Reply #119: I'm chiming in

[Bluenorthwest]

To say that some of us have backgrounds that allow us to understand the language of the bad folk better than others. I would even go so far as to say I am not sure the Senator is always aware that he is using heavily loaded code words much of the time, as the Senator does not have Pentacostal, charasmatic, southern bone in his religious make up. If that seems like a slam, it is actually a bit of the opposite. He gets fed words by Dubois and that crowd, and being a nice UCC guy from out West, he has, perhaps, a tin ear for the winks and nods contained in the choice of many of his words. Of late, he has introduced in some settings 'clean' and more direct mentions of gay people, without modifiers and code speak. It is much better, but not yet consistant.
But just saying, if you've never been annointed with oil and heard a prophecy in tounges interperated at the alter, the events in question will seem very differnt to you than they do to, for example, me. And the bigots hear the call also. I can not pretend not to see and hear what I see and hear.
What I think you should be doing, is holding your candidate accountable, demanding better from him. Making excuses for his weak points is of zero value to anyone in the long run. The man says 'Yes we can'....Gay mariage? No, we can't. Non profit health care? No, we can't. What is it we can do again? Vote for Obama and that is all? Does not the candidate himself say it is up to us, that is, you, to stand up and make the change we want? So why rationalize and excuse and accept? Is that really support? Is it the best kind of support? I say holding the candidates to a high standard is support. Altering one's principles to suite the candidate is the very opposite of what should be happening.
If his avid boosters would ask more of him, his avid detractors would have far less to talk about. Allowing no criticism is what Bush did. Offering none is what the GOP did. Think about it.