« I'll Take Manhattan, And The Golden Ticket | Main | Oh, I Get It... You're... Angry »

April 11, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well done!

What has bothered me all along is this specific idea of his:

"….I’m reaching out beyond the traditional Democratic base."

My candidate needs to secure the Democratic base BEFORE going after the others, the ones pretty much responsible for where we are now.

I've had it too. I feel like if Obama gets the nomination and wins, his presidency will walk the path of least resistence. He'll be the American Idol president, and we can set up phone lines for opposing policy positions.
(For just $2 a call, you too can vote against campaign finance reform.)

Some people talk about Clinton destroying the Democratic party by remaining in the race. Obama will do it more thoroughly simply by making the party more Republican.

Already has in fact.

We don't need to be reaching across that aisle just yet. And when he does, he'll just get accused of proselytizing (new $100 word - woohoo!) anyway.

Now, excuse me while I go train some toddlers in the fine arts of fan dancing and brunch. Don't worry; I give them helmets.

I think this is enormously unfair. First of all, there isn't as far as I can tell a smidgen of difference betwee Obama's and HRC's positions on LGBT issues. She doesn't support marriage equality either.

Secondly, it seemed obvious to me that he was trying to find a delicate way of saying 'I would support gay marriage but it isn't politically feasible.' I think this is a fair enough position given the political circumstances, and it is also fairly obvious why he can't explicitly say that.

(I'm referring to: "I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating.")

I think you're being uncharitable (to say the least) to construe this the way you do. Moreover, you're holding him to a much higher standard than HRC as I don't see any criticism of her tortured position on civil marriage either.

Thirdly, you completely ignore the fact that Obama is the only presidential candidate in US history who routinely talks about gay issues in front of non-gay audiences. Does Hillary ever get in front of white, blue collar audiences (her base) and decry their homophobia like Obama does to black congregations (his base)? I think not. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Now I'm not going to defend the odious McClurkin, but this again is a double standard; care to discuss Bill Clinton utilizing his signing of DOMA as part of his 1996 reelection campaign? Pandering to homophobia, much?

I understand that individuals interpret what they see based on who they're already supporting, but this is really over the top.

PS: I followed you here from Ezra Klein's site as I want to read more Hillary supporters.

Sorry, bored.

I don't have to listen to anyone else tell me when or not to be offended; I can tell on my own.

In the interview, Obama admits to being pleasantly surprised by this non-"proselytizing" gay man; the implication being the rest of us are constantly recruiting.

I would add that I find it a little disturbing, in a post defending Obama's homophobia, to see your sexist argument there at the end (Clinton is an extension of her husband, and should be blamed for his presidential failings, and assumed to continue with his weak stances on gay rights).

For me, the gay marriage thing was never important until people started talking about how we couldn't have it. Now, with the cat out of the bag, I doubt lesbians and gays will give up until all non-religious benefits are made equal for all.

But I'm ferociously single, so the McLurkin and the "proselytizing" problems have a sharper sting, because, in lieu of some imagined spouse, these insult me.

I just threw up in my mouth. A lot.

I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them.

Translation: yeah, let them go ahead with that same-sex marriage equality if they want.

I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating.

But don't expect me to lead you on it. I have bigger concerns than that.

That’s a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make.

If you want leadership from your president...well, look over there! Toodles!

As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

I've let anti-gay bigots rant on my tours, I've routinely avoided interviewing with GLBTQ media, and I think that in heterosexual marriages, there's something special that "happens before God," but hey, I'm better than McCain. That's leadership, right?

Thirdly, you completely ignore the fact that Obama is the only presidential candidate in US history who routinely talks about gay issues in front of non-gay audiences. Does Hillary ever get in front of white, blue collar audiences (her base) and decry their homophobia like Obama does to black congregations (his base)?

boredatwork, how many times did Obama make that speech? What exactly did he say? So far, I've only seen reports that he spoke about GLBTQ rights once at one church, and he said

“If we are honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community ... We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.”

That's hardly the ringing denouncement and courageous GLBTQ advocacy you portray it as.

Now I'm not going to defend the odious McClurkin, but this again is a double standard; care to discuss Bill Clinton utilizing his signing of DOMA as part of his 1996 reelection campaign? Pandering to homophobia, much?

jinbaltimore has already touched on the fallacy of treating HRC as an automatic extension of WJC, ignoring her own policies, speeches, and positions. You might want to consider that it's possible to write posts about Obama and his flaws without mentioning Clinton and it's possible to write posts about Clinton and her flaws without mentioning Obama. Newsflash: both candidates have flaws that are problems. "But HRC is worse!" does not excuse Obama's flaws.

When Hillary talks about gay issues, I feel like it's from the heart, or a least, she has a smidgeon of compassion about the issues. With Obama, gay issues seem like an uncomfortable minefield he's navigating through, just like the racial tightrope he walks everytime Wright's name comes up. He is the "Great Equivocater" when "great" only means he does it a lot.

I have a lot of trouble with the assertion that the McClurkin debacle was somehow equivalent with "opening a dialogue." That wasn't opening a discussion. It was explicitly granting a platform for hate speech.

Just....ugh.

This action, or inaction, as the case may be is the primary reason I am in support of Hillary.

If "actions speak louder than words" then Obama doesn't give two shits about the gay community or our rights.

Hillary does, and she gets this Pa Gay's vote!

Thank you for this. Since you read my blog, you know I'm hosting an Out for Hillary event on Wednesday. So, this put things down in a well thought out manner for me to talk about if the question comes up.

Awesome as usual :)

What bothers me is that Obama apparently has no known gay people around him. Hillary does. And has had gay staffers all the way back to Arkansas. And she has a public record of supporting them against the right wing.

An openly gay person would have mitigated the McClurkin scandle, or at least done damage control. But he has no one who has credibility with our community working for him. It is as if Obama has read about gay people, heard about gay people, but knows nothing first hand about us.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad

google list

Bookmark and Share