Here's the bottom line regarding Obama the back stabber

when it comes to caring about the future of gay people.

He will undoubtedly change his positions on civil unions, Don't Ask Don't Tell, just about EVERYTHING, if it's politically advantageous == if it will help him generate more votes.

If the fundies he panders to ask him to vote for a constitutional amendment on banning marriage because he owes them, I can see him throwing gay people under the bus to show his gratitude. No question about it.

Obama lovingly embraced a notorious homophobe despite heart felt pleas. This McClurkin homophobe is an extraordinarily dangerous individual because people who hate gays will argue, "Oh my gosh look! Even a gay person (McClurkin) concedes homosexuality is evil and can concedes it's a choice and can be cured. So why in the world should I support any basic gay right if it's a phony, evil lifestyle?

After all, McClurkin said it and Obama must believe it, otherwise why would he book him as part of his campaign? That's what people are thinking.

Sorry but Obama figuratively spit in the faces of gay people by completely ignoring pleas not to embrace McClurkin. He did what he felt like doing, and now he's going to have to pay the consequences.

Why should Obama be rewarded for this action in the form of a gay vote?

How can Obama be trusted when he's already stabbed the LGBT community in the back once?

Are you crazy?

Obama supporters cannot and/or will not explain why gay people shouldn't worry he'll cave on critical issues in the future if it's politically advantageous.

NOBODY WILL EXPLAIN WHY OBAMA CAN AND SHOULD BE TRUSTED. Why won't anybody specifically address this?

And please, Obama is hardly the best on "gay rights." --------->http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3951604

By virtue of his arrogant actions concerning McClurkin, he is worse than Edwards, worse than Hillary and he's always been worse than Kucinich on gay issues.

And what an outrage to write "he has refused to pander." OMG, he is the king of panderers.

I mean, I can go on and on about that ridiculous OP which implies Obama the back stabber is a friend to the gay community.

He cannot be trusted. Period.

Fortunately, most of us learned this before we were tricked into voting for him.

Obama and his supporters have done zero to mend the hurt.

It doesn't sound like they want and care about our vote.

Kinda crazy if you ask me in this day and age of such close elections where every vote matters.


on edit.........insert link

Puh-lease....

:eyes:

Never mind what you wish were true. What did she DO?

Somebody who's actually responsible for anti-gay legislation, and has hurt far more gay people than any dumb redneck musician.

thats not pandering.

:shrug:

:shrug:

but does that make it okay , since the other would?

i think it says alot about our supposed frontrunners the media picks out for us every election.

and which pander-group(s) can you not accept.

That's a given.

That's me.

But what can you do about it?

:(

Wasn't that a good imitation, Damien???

part about how it would have done more harm to have canceled McClurkin. :eyes:

If you are honest, you would say yes. You would call him a homophobe & a say that all they no how to run on is hate. Why should ANY democratic candidate be different?

How am I doing?

NEVER!

:toast:

pissed all over.

I'm not sure you really care about civil liberties at all.

for you or do you have the hotline number memorized by now?

worst and Hillary just as loathsome since she panders to hawks and attends prayer meetings with gay-hating fundies and touts support from homophobes.
#3. The voters who listened to that concert agree with Democrats many issues. Reaching out to them is a beginning towards changing their attitudes on gay rights as civil rights.

I got your number.

Hell, she even married him.

The OP is only concerned about the homophobic associations of people named Obama.

Like the rest of them, he has a plethora of justifications and equivocations about Senator Clinton.

You're correct, he really doesn't care about civil rights.

that I don't care about civil rights.

:shrug:

I've never accused you of not caring about civil rights.

Don't take your guilt over supporting a presidential candidate who embraces a known homophobe out on me. Be mad at yourself.

Because last I checked, they all embraced known homophobes.

:shrug:

You are addicted to being a victim.

Being "right".

Trashing Obama.

Don't try to use logic, or attempt to argue from his own self-interest. It's pointless.

revelation make you feel thecatburgler?

all six hundred million of them?

I did really well with all groups but gays and Eastern Europeans, for some reason.

until I see otherwise, I'm guessing that most Iowan gays voted for Obama.

Funny how all the furious blogging of our intrepid keyboard activists fails to sway actual voting blocs in any way.

Traitors.

Not only did Obama not make a mistake OBAMA FOLLOWERS ARE MORE GAY THAN THE GAYS THEMSELVES!

And Obama did make a mistake.

ANY dem will be better for you and ME and everyone, than the "BEST" republican they can muster :hug:

hang in there :hug: one thing at a time.:hug:

Would this qualify as a "liar,...pants on fire" thing since the OP is blatantly misleading about Obama's position?

Ya know, I expect this level of complete BS on RW boards. This OP is just ridiculous and the opposite of progressive.

position.

You're asking Obama supporters to prove that Obama won't do something in the future -- an impossibility of course.

All I can say in response to your question in the OP is that Obama's positions against Don't Ask Don't Tell and for full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples have been consistent from day one of his campaign. His official stances on these issues have not changed or even wavered in the past months.

won't do something in the future.

I'm asking people to EXPLAIN what makes them so sure he WON'T do something in the future.

There's a difference.

Now, I'm not arguing that Obama's positions on DADT, civil unions, etc., haven't been consistent from day one of his campaign.

I'm arguing that he can't be trusted.

The only answer I can give you is, obviously, I can't be sure he won't do something horrendous in the future. I can't be sure any of the candidates won't turn into complete Judas goats the minute they swear in -- after all, these are politicians. If their specific past behaviors are to be the yardsticks by which we judge their future trustworthiness on all related issues, then I'm afraid all of them are going to come up short.

I completely grant you that neither I nor any other completely honest Obama supporter can look at the McClurkin incident and then say with 100 percent confidence that I am sure he will not do something untoward in the future with regards to gay rights.

Throwing ones support behind a politician takes a certain leap of faith, I suppose. I don't believe that Obama will continue support of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and I believe he'll push Congress to get a federal civil union law established. And as for the McClurkin incident, I think Obama's views are McClurkin's are not even remotely similar on the question of gay rights, and that if anything, McClurkin was used to snooker otherwise anti-gay voters into voting for a pro-gay politician.

But I don't know this. None of us do, and you certainly won't get any false promises from me. What I can tell you is that I've heard the man speak on these exact issues -- gay rights -- and that, if only you could have a few minutes to talk with the man, I believe you'd find his views to be closer to your own than those of a religio-crazy "ex-gay" preacher. But I can only tell you what I believe.

On a brighter note, despite all the screaming that's gone on in this thread, isn't it neat how two people can actually, you know, communicate when they avoid breathing fire at each other? :)

in south carolina.

can you point to one other campaign that has been as blantly anti-gay as that?

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

Sounds racist.

and avoid those you don't.

Stating he thought it was the wrong thing to do, went on national t.v. during the height of the fight & chastised all of us trying to stop this nomination through a filibuster. We had to beg & call for days & days & days before he finally caved & agreed to filibuster because the outcry for it was so strong (and, I know this for a fact because I called his office five days in a row).....He made a political calculation to vote for the filibuster AFTER he did the damage to our fight to cover his own political ass.

The fact that we had to beg him even for this token gesture told me everything I needed to know about Mr. Obama. He didn't stand up. He didn't fight. And, then he acted outraged when Alito was the deciding vote for the partial birth abortion ban. That is NOT leadership.

This was a critical fight for progressives. And, the fact that progressives on this board will support someone who stabbed our homosexual community in the back utterly astounds me.

I don't like Obama. I don't trust him in the least. He reminds me of Deval Patrick (the new Governor here in MA), who all the democrats rallied around only to be rewarded with a man whose economic stimulus is to promote casino gambling across the state. (Obama campaigned for him). I was a delegate at the convention for that election, & you just could not say a thing against Patrick. His recent record was all corporatist, but they thought he would be some kind of salvation. He isn't & neither will be Obama.

Everyone is morally beneath him. He doesn't even need to vote or show up for votes to be "for" or "against" something.

Because the never-ending circle jerk of blogular outrage on the part of Obama haters is really getting old. Call the campaign, email them. Camp outside the frigging offices ferjeebusessake!

Can people who support a candidate, and worked hard for his success in Iowa, catch a stinking break for a little while on DU? You're angry, we get it. You've been demanding answers from us Obama supporters, yet never accepting any of the ones we give you. So all that is left to tell you is to do it your damn self.

Get off the computer, and off your ass, and go find the answers you seek on your own. Otherwise, you're just another lazy keyboard jockey ranting and raving impotently.

He's an Edwards supporter that just wants to take shots at Obama.

The OP along with many of us called the Obama campaign directly and were ignored.

I'm thrilled to know after all this time that this idea is so laughable and cavalier to you. Adios.

pathetic

Or only yours?

question which is why I shouldn't worry Obama will cave on an issue if it's politically advantageous?
You won't answer this.

(B) I know the answer/reason, so there's no need to find answers. I want to hear your explanation and other Obama supporter's explanations.

(C)I have contacted the campaign and expressed my views.

pandered to a notorious homophobe and figuratively spit in the faces of gay people.

Expressing which candidate I support would not help your position.

So which candidate would that be?

I guessing because that would expose him as a hypocrite, and somebody who really doesn't care about gay rights, at least as much as he cares to.

But I think it needs a little work.

It happens to a lot of people.

But personally, I'm against the war in Iraq.

turn his life around, maybe I'd consider.

Otherwise, as it stands now, I can't even commit to supporting him in the general.

I'll write someone in who doesn't piss all over the civil liberties of gay people.

The truth hurts, ha Bornagainhooligan?

Who'd you write in?

"The truth hurts, ha Bornagainhooligan?"

Indeed, and that's why you're twisting in the wind right now.

community by embracing a notorious homophobe.

"I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman"

-John Kerry

So, frankly, it seems your concern about Obama and homophobia is all talk.

also believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

I knew you were going to be grasping at straws with that question.

The issue is which candidate can one trust to keep their word about supporting civil unions, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc.

Obama cannot be trusted.

Also, Kerry didn't allow a notorious homophobe to perform for his campaign.

Also, I hope you're not implying that I believe Obama is a homophobe.

I don't believe that.

What I believe is he embraced a dangerous homophobe to perform for his campaign, despite numerous warnings, and can thrwewdoe

Capiche?

Your splitting hairs to explain why the homophobe that you don't like is worse than the homophobe that you do like.

It's very hypocritical.

choose a candidate that "I like," I'm not going to choose the one who is very publicly untrustworthy from the get go.

That's Obama. There's no telling what he's going to pull next.

You don't understand, but gay people have to settle for homophobes because we have no choice. Most of us just pick the lesser of two evils.

That's not called hypocritical. It's called having no choice.

"You don't understand, but gay people have to settle for homophobes because we have no choice."

That's exactly what I do understand. You have to settle for homophobes.

I havent made my decision yet between Obama or Edwards BUt I can now BE SURE I WONT SUPPORT HILLARY IN THE PRIMARY.

Any group so full of hateful vitriol and meanspiritness wont get my vote.

Hillary's people started the Obama crackdealer crap.Hillary's people start most of the negative crap.

I WILL NOT vote for Hillary in the primary as a statement against the vitriolic crap her campaign and supporters have foisted upon us.

B. Then why are you asking anyone, Carnac the Magnificent? What difference does my explanation make when you are so omniscient?

C. So you "expressed your views". Big deal. I'm sure that email was really quite taxing to write.

Try contacting them again until you get a response. It might take some persistence. It might involve, you know, actually getting off your ass and picking up a phone, or going down to the office, or going to an event where Obama is speaking and asking your question. Why don't you take some real action to get out in your community and inform people about the Donnie McClurkin issue? Instead of accusing people of not being "real activists" if they don't know about it.

I'm not being facetious about this. I'm serious. If this is such an important issue to you, and is such a harbinger of how detrimental an Obama presidency will be to GLBT rights, then it is your duty to make your case to your community. If you don't take on that duty it's on you, my friend, not me.

gay community concerning this and other issues, and whether I'm "asking anyone?"

Get off my ass and pick up a phone?!? :wtf:

For someone who claims they don't have the ability to predict the future, it's astonishing you apparently have the ability to know which kind of action I've taken regarding McHomophobe and what kind of response (if any) I've received from the Obama campaign, and whether I've made a case to my "community."

I've already told you I've expressed my concerns and taken on "that duty."

You're seriously a piece of work. You realize that, right?

If it's the former, the suggestion in my post stands.

If it's the latter, then perhaps you need to change your strategy. Maybe your communication style isn't effective. :shrug:

Have you talked to GLBT supporters of Obama in your community? Do they know about McClurkin, and if so, is it a big issue for them? Have you persuaded any of them to defect from the Obama camp because of it? Have you persuaded any undecided gay or lesbian voters to support your candidate instead of Obama because of McClurkin? Have you done any kind of activity, like speaking up at meetings, handing out flyers at events, knocking on doors, to make your views of the issue known in the community? Have you started an organization to promote your concerns about Obama and the GLBT community?


Again, I'm not being sarcastic here. If you really and truly believe that an Obama presidency will bring such grave harm to the civil rights of GLBT people, if you really feel he is so untrustworthy, then you are obligated to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to ensure that he doesn't win the nomination.

Now, I have to take off because I'm going downtown to table at our city's monthly Art Walk for Obama. Tomorrow I'll be canvassing and Sunday I'll be phonebanking. And what will you be doing to STOP Obama? Typing more angry messages into a political discussion board?

do not support Obama.

And while my efforts have not been 100 percent successful,I've personally convinced gay people that Obama is a backstabber Vis-à-vis McClurkin.

Even though Edwards and Hillary do not support marriage, they are more trustworthy because they've not so actively and publicly demonstrated anything that leads me to believe they'll fold under political pressure.

Obama put politics before principle.

Let's just hope Iowa was an aberration.

But then there's probably no majority of any community who supports a particular Dem candidate since there are so many and there are 3 frontrunners. Nope, sorry, you don't get to claim credit for that. (Oh wait! There is one candidate who is getting the majority of the support of 18 to 30 year olds. That would be Obama.)

Even though Edwards and Hillary do not support marriage, they are more trustworthy because they've not so actively and publicly demonstrated anything that leads me to believe they'll fold under political pressure.

Now THAT'S a good one! :rofl:

have done vis a vis political pressure, that would lead someone to believe they might change their minds about supporting civil unions and Don't Ask Don't Tell!

What have they done?

Obama has demonstrated he'll do what's politically advantageous by controversially allowing a dangerous person, who claims to be ex-gay, to perform for his campaign.

Have Edwards and Clinton done so?

You can laugh all you want, but hey are by default more trustworthy,

Why wouldn't she do the same on a gay rights issue if strong political pressure was applied? What was her position on gay marriage, again? What's Edwards' position? Why do you suppose they have those positions? Could it be....political expediency?

Then there are those homophobes she's associated with. Oh yeah, that's diiiiiiiiifferent.

BTW, I just got back from tabling for Obama at the Art Walk. Another volunteer and I decided to walk down the street to chat with the people there and drive traffic to our table. Lots of good responses to Obama from the very diverse crowd in attendence. At one point two young men approached us. They were with the Human Rights Campaign. We talked about the Obama campaign and the work that the HRC is doing on some local issues. I didn't ask them about McClurkin but I did ask them who they were supporting in the primary. Guess who both of them are supporting?

Obama.

More of those fake activists I guess. There seem to be a lot of them around. :rofl:

Do you know what plurality means?

It's nice to see someone taking this on.

Tell me about your username. Frankly, I got mine out of thin air.

I got tired of my distant cousin, Perez Hilton, and his tired old celebrity dish.

Political dish is so much more interesting.

:toast: You've come to the right place.

That's cool. The beer mugs, I mean.

indicates use "smilies lookup table". If you click on that message, a menu comes up depicting whatever emoticons you want to use. You pick one (or two, or a hundred) and click on them. In your outgoing message, it doesn't appear as anything but a word, but it shows up in your post. :D

:9

is getting kind of scary.

supporter.

n/t

I just came up with a new name for Donnie McClurkin...Donnie McExGayClown. It looks pretty stupid when I write it out, but it made me laugh.

Donnie McObama

and I will find it hard to vote for them in the GE's

Bornagain....you win. Well-played at cutting through the logical fallacies.

cboy....don't vote for Obama if you wish, but it helps when making a point to actually have a point. If you would like to remind everyone of the McClurkin issue, just do so instead of the "prove to me this" type of posting. You are inviting scrutiny and yes, you were left twisting in the wind.

LBGT issues were made into political poison with the mainstream starting in 2004. It was one of the vehicles that led to the theft of that election, but the trend is slowly being reversed. It is not surprising that every mainstream candidate on the Democratic side has a spotty record in that regard. Mainstream politicians blow with the wind. You can accuse any of the three of the same, including the winner of Iowa in 2004.

But you are welcome not to vote for Obama in the general if you so wish. I respect people that take a strong stand on their pet issue, but it is not supposed to be used to bash people over the head.

I wont vote for Hillary in the general, so I can relate. But I don't start threads demanding that Hillary supporters defend themselves over who she has booked for fundraisers....it's poor taste and divisive.

My opinion.

"prove to me this" aspect is specifically because:

People argue Obama holds the same pro-gay positions as Edwards and Hillary, so why shouldn't I support him?

I agree that they are all for civil unions and are opposed to marriage, and support repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc., etc.,

But my point is Obama is now untrustworthy to maintain those positions because he chose politics over principle and decency when he embraced one of the most hated people in the gay community to perform during his fundraiser despite pleas not to.

The other two candidates have not shown signs they will abandon decency and fairness in the name of political advantage.

This is a point, and I see no reason why you cannot figure it out.

People are free to scrutinize, but it would be nice to hear people articulate reasons why they think I'm off base. And that hasn't happened.

And thanks for blaming gay people for losing the 04 election.

I did not blame gay people for the loss of 2004. I do, however, note that including marriage bans for gays in many key states drove voter turnout on the Republican side and was used as an excuse for *'s "stunning" victory. So I am blaming the Republicans for taking advantage of homophobia in America, not the gays for existing. Sheesh.

Nice try, but strawmen are so easy to knock down.

And you have been told why you are off-base. For one, no one is a mind reader and no one can predict the future, so your demands of proof are a logical fallacy to begin with. For two, you have already been told why you are off-base. Clinton has associated with anti-gay people and Edwards is fairly socially conservative (although I admit he has spoken out against these odious laws in the past). Their stated positions are the same. Singling out Obama as the only candidate with a chequered past is disingenuous.

Like I said, vote the way you wish, but you seem to me to be defensive and too quick to try to beat people over the head with your one issue. It's your issue...congratulations. Vote that way. But do not expect anyone else to vote precisely for the reasons you do. That's disrespectful of others' views.

Oh well......OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

care about the civil liberties of minorities, I don't really expect you to understand why this topic is so important.

You have everything,

Because I don't decide my candidate for president on ONE ISSUE, you decide I "don't care about the civil liberties of minorities" and....I "have everything" ?!?!?!

Great way to get support!

and taking full advantage of his bigotry to score some primary votes in South Carolina....yes, one would tend to be a "one-issue" voter.

"Obama supporters cannot and/or will not explain why gay people shouldn't worry he'll cave on critical issues in the future if it's politically advantageous.

NOBODY WILL EXPLAIN WHY OBAMA CAN AND SHOULD BE TRUSTED. Why won't anybody specifically address this?"

He threw the gays under the bus and I can't trust him on this issue - how can I trust him on other important issues?

Thanks.

... I must say I like the subversive cut of your jib, sir!

; )

- Dave

... along with other DUers in your area.

- Dave

mess, I think everyone is okay.

I know the Tahoe ski resorts are elated!

Thanks for asking. :pals:

... just the other day?

Here's how I'd start that cleanup.

:beer:

Glad to hear you're OK.

- Dave

sex marriage, and in the end was able to not give a fuck about it because it would buy him some bigot votes.

In a way that makes him worse than some others who I don't believe had what it takes to really even think about it.

If he doesn't understand gay rights, he doesn't understand civil rights. If he doesn't understand civil rights, he doesn't understand the Constitution. If he doesn't understand the Constitution, well.... (connect the dots).

Which are you going to vote for? Go third party? Not vote?

Obama isn't my first or second or third choice as candidate, I've always favored Kucinich. However I could live with Obama if I had to.

And frankly, you really need to learn the old political maxim, discount at least half of what a candidate says once he gets into office, both the good and the bad. People will say many many things to get people's votes, and later have absolutely zero follow through on those promises.

Do you really have any expectation of not being thrown under the bus by any of the top three candidates? Hillary, Edwards and Obama, none of them are really outstanding when it comes to LGBT issues, in fact they all have rather sucked on those issues. The biggest supporter of LGBT is Kucinich, just witness the LOGOs debates last fall.

Yes, I realize that it hurts when you get slapped in the face with shit like Obama pulled, but at least you know where he is coming from. Hillary and Edwards might be smoother, might even make grandiose promises(that they won't keep), but they are no more for your issues than Obama, and are just as willing to throw you under the bus. At least with Obama he is being up front. To paraphrase Malcolm X, it is better to deal with the devil who is honest rather than the one who obfuscates.

Now you know where those of us on the deep left are coming from when we're calling for third parties and real choices. The top three candidates are all deeply flawed on issues that are dear to us all. The only question at this point is whether or not this is a deal breaker for you come November, assuming Obama gets the nod. If it is, I can understand, I have deal breakers of my own with Hillary. But if not, then we're all going to have to learn to live with the nominees flaws, and work towards changing them as time passes.

Nor feel included in all the "hopeful" Obamaliciousness going on.

won't exist by the November election. There isn't a Democratic candidate out there that 100% of us support at this time, and if the situation doesn't improve a lot by November...we'll have another 4 years of right-wing lunacy.

Personally I'm for Kucinich, but my vote in November will go to the Democratic candidate...period. Any differences I have with that candidate definitely won't make me vote for a rethug or not vote at all.

nausea.

I'll be glad when the primaries are over. I like all the candidates. I have a couple favorites, but in the end, I'll be happy with whoever wins. Go DEMOCRATS!