NYC Gay City News endorsed Obama

[davidinalameda]

http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19249408&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6

In a presidential inaugural address that inspired a teenager from Hope, Arkansas named Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy famously urged Americans to focus not on what the country could do for them, but on what contributions they could make to the nation.

Mind you, we in the LGBT community are not yet nearly at the point where this nation has made good on the contributions it owes to our lives, our families, our well-being, even our equal citizenship. Faced with the choice of two progressive Democrats who have spoken at length and with conviction about the challenges facing our lives, we still don't have the luxury of picking a candidate who will advocate for our right to marry. We must yet take it on faith that the next president will have the fortitude to insist that Congress - including too many stragglers within the Democratic Party - open up the nation's military to out gay and lesbian patriots. It is far from certain that the next time the Democratic Congress takes up an employment nondiscrimination measure it will include transgendered Americans as well as gay men and lesbians among those protected.

But after seven years of George W. Bush, and compared against the prospect of either John McCain or Mitt Romney, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama truly offer hope to LGBT Americans that help is on the way.

Given that the two Democratic contenders share a similar, generally friendly and supportive posture toward LGBT Americans, we ought to think about the message our choice sends about a fundamental question - what our politics should be all about. We are finding our place here and there at the table, but we have also spent much of our life on the outside. The nation needs to hear our views on how American politics can accommodate new voices in the mix.

[Thrill]

1. How long before a Clinton Supporter mentions

the irrelevant McClurkin?

[Ian David]

2. They wouldn't dare, or the Obama supporter would bring up Rupert Murdoch. n/t

[dsc]

11. that would be the Murdoch whose paper endorsed Obama?

Or is there some other Murdoch?

[Ian David]

16. Like I've said before, there is not a whole lot of difference between the Obama and Hillary.

See:

I really don't give a shit who here supports Obama or Hillary, and neither should you. So STFU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4374606&mesg_id=4374606

[davidinalameda]

3. soon enough

they're one hit wonders

[Renew Deal]

6. Jews for Hitler

Got that out of the way. :D

[hulklogan]

8. If McClurkin is so irrelevant, why did the article spend an entire paragraph

discussing it?

[cloudythescribbler]

28. But also, why don't we find any substantial number of GLBT advocates on DU approaching the ...

issue in that sensible a way? That is what is more mysterious.

There have been some half-dozen MAJOR gay publications who have all specifically endorsed Obama, yet NONE of their arguments seem to have any supporters in the face of "the swarms" on DU.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[mondo joe]

29. You might look to the responses to the endorsement in the paper.

They are a mixed bag, but there's significant disagreement there as well.

You don't find very many GLBT advocates approaching the matter in the way the endorser does...because we don't agree.

[cloudythescribbler]

43. Precisely -- if there is WIDE disagreement, why isn't that DISagreement reflected on DU?

[mondo joe]

47. Probably because DU is a self selecting group. Look at the early primary

season: if DU were the gauge, Kucinich would be our nominee.

[Recursion]

50. GLBT people are all over the political spectrum

albeit out of self interest I suppose the population is somewhat skewed left. On DU, we tend to get the left-of-center of every population, so you're probably hearing, pretty much, from one side of the disagreement.

Off-topic: is there a canonical order for that initialism "GLBT"? I've seen "LGBT" too.

[cloudythescribbler]

51. and there are QUITE a few GLBT DUers who support Obama -- but who are terrified into silence ...

by the swarms of Obama-bashers IN THE NAME OF GLBT rights.

Note also, with reference to the "self-selecting" DUers skewed left (I am myself a socialist and voted Kucinich -- more toward the center from me -- in the 04 primary) -- but in the GLBT community NATIONALLY those who are more progressive are HARDLY united behind HRC.

Nope, there's an aspect to the dynamic here at DU that is different.

Hint: Agenda mongering (and I DON'T mean a GLBT rights 'agenda' either).

[hulklogan]

31. Maybe because DU is its own litte world where GLBT advocates have

very little patience for homophobe-associaters and bigotry apologists. Ambivalence is not the same thing as sensibility.

I don't care if The Advocate, OUT, Dan Savage, Madonna, Entertainment Weekly, Clint Dempsey, and RuPaul all endorse Senator Obama; I will not support him in the primary. If that makes me part of a swarm, then I'm be proud to be a human locust.

[cloudythescribbler]

45. In essence, what you are saying is that DU has a lot of 'idealists', fewer GLBT 'pragmatists' --but

that isn't reflected in DU overall. I consider myself as reflective a balance of realism and idealism as the next DUer, and I am one of the few self-identified GLBT folk who has repeatedly reponded to these threads trashing Obama.

What makes the "swarm" is not each and every person that agrees with the thrust of the Obama-condemnation. Rather, it appears that there are likely many SILENT individuals who disagree, and are intimidated by some of the HARSHER and less tolerant expressions of what is, after all, only ONE SIDE of the dispute W/IN the GLBT community on Obama. It's a kind of Gresham's law, leavened by many people with an Obama-bashing agenda, seen in many spheres on DU, that really has little genuinely to do (for those bashers) with GLBT rights.

I certainly respect someone's taking a position and not simply following the crowd, both WITHIN DU and vis-a-vis the GLBT press.

[Fran Kubelik]

12. How is McClurkin irrelevant?

I am not being snide. I would love to support Obama, but have been unable to do so because of what his stance on gay issues appears to be. Can you help me understand how McClurkin and that other anti-gay minister don't represent Obama's views.

[Hekate]

20. It's been "explained" over and over and over and over and over and over....

My fingers got tired out. I, personally, am satisfied that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama is a closet homophobe. But then I'm straight, so maybe that doesn't count.

Hekate

[Fran Kubelik]

36. I should take it on your authority then?

I was sincere. I was asking. I don't read every thread here. Thanks for blowing me off. x(

[Hekate]

37. I apologize for blowing you off. I mistook your question as being disingenuous.

The subject of Obama and McClurkin at DU has been exceedingly contentious, as you may divine by reading this thread as it develops. At one point I was called a bigot, the poster then assumed from my name that I was a Pagan, and by extension called all those in the Pagan movement bigots. Sweet Reason pretty much flew out the window early on.

You needn't take anything on my authority -- just stick with this thread for awhile. Again, I'm sorry I jumped at you.

Hekate

[mondo joe]

15. Are you a GLBT person?

?

[Neecy]

27. I am....

And I support Obama.

[mondo joe]

30. Thanks. I'm wondering about the other poster though.

:-)

[cloudythescribbler]

32. I am bi myself, and although McClurkin is not 'irrelevant', the episode is GROSSLY miscast on DU

and (obviously due to intimidation) the view of MANY (not necessarily most but not just a few) GLBT folk simply are just not heard above the din of the swarms of Obama-haters with their choruses of protestation (mixed metaphor -- tough shit).

I could understand that SOME people on DU might see the McClurkin episode as absolutely determinative on gay rights, but there is nothing by way of reflection of the broad range of widely held opinion here expressed, not only in the hatefest throng of threads on McClurkin, but even in independent threads (other than simply reporting the GREAT NUMBER of GLBT publications etc that have endorsed Obama).

One commentor stated that this thread mistook the view of one (or half dozen) major gay publications for the "whole" gay community. They have it exactly backwards -- what DOES happen is that an enormously UNrepresentative chorus of protestation on DU is what grossly misrepresents the totality of views in the GLBT community/ies, including a LOT of people who, like myself, do NOT buy any of this blatant exploitation of one episode in a distorted way.

[mondo joe]

33. Thank you.

I frankly think much of the McClurkin furor on DU is more about non-GLBT DUers telling us again and again that it's not relevant. Then we respond, and it builds up and builds up.

I'd also say I'm opposed to 0bama over this (and what it represents), not the reverse.

But no one gets to speak on behalf of the community - not DUers, not the editorialist.

[hulklogan]

35. Protestation against a candidate who worries us is not hate

Disagreement is not hate, criticism is not hate, confrontation is not hate.

I don't hate Senator Obama and I'm sure many people who are rightfully critical of his zig-zag approach to GLBT Americans do not hate him, either. I'm more concerned than anything - concerned that a President Obama would rather we be invisible, concerned that an Obama presidency will allow the GLBT-ignoring wing of the Democratic Party to continue to sidestep our issues.

Some people are okay with "trusting" or "having faith" that Senator Obama really will advance the cause of GLBT equality if he is elected, but not me. I want proof and action and something that shows a genuine caring for the feelings of GLBT Americans before I believe in Senator Obama's fancy talking.

[ursi]

4. Great news!

[hulklogan]

5. sellouts. n/t

[LadyVT]

7. What?!

Shocking they would endorse him after the Donnie McClurkin scandal (in which Obama chose a well-known gay basher to campaign with him in South Carolina in order to pull in the evangelical vote, and then justified that as a political move). In my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse for that. Also surprising after his comment on the MTV forum yesterday that he does not support gay marriage BECAUSE of his religious beliefs, and "the principles on which this country was founded." GLBT posters to the San Francisco Chronicle feel otherwise than this group.

From the Washington Post: "Aides to Barack Obama's who are concerned about his fortunes nationally cast his decision not to kick Donnie McClurkin off the program of a gospel concert the campaign was hosting as a principled decision, part of the Illinois senator's constant rhetoric of bringing people together even if they disagree. Aides in South Carolina cited a more obvious consideration: despite the singer's controversial comments in the past about homosexuality, which he has likened to a "curse" and said is a choice, he would be a big draw." (from more explanatory article: http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-issues-3-page-memo-explaining.html)

Appalling! We sure don't want to alienate the gay bashers, now do we!

[cali]

10. sigh. Evidently

not all members of the GLBT community think monolithically. Shocking isn't it.

And just as an aside, I know many folks in the gay and lesbian commmunity here in Vermont who support Obama. You realize, don't you, that Obama is going to win a huge victory here, right?

[JFKgirl]

17. Hahaha, looks like gay people realise that Clinton has thrown them under the bus with her

DOMA laws. Looks like Clinton is the anti-gay candidate.

[hulklogan]

18. A presidential candidate throwing GLBT people under the bus is just hilarious!!!

The funniest thing ever! Funnier than Larry the Cable Guy!!!

[mondo joe]

21. You've confused one editorial with "gay people". NT

[LostinVA]

48. Which shows you know nothing about HRC and GLBT issues

There's a raeson why many DU GLBTers are supporting her over Obama.

[davidinalameda]

38. Obama has repudiated what McClerkin said

he is such a non-issue any longer

except to posters who want to keep the waters stirred up

[Colobo]

9. Viva Obama!

[Kahuna]

13. Can't be...He knows Donnie McClurkin. Sssh. nt

[MediaBabe]

14. Refresh my memory - How many Gay Pride marches did HRC stand by

the gay community and march with them? How soon people forget.

Ya see there's this new guy in town and he's a guy, you know, a GUY, and she's just a girl and, well, you know...

[mondo joe]

19. Thank you for posting this. The reader responses are interesting.

[Corkey Mineola]

22. half-hearted endorsement....

Pretty long caveat... "Mind you... as gay men and lesbians among those protected."

I have little to no faith that Barack Obama will have the fortitude to insist that Congress does ANYTHING for queer Americans. Nor will Hillary Clinton. Gay rights are of no interest to either of the two leading contenders with their long ties to corporate interests. There is no money in equal rights for queers. It's simply a matter of principle. And that's not enough to get anything done in anyone's Washington.

I'm sick at heart that I have to 'settle' for either candidate as the alternative to a quasi-fascist regime.

Straight democrats should stop and think about how THEY would feel if they were put in the untenable position of their queer peers. Then tell me to get excited about a lukewarm endorsement for a candidate who is tepid on GLBT rights.

give me a break.

[Cha]

25. Yeah, you need a break...you're

not making sense.

[Corkey Mineola]

34. another strong ally for queer americans

take your obama-vite and get a good night's sleep, sweetheart

[usregimechange]

23. Kick!

[Cha]

24. WOW! These guys see it..thanks, Dwickham!

~More snips~

"In his recent comments about what Ronald Reagan offered to Americans hungry for optimism and new ideas, Obama ought to have made more clear his understanding that at critical moments the hope for unity cannot substitute for hard choices. This newspaper was probably tougher on Obama than anyone else was for his ill-considered decision to call on Donnie McClurkin - a so-called "ex-gay" gospel singer vitriolic in his attacks on the LGBT community - to reach out to churchgoing African-American communities in South Carolina. We are counting on him to make wiser choices in future efforts to "build bridges" - and on that score applaud the loving words about his "gay brothers and sisters" Obama enunciated from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Atlanta pulpit last week.

The McClurkin episode, unfortunate as it was, pales in comparison to the divisiveness that Senator Clinton has allowed her campaign to devolve into. Her comparison between the roles played by Dr. King and President Lyndon Johnson in advancing civil rights can be chalked up to inartfulness. The comments coming from her surrogates are far more disturbing, forming a pattern that sadly can no longer be ignored.

Three Clintonites - the husband of former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson, and, most damningly, key strategist Mark Penn - all injected Obama's acknowledged youthful cocaine use into the debate. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo inexplicably used the phrase "shuck and jive" in describing what a presidential candidate might try to pull with the media, and then had his operatives bombard the press with official umbrage that his words might be construed as targeting the African-American senator.

Nobody, however, has been more egregious than Bill Clinton. In his ardent championing of his wife, the former president has dissed Obama as "a kid" and this past Saturday was quick to mention Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 1988 South Carolina primary wins to contextualize Obama's commanding victory.

Notwithstanding the role of BET's Johnson and the ardent support for the New York senator from towering African-American members of Congress such as Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters, the Clinton campaign's intent is clear - Barack Obama, after his strong showing with white voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, must be marginalized as the "black candidate," or Hillary runs the risk of losing."

They're caring about everybody..not just themselves..I hope the Obamas take this to heart!! I know I do..

[ErnestoG]

26. Oh the DU Cadre is gonna go batshit nuts over this one....

Heavens. I guess Obama ISN'T a homophobe after all.

[Alexander]

39. Obviously a bunch of bigoted homophobes.

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

[David Zephyr]

41. LOL!

You are wicked. LOL.

[David Zephyr]

40. Thanks for the great news, dwickham

Great news. K&R.

[ForRusty]

42. Good for them. I think it's safe to say most gay people though are going for Hillary. nt

[bgb217]

44. If some of my...

...fellow gays want to go ahead and endorse someone who toured with an openly homophobic minister just to get votes, and then gave a Fox News apology ("I'm sorry if my actions offended anyone"), then that's their right. It's a free country.
I just hope they know that Obama criticized Hillary for voting to condemn the guard in Iran, where us gays get hung over there.

[cooolandrew]

46. A very encouraging endorsement especially coming fomr NY.

[Solon]

49. I thought "All the gays were going for Hillary anyways" that's what some Obama supporters.

told me.