Republic of T: Obama’s Crap Sandwich, With Extra Homo

[Bluebear]

From The Republic of T: Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal.


...But back to the Obama campaign’s backpedalling.

“They recognized that there was a mistake here”?

And what was the mistake? If the mistake was inviting McClurkin in the first place, then how does keeping him on the tour correct that mistake? Or was this mistake to invite McClurkin without inviting a representative from the LGBT community for the sake “balance”? Apparently inviting McClurkin was not the mistake, given the campaign’s defense of his participation.

They also stressed Obama’s “unequivocal” commitment to gay rights, and defended McClurkin’s presence at the performance, he said.
“The perspective is that he can bring in different elements of the Democratic Party and American society,” the Obama supporter said.

The truth is that McClurkin can bring in the element of the Democratic party that openly despise and actively support legalizing discrimination against the community Rev. Sidden’s addition to the program is supposed to mollify. What’s unsaid here is that the LGBT community, and our families, are less important to Obama and — let’s just say it — to the Democrats than the constituency that McClurkin’s participation represents and is intended to attract. We are as much an afterthought as the belated addition of Rev. Sidden to the tour.

And the message is that we’d best accept our position in the back of the bus for now, until everyone and everything else is taken care of. They maybe, just maybe, we will have earned a spot closer to the front of the bus.

This is either a case of not knowing what would happen when McClurkin’s participation inevitably became known, or just not caring, because his participation would almost certainly pull in African American voters whose selective reading of scripture means anti-gay bigotry is a big draw and an even bigger uniting factor. Neither likelihood inspires much confidence, but I’m inclined to believe the second scenario is closer to the truth. The only thing more troubling than that is that they thought they could get away with it.

What’s clear is that Obama, and I think the Democrats in general, want to have it both ways, and to somehow bring the Donnie MuClurkins of the world and the LGBT community to the same table. But that can’t happen with out someone getting a better seat, closer to the head of the table, along with the access and influence that come with it. If the LGBT community accepts this from Obama, the Democrats, or progressives we risk becoming something akin to “Log Cabin Democrats,” along with all that status implies. If we allow them to have it both ways.

I’ll say it one more time. The only way to eat your cake and have it too is to wait for it to come out the other end. And then, even if you slap some icing on it and stick a candle in it, it’s still crap.

http://lavenderliberal.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=52142#52142

[rusty quoin]

1. I know what's right and what's wrong. (just like the right wing, but they are upside down)

But when it comes to what it takes to be elected, I am confused. I want honesty and principles, but that is not what politics is.

My point is sometimes I just turn my back at the wrong to get elected someone who'll be more right.

[Bluebear]

2. Oh, your avatar, the great Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter was one of the first presidents to address the topic of LGBT rights. He opposed a California ballot measure that would have banned gays, and supporters of gay rights from being public school teachers. His administration was the first to meet with a group of gay rights activists, and in recent years he has come out in favor of civil unions and ending the ban on gays the military.

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

[toughboy]

3. It's a tired old crap sandwich at that

Hypocrisy and hatred become a big tent virtue? Right.

[rusty quoin]

7. I know you are right. I am embarassed, but I am sometimes finding myself

ignoring the stuff I don't agree with, from Democrats, because there is so much to ingest.

[Heidi]

4. "I just turn my back at the wrong to get elected someone who'll be more right."

There are plenty of people who do exactly that, sending our candidates the message that we are so desperate to elect Democrats that they can get away with doing little to change the status quo. Equal human rights is one issue where I absolutely refuse to turn my back. :hi:

[calteacherguy]

5. This is just crap.

"What’s unsaid here is that the LGBT community, and our families, are less important to Obama and — let’s just say it — to the Democrats than the constituency that McClurkin’s participation represents and is intended to attract. We are as much an afterthought as the belated addition of Rev. Sidden to the tour."

Pure crap. What a bunch of BS.

[Bluebear]

6. You're becoming quite the busy bee on these gay threads, aren't you?

[Clintonista2]

10. Umm, he has already proven how he feels with regards to this matter

"McClurkins quotes are being taken out of context!"
"Obama should not drop McClurkin from the tour!"

[IndianaJones]

11. is that the name for it now? nt.

[MNDemNY]

13. Fear???

[toughboy]

8. Those two sentences were probably all is needed to be said. There it is.

How much BS is in a bunch of BS anyway? How pure does crap need to be to be labeled pure. Just asking.
It does appear that any pro-gay statement or even defense of the rights of the LGBT community, black or otherwise, does get you going.

[CyberPieHole]

9. Dissapointment.

At Barack Obama. What else can be said?

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Further proof: it's sorta hard to court religion without courtin' some other ugliness along the way

Yet another reason to keep religion out of the policy world: it's just too damned dangerous.

Belief systems have lots of built-in prejudices and tend to be exclusive. There's something sadly karmic about this whole episode: Obama thought he was pulling a slick move by tapping into an already organized sub-culture and just getting their votes wholesale. It might be possible, but there are a couple of seriously nasty facets to this beauteous mindset, and they're at odds with the concepts of pluralism and acceptance.

I don't think he's learned his lesson either, but then it's not surprising for someone to continue on dealing with religion well past the burden of proof has weighed in. Now he's in the awkward position of insulting the vast group he's tried so hard to sweep into his fold, and it's largely just to win one primary. Talk about diminishing returns.

To those of you who minimize Senator Obama's level of being beholden to religion, this should be a sobering episode. To those who adamantly claim that he's rock-solid in his tenets of exclusion, this should be a real eye-opener, jaw-dropper and heart-stopper. If he's willing to throw gays overboard so casually for some votes in an early primary, what does that say about his word in general? What does it say about his JUDGMENT?

This is a true disaster, and I wish he'd come to his senses, because I think he has some. The trouble is that to do so would be to tweak the tail of the religion beast, and that gets us back to the real problem here.

[Cha]

16. That's right...

Karma's gonna get your Dogma.

[Maven]

14. K/R

[NMMNG]

15. It's a crap sandwich all right

And I don't like the taste of it at all. :puke: