA, Obama said he supported an ENDA that included transgender protections but that he didn’t believe a fully inclusive bill had enough votes to pass the Senate at this time." http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid53048.asp

Somehow I think he did. This isn't the first time he stiffed gay media.

Nor is the existence of Illinois' DOMA.

In fact, I would probably vote for Obama, but my Faith says not to.

his performance on Tweety the other day was as good as I've heard on Gay unions he called for equality of CU's with marriage rights. Better than I've heard from him so far. Frankly I supprised to not see it all over(even where inapproriate).

But needs our votes to win homecoming king.

Or did he just 'politely decline' the interview. :eyes:

Why would any GLBT person support this man? Clinton is no prise, be even MCCAIN RESPONDED to PGN.

The opposite of LOVE is not HATE, it's NEGLECT; ask any 7 year old kid. Point is, he doesn't even CARE what the community says, about him OR his campaign.

Proof? PGN, probably the most RESPECTED GLBT news organ in the nation, was not even INVITED to his little speech on race.

YOU do the math,

While I'd certainly like to see Senator Obama give an interview to the local Pennsylvania GLBT press, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call PGN the "most respected GLBT news organ in the nation." That honor probably goes to the Advocate (whom Senator Obama has spoken to several times). I can think of a dozen news outlets that are more prominent and influential on a national level than PGN. I think if you asked gay Joe on the street to name GLBT news outlets he or she keeps up with, most of them wouldn't have a clue that PGN even existed. It's a local operation that very occasionally has stories float through the blogosphere.

That said, if Obama's campaign didn't care what the gay press thought, they'd probably not have paid to put advertising in various GLBT publications.

I'm sure there are many African-American publications neither candidate has granted interviews. I certainly wouldn't take that and run around saying, "Hillary Clinton doesn't care about black people!" It'd be preposterous.

It's one thing to wish campaigns would pay more attention to this or that issue, it's quite another to extrapolate entire positions and attitudes from a candidate not sitting down with one newspaper.

Amps don't always need to be at eleven.

The Advocate is an old, well read periodical, but when the front page of the latest edition looks like this:



and 2 of 6 featured bloggers are Republicans...well let's just say they ain't exactly singing our tune at this moment. As to interviews, a search on the Advocate site returned:


|| Search Results for obama interviews ||

Your search for obama interviews returned no results.

Try another search:


So Obama has NEVER given an interview to The Advocate. Kerry Eleveld mentions a "phoner" but only after the McClurkin debacle, and nothing since. His article mentions the same minimizations, such as the HIV/AIDS talk about "sinners."

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid51312.asp
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid50021.asp

So as you can see, Obama hasn't even given a true interview to the periodical YOU claim as most prestigious in the GLBT community.

Frankly, I'll go with PGN.

. . . and I'm always appreciative of straight allies, but . . . you kind of don't really know much about the gay community or gay issues. Support and knowledge aren't the same things, and claiming the Advocate is somehow tainted because it has Republican viewpoints or because they do glossy covers doesn't diminish its value or prominence in the gay community. It is the major GLBT publication. Again, you claimed PGN is some kind of nationally prominent periodical. It's not, it's a local GLBT paper that once in awhile has its stories filter through the blogosphere. That isn't the same level.

Seriously, bashing the Advocate because you've found a pro-Hillary piece better to your liking is support that isn't particularly helpful. It's the GLBT community, not the GLBTHC one.

Therein comes that difference again. It's one thing to wish Obama would do some GLBT press in Pennsylvania (as I do as well), it's quite another to bash the Advocate because it benefits your candidate. I wouldn't dress that one up as "supporting the community." It's supporting your candidate at the expense of a publication that has done us a world of good over the years.

It's overboard.

I've been reading both for many years. As to not knowing the Gay Community or their issues, I was in Gay Liberation Front support groups until the Ann Arbor groups folded in 1972.

I worked on one of the first HTLV wards in the world (oddly enough, at the NNMC/USN Hospital, DC, and VERY SECRET), I have been an advocate at Courts Martials, and expert witness in trials.

My GLBT Advocacy likely goes back to before you're alive. AND PGN is cited all over then nation, similarly to the NY Times, the WP, etcetera, as a long term Newspaper of the community. NOTE that PGN is a member of the National Gay Newspaper Guild, while the Advocate is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gay_Newspaper_Guild

Like all Obama Supporters these days, you've turned this into a "HE SAID/SHE SAID" instead of addressing the issue: Obama avoids talking to the GBLT Community and its news organs like the plague, and I could not even find ONE actual interview with Obama other than the specious "non-debunking" of the McClurkin Debacle.

YOU claimed the numerous interviews with GBLT Publications; SHOW ONE.

You posted an interview, the Advocate one. Which apparently isn't enough for you, but hey, you said name one. Furthermore, Clinton has gotten favored treatment by the gay press. Senator Clinton sat down with the Washington Blade . . . after they endorsed her for president. An Ohio gay paper cried foul at Obama's refusal to do an interview . . . after they assigned an over-biased Kucinich delegate to do the interview. PGN is a periodical that doesn't seem to be afflicted by those unjournalistic associations (more advocate than journalist) so I'd like to see Obama do an interview with them.

However, your main argument is specious. Recalling your argument, it was "Obama didn't give PGN an interview. That's serious neglect of the community!" To counter that charge, I need only point to the Advocate piece and Obama's participation in the Logo forums. Are those the actions of a politician who neglects our community as much as your hyberole suggests? It is not.

PGN is a ncie publication. But you called it THE most valuable gay periodical in the NATION. That, again, is hyberbole. The Advocate isn't a newspaper, but it is where many, many more GLBTs tend to get their news and politics.

Reworking the dynamics of the community to personally suit your candidate isn't a good thing. I don't like it when someone does it for Obama, either.

It's a nice interview on Senator Clinton's part. I hope Senator Obama will do similar in the near future. That's the extent of it. It is not "Yet more proof Obama hates gays!"

It's unnecessary, untrue, and less than useful.

AND it was single-subject, commonly known as a "reply piece."

AND I said nothing about "Yet more proof Obama hates gays!" I suggest if you wish to post diatribe, do it without quotes, which by inference attributes it to your target.

Let us NOT debate which paper is more important: The Cleveland Plain Dealer has shown in the past more integrity than say the New York Times. You have deflected the discussions.

I rework NOTHING. I also search PGN and other publications, and found NOTHING. If you wish, I will search every paper in the "Alliance." I merely state that as YOU put forward their were numerous interviews; I haven't found any yet.

You could have simply said "Here's a nice interview done with Senator Clinton." You didn't. You used the occasion to bash Obama and extrapolate an insidious neglect of the community.

It's in line with your previous post saying "Does Obama have ANY non-homophobic religious supporters?!" You took one guy (Meeks) and extrapolated a larger point out of it (while not realizing / ignoring that Wright is actually a more prominent religious figure who is pro-gay and associated with Obama). Not to mention, for whatever reason, Senator Clinton's anti-gay religious supporters are rarely mentioned around these parts, and are quickly swept under the rug or ignored whenever they are.

Honestly, it's one thing to favor a candidate, it's another to use a community as a weapon to do it. PGN is decent. It's not the most amazing, favoritest, bestest GLBT periodical ever. That's hyperbole. Just out of curiosity, I sent out an e-mail to gay friends asking them if they'd ever heard of PGN. Out of fifteen responses so far, not one single person had. Of course, they all know the Advocate. I do know of PGN, but I would not assign them the importance you have - an assignation that seems based on purely partisan motive.

No offense, but when a straight person displays an over-the-top use of GLBT interests to bash the hell out of Obama while ignoring Senator Clinton's very similar positions and associations, it rankles. Maybe that's a personal problem I need to get over, but it feels weird for someone claiming to "look out for my interests" in what seems like a use of my issues to press a purely selfish partisan viewpoint. Straight Obama supporters get nailed for this (sometimes very rightly so) all the time, but being a Hillary supporter, you generally get a pass on this forum. Which is fine I suppose, but it's uncomfortable to watch.

There are a few of us "Heteros" out here who have spent more of our time in the GBLT community, through political activism, community actions, or medicine than in the "Straight" community. In this sense, we have been sensitized to, and have fought the scorn of the "Straight" factions of the liberation movements since the 60's and 70's.

I have asked you a simple question, since YOU were the one who stated this as fact: SHOW ME THE INTERVIEWS.

As to Clinton, I ignore NOTHING. She commits MANY of the same political sins as Obama. If I could wave a wand, BOTH OF THEM would now be courting Al Gore for the VP slot. And I will not debate Clinton here: suffice it to say, someone that fills 25% of one's needs is better than someone that only fills 20%.

You are dodging the questions, as many supporters of Senator Obama do, and you claimed you saw interviews in GLBT print: SHOW THEM. I couldn't find them, and rest assured, later on when time permits I will take the entire list of GLBT Alliance print and search them for interviews. I saw none in PGN, and saw a phone response to McClurkin questions in the Advocate. Why don't you mail them a list of the ALLIANCE print media, MINUS the BLADE's for their name recognition, and see how many know them? I assure you: activists in MY age group have been very familiar with all of them over the years from the very lack of having a great number to pick from.

I suggest you stop casting aspersions on my motives. It's rude if nothing else. As to the "Does Obama have ANY non-homophobic religious supporters?!" I would ask you to name a couple. So far, with McClurkin, Caldwell, and Meeks for support, I'd put them right up with the same infamy of say Clinton getting support from Pat Robertson (which of course, she has not).

Stop taking this personally, and examine your candidate's motives a little more closely. Foresight is always better than hindsight.

It's very nice that you do things for the community, and believe me you do have my thanks for your work, but that does not excuse or absolve current behavior. It's the current campaign I have issues with. You might reduce all I say to "Tch, Obama supporter, what can you do." But I live and breathe gay issues by necessity. This shit isn't academic exercise. The fact that you seem to really only concern yourself with a narrow slice of bigotry while ignoring the associations of your favored candidate very much bothers me. It bothers me when GLBTers do it, too.

I admitted in another post I might be misremembering the print interviews. You, however, have yet to admit that you fumbled hugely with the anti-gay religious question when you failed to realize Wright is very, very, very pro-gay, and the most visible religious supporter of Obama currently in the media. It's a massive bit of partisan myopia to not be aware of that. You've named a few anti-gay religious ministers. I could argue the Meeks bit because I know Chicago politics very well and I know there are other pro-gay politicians who are also associated with Meeks. It's the simple dynamic of black Democratic politics in Cook County that they're going to know and associate with Meeks. I despise Meeks and strongly oppose him being in the state legislature. Right now we have a civil unions bill in committee and he's opposing it. But if I were to oppose every Democratic candidate in the county who associated with Meeks, I'd be voting Republican in half the races. The black religious vote is a huge deal in Chicago. It is what it is.

But I'll leave that one alone, and simply point out two fairly prominent anti-gay Clinton associations: Eddie Long and Harold Mayberry. If you don't know those names, then it underscores the problem I'm talking about. They're both virulently anti-gay. Senator Clinton actually thanked Mayberry for his work on equality and civil rights - as he demonized us from the pulpit. Isn't that at least vaguely as important as Meeks? Even a tiny bit? But no banner, all-caps headline posts about them. No use of them as proof of how awful Senator Clinton would be for gays.

Do you see my problem?

By all means, help the gay community in our fight for equality. We need more straight people like you willing to do the work. But don't only half-way and selectively call out bigotry and homophobia in service of partisanship and then fall on the sword of "helping the community" when it's noted all that "concern" seems to be very narrowly focused.

Even if I granted you a positive spin on Obama (which I do not) then how positive is the guy? He shuns Gay Press (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5410072&mesg_id=5410072) and that includes the Advocate, other than single issue responses, not interviews. He still hasn't repudiated McClurkin OR Caldwell (who is working for his campaign in TEXAS, not officially) or Meeks (Who WAS an adviser). YOU make the point of The Black Religious Vote, then you condemn Clinton for two comments.

Like I said, Clinton's homophobes aren't advisor's.

Now we all have to fight for EQUALITY, but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder against Straight People AND Men. I don't discount your right to have that, but you don't have the right to disparage me because I don't support your candidate. We both feel that the other is ignoring important issues, and we shall have to leave it at that.

I do not tilt at windmills if I can avoid it.

I have absolutely NO explanation why.

Sure. PM if you like. Remember I'm straight, and had do sideline in some of the steering committees out of respect. Not a lot of "trust" for us allies at that time, I really had to work at it.

that was in SF.Member of the purple hand police riot at SF Examiner HQ
takeover of Rolling Stone and more

I was just a footsoldier and street organizer. Biggest thing I ever did was plan one of the smaller demonstrations!

Ann Arbor, 1971/72.

Right?

If Obama STOPPED his "Fundy Fun-Fest" and came out on the side of the community with support of the 14th Amendment and Clinton did not, then I'd support him, despite the other stands of his I'm lukewarm on.

EQUAL RIGHTS is my primary goal. Without that nothing else matters.

An interview would be undeniably better. I simply said it belied the "Obama just doesn't care about gay people" idea that's being floated. It's illogical to use one interview in one local paper to build an entire idea that it's this willful, deeply betraying neglect that should be read into at length.

Not so.

Don't make it so.

Actions speak louder than words.

Obama has voted for more pro-gay laws in his legislative career than Senator Clinton.

She has, however, marched in a gay pride parade as First Lady.

Furthermore, if actions are more important than words, then I suppose an interview doesn't mean much at all. It can be dismissed as a politician saying whatever.

For the record, I actually think Obama and Clinton would be fairly similar in regards to legislation if/when one of them is president. If I had to nail down when I favor him over her on gay issues, I would have to say it is a tonal choice. I simply think he strikes a better tone and approach when it comes to GLBT issues. Going into religious communities and speaking up for us really impresses me (as much as any politician can impress a GLBT individual given their general kinda-sorta-barely support). Others disagree, and that's fine.

It's the partisan nature that's getting to me. Meeks is the worst thing ever, while Clinton's associations are completely ignored. Clinton supported DADT and DOMA "at the time", but somehow we're supposed to ignore that. And I apparently missed all the GLBT marches and demonstrations back in the 90s where millions of gays demanded DOMA because it was just so damn good for us.

I mean, seriously. Both candidates have their issues, neither one is going to give us everything we want, and both are constrained by undeniable political realities of our present society. But don't present me with two pigs and tell me why I should date one and slaughter the other for bacon. It's insulting.

I haven't met an Obama Supporter yet that doesn't see that in that Republican HELL of the Gingrich era, he might have actually GOT his "Marriage Amendment" to the constitution, and then the community is well and truly FUCKED until it could be repealed.

There's nothing partisan about EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. THAT is now and always has been the only "Holy Writ" that I respect. From that comes everything else. I will not debate Obama's legislative record, as you are quoting from the "Play book." If you cannot support what you say regarding your candidate's record of response in the GLBT media, and you do not site line and item your legislative claim, I suggest we not engage each other further, as you are not supporting your argument, and I have obviously upset you to the point where you are in "Candidate Protection Mode," and that stands in the way of discourse.

If you wish to talk later, feel free to PM, but watch the aspersions as they are particularly inflammatory.

If you were truly interested in simple equality, you would put both candidates under the exact same microscope that you use against Obama. That you do not is what bothers me. For example, you implied in a previous post that Obama had mainly anti-gay religious supporters, when in fact the most famous of his religious supporters is pretty pro-gay. Disinformation is ok in the name of equality now?

I don't apologize for Obama's faults. I have been very critical of the McClurkin incident (you can check my history). I hold both Obama and Clinton to the exact same standards. It is political reality that in a country as religious as America, any viable campaign is going to have associations with religious figures. In America, many religious figures are anti-gay. Obama has them, Senator Clinton has them. I may not like it, but it has never been make or break for me in a national campaign. I have never bashed Senator Clinton or used those associations as proof that someone should support her over Obama. Clinton supporters, however, have done precisely that with Obama's associations in the name of their candidate.

I have said that anyone railing against Obama for X reason should also be prepared to hold that same reason against Senator Clinton. When that does not happen, especially on gay issues, I have a big problem with the hypocrisy. I'd like to think that GLBTers have a finely tuned sense of political hypocrisy, all things given. It saddening to see any of us engaging in such gross forms of it.

- I wouldn't debate DOMA with me either. I'm never in the mood for a straight person to tell me why anti-gay laws are good for me. Even if some Clinton supporters have gone seven levels of Stockholm syndrome to excuse and apologize for that piece of shit, I never will. DADT is understandable to an extent. DOMA, and the Clinton administration's work in bragging to religious and conservative media about how they were saving families from us, is NEVER EVER excusable. Screw anyone who claims otherwise in service of partisanship. And double shame on any GLBT individual who would do it. Worked up about DOMA? You bet. What can I say, I dislike anti-gay laws. For me, DOMA is Bill Clinton's big unforgiveable on gay issues.

- Obama's legislative record has the benefit of longevity. He has more pro-gay votes because he has had more opportunities to cast more pro-gay votes than Senator Clinton. On balance, I'd call it a wash between the two. However, the claim could be made that he has done more legislatively. That's true. But it's good to put it in that context.

- On the interview question, I might have misremembered. I was thinking of the McClurkin interview and thought there was another interview or two out there. If not, it's my mistake. Though I didn't say "numerous", I said "several" as in three or four. My point on PGN stands, however. You completely mischaracterized its importance in the community and tried throwing the Advocate under the bus to do it. No thank you.

The fight for equality requires honesty and integrity. Using gay issues as a partisan bludgeon doesn't sit well with me, no matter what someone claims. These are life and death issues for us, and we should take them with utmost seriousness. It is not a partisan political sport. I didn't realize we've come so far and accomplished so much that we can afford to play these games.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5410072&mesg_id=5410072

And because I do not accept your premises that Obama beats Clinton are not reason to discount me by claiming I am using a "political bludgeon."

Seeing as you weren't in on DOMA/DADT when they were enacted, I will assume you knew nothing of the support for "The Marriage Amendment." When you cite that Obama needs The anti-Gay black vote in a previous post, then you negate any disdain for DOMA, which can be overturned with ease, while getting rid of a Constitutional Amendment takes years, sometimes (like Prohibition), DECADES. Were they great? NO. Did the stop the yahoos from voting up the Amendment? Probably.

Agreeing to disagree is fine, but you're doing the same thing you accuse others of: pre-supposing motives based on issues that have little to do with the point, which is, if you don't have Equal Treatment for ALL, then someone, somewhere is building slave cages or ovens. This has little or nothing to do with Obama or Clinton, either of which is a lousy candidate (in my opinion, Clinton SLIGHTLY less lousy than Obama: HER homophobes aren't on her campaign committees or hosting concerts to benefit her candidacy. Doesn't make it RIGHT OR GOOD, only makes it LESS, and YOU make the case for compromise yourself).

Fortunately, I've heard disparagement of my involvement from PROS, so yours doesn't bother me too much. I'd use that sparingly: we need all the help we can get, and neither candidate is jumping out of their skin to support.

. . . that's precisely what politicians do. I doubt you'd be seeing Senator Clinton doing these sit-downs or forums just for the pure joy of answering questions.

doing the political for the most cynical reasons.

I distinguish.

. . . and watching a candidate go into hostile territory to speak up for GLBT individuals when there is no obvious political gain for him in doing so would seem to me the opposite of cynicism.

Senator Clinton gave an interview on gay issues to a gay newspaper.

Senator Obama went into homophobic churches and spoke up on our behalf.

If the latter is political cynicism, I'd like to know what the former is.

It wasn't. It was cloaked in his homophobe emcee, for which he has yet to apologize, and his grotesque ass-kissing of "good people" who "disagree".

And Senator Clinton thanked a virulently homophobic minister for his work on equality and civil rights.

I suppose that's ok, though. For parsed, contorted reasons I can only begin to imagine.

your praise for your brave, wonderful leader.

Nor did I praise him. I said, simply, that his actions in regards to the churches didn't strike me as the mark of a particularly cynical politician. I wouldn't say cynicism is absent in him, but that he doesn't strike me as egregious in that regard.

You can cut the brave, wonderful stuff, though. I criticize Obama plenty. He's a politician with plenty of faults and policies I disagree with. I simply like him a little more in this particular primary.

There ain't a horse in this race I'd pick if I had a wider field. BOTH of them are busy pandering. For me, it's who I feel is pandering LESS.

at a benefit for his holiness at the Waterfront.Apparently afraid of a picture with Newsome being used against him. A true ally

which candidate when it comes down to the GLBT issues. Here's a typical statement from the article (and it could have been spoken by any of the candidates, not trying to have a Hillary bashing here) -

But I have been committed for more than nine years to eliminating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
and just a little further down -
I think we’d have to get it changed by legislation, but I will look into that.



Um.... Senator....who do you think you're fooling? It would be a Senator's job to introduce that legislation, not POTUS. C'mon now, sure we can feel all warm and fuzzy that you've been committed to this ideal for 9 years, we should shower you with money and votes - as long as we don't just stop and think about it. Cause if you really were committed to doing something about this - YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IT WITH THE JOB YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, NOT THE ONE YOU'RE RUNNING FOR NOW.

Again, when it comes to candidate statements about the GLBT community - any of the current crop of candidates (all Senators) - you could plug and play their names in any random order to the above statement and it wouldn't change. We're fine to pander to when they need our cash/votes/support - but none of them have actually taken a leadership role on this as a current legislator and introduced something because it was the right thing to support GBLT citizens as equal Americans, entitiled to the same things everyone else is. Cause that might cost them some votes somewhere, when they know we have little option but to hold our nose and vote for them when it all comes down to it.

And yes, that's exactly what I'll be doing come Nov - voting for whoever wins the D nomination - while I like some of what each has to say in their platforms, I'm not excited about much with either - more excited about getting the BushCo corruption out of power.

I expect this nonsense in GD:P, or even GD, but there is no way any self-respecting gay person should be touting either Obama OR Clinton's view of gay rights. Both have made it abundantly clear that we are an exceedingly low priority, and there is no evidence to suggest that any of their empty promises will result in any improvement for us, no matter which of the assholes gets in.

If you want to root for Obama or Clinton, be my guest. But please, leave gay issues out of the debate, much the same way the two of them will leave gay equality out of their plans for the future.

:eyes:

Obama-Blasting Publisher Gave Hillary Grand


Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal’s no doubt pleased with this week’s edition.

His paper made a splash yesterday when it published both an extensive interview with Hillary Clinton and a big, blank middle finger to Barack Obama, who PGN accuses of avoiding the pink press. But an Obama interview isn’t the only thing missing from the paper.

Segal - who did the Clinton interviewed and also penned an exhaustive editorial bashing Obama’s - failed to disclose that he donated $1,000 to the Clinton campaign back in March of 2007.

That would have made for a good front page.

From QWEERTY

And they didn't give them the time of day.

Do we really have to play "Who Shot John?"