The gay Obama ad

[cboy4]

"The ads were the brainchild of Stampp Corbin, co-chair of Sen. Obama's National LGBT Leadership Council. Stern called the coordinated buy "the icing on the cake" :spray: in terms of the Obama camp's outreach to the gay community in Ohio and Texas..."

http://election2008.advocate.com/2008/02/obama-ad-buys-i.html


Oh Brother

I love the comment about how this is the icing on the cake.

How fricken arrogant is that?

Here you go gays...here's an ad, so now you should vote for me.

Unreal.

[CyberPieHole]

1. Obama can take his pandering to McClurkin and shove McClurkin up his *ss

I hope the LGBTQ community see Obama for the sham he is. He's just tossing a bone to people he threw under the bus.

[gaiilonfong]

13. UH.. No the ClintonS threw us LGBT'rs under the bus

DONT ASK DONT TELL
DOMA


NO FRIGGIN SALE

[Mezzo]

62. The Clinton gave GLBT a seat at the table.

anyone around during that time would recognize that.

With Obama hangin' out with McClurkin, he signals where he stands.

And he won't get his picture taken with Gavin Newsome.

[redstate_democrat]

65. well

I don't know if you've seen these yet, but you may want to look at these videos. This was his debate with Alan Keyes while he was running for the senate. There are several videos out there with him that discusses his views, but these are just a few.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlY9HFRNUHs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7qhGvykiQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A

[mckeown1128]

73. WTF...your attacks are ridiculous...

Obama has had his picture taken with many in the GBLT community... Gavin Newsome isn't even gay.... and that single news story about him not wanting his picture taken...didn't even single Obama out as the candidate not wanting his picture taken. It also doesn't give a reason it is an article of pure speculation.

[dsc]

142. There were three people possible

and two of them (Clinton and Gore) have had pictures taken so that leaves one.

[Nederland]

106. Yeah, the kids' table

And at dinner time the Clintons served up Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA, put it in front of the GLBT community and said: "Shut up and eat."

[TheDonkey]

144. That table was then run over by the bus the Clintons drove

are you serious... a seat at the table!!?!?!?! Employment discrimination protection off the table, Marriage/Union rights off the table. On the table included DADT, DOMA. Thanks Clintons!

[avrdream]

160. Um, this gay was in the military before,during, and after Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Believe it or not, as bad as you make it out to be, it was a step forward for us. We no longer had to sign a statement saying we had never engaged in homosexual activity. We could quietly lead our own lives (mine in a long-term relationship with another military member) without anyone having the right to ask us about our very private sex lives.

I know it was a compromise on Bill's behalf but those of us who were actually gay in the military at that time felt it as an improvement.

Can you speak from the same experience? If not, don't try and sell Don't Ask Don't Tell as such a bad thing.

And I have one damned word for you: McClurkin. Actions speak louder than words, Barry.

[LostinVA]

36. Exactly -- Obama will not get my vote until he apologizes for Donnie

[0007]

49. cough cough.....Oh Hum, if you say so!

[LostinVA]

50. What's your snide, incoherent post mean?

He won't.

[0007]

97. Even if he did apologize, I don't believe you would ever vote

for Barack. If Donnie did accept the apology, how would you know?


Hang in there young lady!

[LostinVA]

99. Why would Obama be apologizing to Donnie? He needs to apologize to the GLBT community

And, don't call me, young lady.

[cooolandrew]

51. Erm, that isn't the America he is aiming for he's talking about unity not more division...

...The more people can bridge divides the more safe it will be for LGBT communites. He is saying there is work to do, to make folks tolerant then you can move forward on other LGBT issues.

[LostinVA]

52. "Erm" -- what you wrote has nothing to do with my post

Just more "unity" babble from one of the most pandering Dem candidates I;ve seen in my lifetime.

[cliffordu]

100. Well, then....

Go vote for someone else.

[Jamastiene]

136. This lesbian sees EXACTLY what he's trying to do.

It won't work either. He's let us know where he really stands. Actions speak louder than words. My support stays with Hillary. Let Obama have his precious McClurkin homophobes.

[Hillary_Hillary]

156. Exactly. I won't be fooled.

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. That's better than most politicians ever do for us

And it's also risky for Obama and it shows respect as well. I like it. Now, if he were to place the same ads in a non-gay paper with a large circulation, I'd even vote for him.

:)

[cboy4]

6. Big deal. It's my understanding it's running in gay

publications.

Run that in the Houston Chronicle, and then maybe we can talk.

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. That's pretty much what I said

n/t

[cboy4]

9. Yea, you mentioned half of what I said. But you also

mentioned that it's "risky" for him, as though it took a lot of guts.

What's risky about a Democrat advertising in a strictly gay publication(s)?

Does he risk turning off right wing Christians or something? I don't get your point.

[Cronus Protagonist]

12. If he gets the nomination, he has to run in the general

In which case, this ad will be brought into play later, and we know how hated gay people are to a large segment of the population, hopefully fewer Democratics than Republicants, but nonetheless, there are still plenty of bigoted homophobic Democratic voters who may stay away simply for this ad being placed.

[MagsDem]

15. At which time he will prob have McClurkin back on stage with him

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. I'm not as cynical as you, but you might be right

He is a bit of a dark horse in the race. Who knows where he really stands when he won't even stand on stage with another heterosexual just because he disagrees on gay marriage?

[mckeown1128]

88. You are assuming WWAAAYYY too much about he Newstrom

thing. You have zero evidence as to what Obama's motives were for not taking a picture with Newstrom. There isn't even acceptable evidence that Obama didn't want his picture taken with Newstrom. And I will remind you... Before you continue to imply that Obama doesn't want to be around the GBLT community... Obama has high ranking staff members who are gay and has taken pictures with open homosexuals. So, stop implying that he is scared of gay people or whatever you are trying to get at.

[Cronus Protagonist]

91. Touchy much?

Gavin Newsome himself told the story. As for the reason for the high-profile shun, well, you go figure for a while and come back and tell me it was not because of Gavin's support for gay marriage licenses. See if anyone believes you.

And I don't need to imply he's scared of gay people, and never did imply that. It is a fact that he used the anti-gay guy to woo conservatives, I don't need to explain that. And it is a fact that he's against equal civil rights for all people when it comes to gay people, but that's not much different from the other triangulating politicians on the public stage either.

For all I know in private, he loves to suck cock, but again, that doesn't matter, what does matter is that he's not publicly showing up as much of a friend to the GLBT community. Perhaps this is for political purposes, rather than personal, and if so, so what? It's still fucked up.

Oh, and *plonk*, buh bye.

[yardwork]

102. LOL! Good one!

[bicentennial_baby]

3. I think it's a nice ad

:)

[cboy4]

4. delete

wrong place

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terrya]

7. Sorry, but I'm not dazzled by this.

I'm sorry, Obama supporters. But that comes off sounding wishy-washy.

I think the very least we should expect from Democratic Presidential candidates is "dignity and respect". We are, after all, a pretty reliable voting bloc for the Democratic Party. And we haven't been exactly slack in the money raising department, either.

Again, sorry, but what would a Obama Admistration help to accomplish for LGBT Americans? Stongly pushing ENDA? The repeal of DADT? Strongly pushing the Matthew Shepard Act? I don't see any of that in that ad.

There's no "there" there in that ad.

[EmilyAnne]

11. He wants to overturn both DADT and DOMA as well as establish domestic partnership rights.

[MagsDem]

14. Oh he does, huh? Something stopping him from doing that now?

Did he forget he's a senator and can actually write and propose legislation now? He's completely full of shit. All he wants to do is promote Barack Obama.

[EmilyAnne]

17. Hillary is a Senator, too. So, why hasn't she done the same? It was her husband who came up with

that bullshit anyway.

[MagsDem]

23. Hey, it's YOU touting that BO bullshit...

as if you actually believe it. HRC isn't lying about repealing DOMA. Your guy is. And Bill Clinton did not "come up" with DOMA. In fact he urged them not to pass it. But they passed it with a veto proof majority and he was very clear at the time that he accepted as an alternative to a constiutional admendment. You need to get your facts straight.

[EmilyAnne]

27. I do believe it. I wouldn't vote for him if I didn't. You won't be convinced until it happens.

So be it. He will win without your support, but we will all benefit from his presidency.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[BigDDem]

96. "He will win without your support"

I've been hearing this alot from Obama fans.
Risky.
He will not win without "our" support. Our being Clinton voters.

[LostinVA]

77. President Clinton didn't "come up" with it -- wtf?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

53. Yes, gee... What could be stopping repeal of DOMA right now?

[terrya]

16. Then where is it in that ad?

This ad is supposed to be targeted to LGBT people. It's not a huge secret that Hillary Clinton is garnering a huge share of the LGBT vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this ad is supposed to make inroads into Hillary's LGBT support. It's nice to call for "dignity and respect", but where does it say that he wants to overturn DADT and DOMA and is for partnership rights?

The ad comes off as a sort of Hallmark card. Which is nice. If you think that Hallmark cards are going to get LGBT support for your candidate.

[blogslut]

10. I think it's a great ad.

What do you want from him? He can't make it so Donnie McClurkin never happened. What does he have to do so you will forgive him? I'm serious. What will it take? His and Clinton's positions on GLBT issues are virtually the same. Are you telling me there is simply no forgiveness, no redemption?

[Dhalgren]

48. Well, I am not a supporter of Obama or Clinton, but there is a difference

between the two in their stands on LGBT equal rights. Obama has said that he is opposed to equal rights (marriage) because of his "faith"; Clinton has said that she is opposed to equal rights (marriage) because it can't be passed now as a matter of politics. That is a huge difference in my book. I am tired of people telling me that the "King of the Universe" hates my niece and her wife, I am tired of people telling me they have a special connection and a special understanding with "the King of the Universe" and so know better than I do. I am sick of it. If you believe that crap, great, but do not take it into the People's House...

[LostinVA]

54. Thank you -- sincerely

I love the straight allies on here who advocate openly for GLBT human rights and respect. Thanks.

[Dhalgren]

137. No thanks necessary. Your equal rights are my equal rights.

:hi:

[blogslut]

55. I'm confused by your logic.

Senator Obama cites his religion as the basis for his personal beliefs about gay marriage. However, he supports civil unions. Hillary supports civil unions but will not support gay marriage because it is not politically viable?

Who is the one taking the high road again?

[Dhalgren]

68. Certainly not Reverend Obama

[yardwork]

104. So you think it's better for someone to admit they're a bigot

than to admit that the political window is not open to change right now?

Don't you see how offensive it is to gay people, like myself, to hear a candidate say that their religion requires them to be biased against gay people? Hillary Clinton doesn't say that. She points out the political reality.

[Bluerthanblue]

58. I can really understand being fed up with the crap that people

who claim to know what "the king of the universe" thinks-

I do have a question though- can you show me where Obama says it is his "faith" that makes him "opposed to equal rights (marriage) " I have heard this several times, and when I search, what I find is that he cites his "faith"- (religion) as the major reason that he feels like he has to remain OPEN to the FACT that his perspective on same sex marriage- (not unions with all the same benefits of marriage, which he does support) could very well be wrong.

I really would like to have the facts. If there are clear statements that say what you have indicated, can you point me there?
many thanks-

:hi:
peace~

[Dhalgren]

74. Here is a site where they explore the various candidates' attitudes.

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Gay_Marriage

I am not saying that Obama's position on LGBT equal rights is deplorable or terrible or anything of the kind. I said that there was a difference between Clinton and Obama on the issue and it was one of "faith" not necessarily content.

To give you another example, on the site that I listed, Clinton says that she does not believe "homosexuality is immoral"; Obama says that he doesn't believe that "homosexuals are immoral".

You see, those are hugely different statements. Donny "McGurkin" could agree with Obama's statement, but not with Clinton's. The idea "hate the sin, not the sinner" is in Obama's statement - not in Clinton's. Obama's statement goes hand-in-hand with the "enlighten" Christian idea that homosexuals are fine as long as they don't "practice" or 'perform" any homosexual acts. Clinton's statement categorically rejects that possibility, because she says, "homosexuality is not immoral".

[miceelf]

113. Ummm

obama also explicitly stated that he didn't believe that homosexuality was immoral. He also did so on national television. Clinton waffled on whether homosexuality was immoral, and only later released a press release about it. I frankly don't see a difference.

He was also talking about his personal beliefs, NOT his plans in terms of public policy. You can't just assume that one is going to affect the other.

[soleft]

67. Wow, I've heard them both state the exact opposite

I've heard Clinton say that because of her faith marriage is between a man a woman. And I've heard Obama say that civil unions is what can pass now.

I don't think the candidates are that different when it comes to where they stand and what they will do regarding issues that are imprtant to the LGBT community.

[Dhalgren]

79. See my post #79 above.

I have read and heard statements by both Clinton and Obama regarding LGBT equal rights. And I have heard Clinton speak of "faith" regarding this issue, but I have never heard her say that her "faith" leads her to one way or the other regarding equal rights for LGBT and I have heard Obama say this. I am not saying, however, that I might not have missed either statement.

:hi:

[DURHAM D]

120. You have not heard Clinton say that marriage is between and man and a woman.

John Edwards said it - Obama implied or said it - Hillary has never said that. Why? She doesn't believe that.

She does not pander to the GLBT community - she does not need to. We are in her heart and always have been.

[soleft]

129. Okay - I read it

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/HillaryClinton.htm

[Coexist]

78. thats not quite correct.

http://www.youdecide2008.com/video/logo-visible-vote-08-democratic-presidential-forum/

[Dhalgren]

84. I have seen and read many statements by both candidates. I am

aware that politicians will say many different things to many different audiences. But there is an underlying consistency to their messages. I think that I have those right.

[DURHAM D]

124. She was discussing marriage in historical context . Get it? eom

[Levgreee]

98. Wrong, Hillary opposes gay marriage because of her views, not just politics

"During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News."


http://outfordemocracy.org/arch/000583.html

She has the same position as Obama, leave it up to the states.

[DURHAM D]

122. Obtuse much? eom

[Bluenorthwest]

59. He could apologize

Forgivness and particularly redemption spring from repentance- from 'turning away' from the offending behavior. That's Sunday School talk! So what I would expect from anyone who seeks forgiveness of me is first and foremost that the individual in question actually asks for that forgiveness. Obama has not done so. The other element is that he needs to promise not to repeat the same offense. He has not said no more Donnie, and for me the particular promise I would have to hear is that he would never ever allow any individual to speak against any minority at events in his possible administration. Inaugural should be inclusive, not steeped in the dogmatic prejudices of some tiny religious faction. He needs to promise that no American will be attacked or slandered by entertainers or so called clerics from the White House.
So following his own theology, he needs to ask for forgiveness by confessing wrong, turn away from his slanders in word and also in deed, part of which is to 'go and sin no more'.
Tons of his supporters say 'it was a mistake' but Obama never has. His supporters say he knows better now, but Obama has never said such things.

So it is funny, but just like Mommy taught, say you are sorry, and maybe they will let you play with their toys again.

[blogslut]

83. I haven't been to Sunday school for 40 years.

I don't think any religion has ownership over words like "forgiveness" and "redemption".

I understand your fear of an abusive, trickster president. We've had more than one. GWB is my fourth. I remember the anger I felt when Bill Clinton buckled under pressure and let DADT become policy. I remember when Reagan couldn't bring himself to utter the word "AIDS" in public. The recent spate of "DOMA" initiatives passed in various states breaks my heart. Some hurts are hard to overcome.

Yet, I've looked over Obama's legislative record on GLBT issues in the US Senate as well as his time as a state Senator for Illinois. In Illinois, he sponsored legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. As a US Senator, he gets an 86% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. He wants DADT repealed. He supports adoption rights for GLBT parents. He sponsored hate crimes legislation that specifically included laws against attacks on people because of sexuality or gender identity. He wants to expand the Employment Non-Discrimination act to include the protection of GLBT Americans. Just like Hillary Clinton, he supports civil unions. He voted against the recent Defense of Marriage Act in the US Senate.

So, if he says he's sorry and he'll never do it again, will you forgive him? Will you vote for him? Will you put down the Donnie club and put out your hand?

[Bluenorthwest]

94. I don't do Sunday school either.

Woops, second try....
The point is, Obama and McClurkin are foisting this off as a matter of their faith. Well, funny me, I expect people to live up to their end of their faith before they get to even think about imposing that on me. Seems fair, no? You asked what was needed to lead to forgiveness and redemption, and I told you. Let Obama walk the walk he claims to walk, and do as his faith instructs in terms of seeking to make amends. Part of his faith teaches that one always looks to one's own flaws or transgressions and never ever dares to point out the flaws and transgressions of others. So unless he's without sin, he is in breach of actual tenents of the very faith that is the excuse for denial of human rights to my family. A faith he himself does not bother to follow, but I'm supposed to. If Obama and McClurkin want a relationship with God, that is for them to do, and I have nothing to do with it. Can not help them, nor can I hinder them. Only they can find redemption. They are in the wrong not just by my standards, but by their own loudly proclaimed 'faith'. See? Some guy eating a pork and cheese sandwich telling me to eat kosher is a hypocrite and a fraud. And so it goes.
Religion aside, I do expect people to say they are wrong when they are, and to ask for forgiveness if they want it. What happens in my own heart is my business, but in terms of outward expression, Obama absolutely has to admit it was wrong and that it will not be repeated.
You and I have some timeline in common. But hear me when I say that opposing Fundamental dogma in our political arena is a strong long term priniciple of mine. I am expressing my opinion, and telling the candidate what might bring me to him, via his supporters like you. Obama used the 'Donnie club' not me, and that is the fact. It was his doing. Put out my hand? It went out months ago with a check in it made out to Obama. This was not something gay people did to Obama, it is something Obama did to gay people. He is the one who used this 'faith' as a wedge and use gay baiting to grab some votes.
If he'd not used these people at all, or spoken clearly against what Donnie said there and other places and yes, asked for forgiveness, he would certainly know he had my forgiveness. In fact, he'd have one hell of a specially skilled booster, as I am well versed on many of the issues that will soon be biting the Senator in the butt. I'd be fantastically useful here and elsewhere, if I felt like I could really speak for him freely. He'd get far more than an extened hand, if he put down the Dogma Club and stopped with the baiting once and for all. How's that?

[Jersey Devil]

64. Interesting how Corzine is handling it in NJ

He says right he'll push through a gay marriage bill but not until after the elections in order to minimize the possibility of political damage. NJ, as I'm sure you know, has a "civil union" law but it is not working out as intended and many are still being denied the equal rights they thought they were getting with the civil union law.

I suppose someone will complain about that too but I can't see how anyone could be more honest about it.

[LostinVA]

81. All he is changing/needs to change is the language

Haruka and I have the EXACT same rights (and responsibilities) as heterosexual couples. But, some wankers are trying to worm out of paying benefits (or try to get away acting like jerks) because of semantics. I'm glad the Gov is changing it -- I knew this would happen. I wish he'd just take care of it now.

Funny thing: we live in a conservative part of the state and both work for conservative companies, but have had zero problems with any of it.

[Prism]

18. I like it.

It's nice. Not amazing, but nice.

Sorry, I'm not going to shit all over a major presidential candidate openly courting the LGBT constituency. I feel like we're making some strides this year, slowly overcoming the damage done in 2004. Remember 2004? When it was "Gays Are Evil!" all the time, 24/7? When John Kerry limply opposed a federal constitutional amendment while still supporting a state-level one at home? When Bill Clinton strenuously urged him to support the FMA?

So, here we are. Two candidates, both with similar views on the GLBT community, both with somewhat supportive records to varying degrees as well as missteps of varying degree.

Like I said, it's nice. Not amazing, not life-changing, not a magical grant of equality. Just a little reminder that 2008 is a bit better than 2004 for our community, and hopefully 2010 will be better than this, and 2012, and so on.

[polichick]

19. Hey, where's the BOOMER ad??? :)

Oh yeah, I've already forgiven him for those comments. It's impossible to campaign and get every single thing right people.

[MagsDem]

26. How hard is it NOT to hand a homophobic bigot a microphone

and stand there on stage with him while he rants about the evils of gay people for 30 min? You make it sound like an unfortunate accident or something.

[cali]

37. you're so full of it. Obama was not even at that event

evidence that you simply froth rabidly and spew. How moronic to make such a claim. And before you maliciously try and twist my words, I am not excusing his giving McClurkin the stage to make his ugly and disgusting comments. I've condemned that repeatedly. I'm happy to condemn it again. I am calling you on your bullshit.

[DURHAM D]

123. I am calling you out for even being in this thread. Butt out.

This is not your issue and your comments are not appreciated.

Obama gave him the platform in order to pandering to a homophobic demographic in S.C. EOS

[bettyellen]

153. it was an obama event. he appeared on the same stage and took $$ and support from bigots

what bullshit, video or live, it was his fuck up. he ought to disavow that mc clurkin asshole and stop making lame excuses for profiting off bigotry. .

[GOPNotForMe]

20. Too much venom here to even have a decent conversation about this.

[terrya]

24. "Venom"?

This is an ad SPECIFICALLY targeted to the LGBT community. I think we, as LGBT people, might be qualified to openly offer our opinions about it. After all, this ad is supposed to get LGBT people to vote for Obama.

[GOPNotForMe]

126. I never said opinions were off limits.

But there IS way too much "venom" to have a conversation about it. People referring to Obama as a "piece of shit"? Pretty much shuts down any mature conversation.

[QC]

42. Venom or righteous indignation? n/t

[GodlessBiker]

21. I like it, but it could be more specific. Where is Clinton's ad?

[MagsDem]

25. She doesn't need one -- she didn't give a homophobic bigot

the stage and let him rant about GLBT people being evil for 30 minutes. Believe me, Clinton has plenty of cred with the GLBT community.

[GodlessBiker]

30. Another example of her ignoring the little things ...

that add up after awhile.

She is treating the LGBT community like Super Tuesday and assuming she is going to win it.

[MagsDem]

31. I think most LGBT people think Obama is an ass

And I don't know any that don't think she is excellent. I guess you don't know that she has been doing video Q&A on LGBT issues all throughout the campaign, answering questions from LGBT people. She has been engaged with that community pretty much non-stop. A lame ass ad from Obama is not going to help him with them.

[GodlessBiker]

35. We shall see.

[Cornus]

43. Not my GLBT friends

"I think most LGBT people think Obama is an ass...And I don't know any that don't think she is excellent."

Letting the Donnie McClurkin incident influence or change your support is ludicrous. I and most of my gay friends do NOT think that she is excellent. Consider: her vote on the Iraq war and, although she now admits it was wrong, she still refuses to offer an apology for having voted that way; support for a flag burning amendment (what was that about?); refusal to debate Johathan Tasani when running for her Senate seat. Those are just three reasons why this gay man voted for Obama in the primary and hope to vote for him again in November. Let me be the first on your list who does NOT think that she is excellent.

[Sandaasu]

45. Neither of the remaining candidates are great on LGBT issues.

Obama has McClurkin, and Hillary has her continued support of part of DOMA.

I choose the former myself, as Obama has really been quite good other than that one incident, and the Hillary's problem is an actual policy stance that works against us.

[miceelf]

116. Not the gay people I know in Illinois

They have seen him up close and personal for a long time. They know he's on the right side, although they agree that McClurkin was a huge mis-step. Still, they believe that his actual legislative record and public advocacy should count for something.

[murielm99]

158. Not true.

I know gay people in Illinois, too, including my daughter and her friends. None of them support Obama. They think he is nothing but an opportunist.

[JTFrog]

32. She gave her husband the stage. The man who ran on promises but gave you DADT/DOMA. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

38. Apparently, it is easy to forgive if you already predisposed to the candidate.

[LostinVA]

40. The ignorance of the historical framing of DOMA/DADT on this board is astounding

Like things happen in a vacuum.

[Raejeanowl]

41. I Liked This Clinton Letter Courtesy of Bluebear

He did, too, so I hope he doesn't mind me re-posting it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4804905

[LostinVA]

39. Clinton doesn't need one -- she didn't pander to the Ex Gay Clown base

You don't have to try to repair something you didn't break. Her friendliness to the GLBT community is well known, including her early AIDS advocacy in Arkansas. She gets major points with me for that alone.

Get back to me after that panderer Obama marches in a few gay parades.

[Barack_America]

76. Actually she did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4807065&mesg_id=4807757

She also endorsed his policies and spoke at his church for a fundraiser...a week after he used that very same pulpit to rail against GLBT rights.

[GodlessBiker]

85. Let's be honest, they both went on the 700 Club.

Did either of them think that the folks who watch that show would vote for them?

[susankh4]

28. It's a clever tactic....

flooding states that are about to have elections with "latino" ads. And now, "gay rights" ads.

But it begs the question of... where was he on these issues BEFORE they suited his ends?

I'm not impressed. And I don't think it will work in Ohio.

[mckeown1128]

89. Obama has represented latino's and the GBLT community

well in Illinois. Who cares if you're not impressed. You have obviously already made up your mind about Obama.

[AndyA]

29. After promoting McClurkin, Obama proved to me he's a hypocrite and a bigot.

He should know better, but apparently he doesn't - or even worse - he doesn't give a shit.

Yeah, I want someone with many of the same prejudices and double standards that Bush has back in the White House in 2009. :eyes:

Top that off with Obama's statement that Bush and Cheney haven't committed any "grave breaches of authority," and therefore shouldn't be impeached, and it makes Barack UNFIT for the Presidency.

He obviously has the same issues with the Constitution that Bush and Cheney have.

[MagsDem]

34. Excellent post

[Neecy]

44. Oh no! He ran an ad!

Jesus. If he doesn't run an ad you'd bitch, he does run an ad, you bitch. This is really getting dumb.

[terrya]

46. Depends on whether you care about LGBT people and their lives, I guess.

Or their rightful demands for full equality.

[Neecy]

47. uh-huh

I happen to be gay, and I care deeply about our lives and issues. And I think this is dumb, period.

[LostinVA]

56. And yet, you've been consistently dismissive of GLBT issues

I'm talking about more than McClurkin here.

[Neecy]

57. And which issues would those be?

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Well it is fun and easy...

to characterize McClurkin and Caldwell and Walker and those Sister Sister ladies as mere homophobes. But what they are in fact is Fundamentalist activists, anti-choice, anti-science, just like the rest of the Funides. They are the same as Robertson or Dobson. Not 'good folk who haven't accepted gays', but dogmatic, rigid, Fundies. And these are activist Funides, very much so. McClurkin has sais that being close to Bush is more important to him than anything, and proved it when he cried real tears singing 'Stand Mr President' to his hero GW at GOP convention 2004. Caldwell is Bush's 'personal spiritual advisor' and boasted that before he went public with Obama support, he called GW Bush to ask for permission to do so. The very same men who have been in Bush's ear about the issues that all Funides promote. Those of you who think these members of the Religious Right are only 'a tad homophobic' are living in denial. They are the clinic blockers, the school borads who sue over elvolution. And you are voting them to power in our Party.
Fundies. Nothing more and noting less. McClurkin's worst is reserved for his appearances on the 700 Club TV show. Bashes Democrats on 700 Club with Pat Robertson. Sings for Bush while we campaigned for Kerry. Fundie evangelists, right out of the GOP and the 700 Club. But go on and think these folk are different now that they back Obama. Go on and think that. It is amazing to me that Democrats can look at the cast of the 700 Club and say, we want that for us, forget choice and forget gays and forget solid science education, we want Fundies! And to do so, you dismiss the homophobic bigotry as understandable and indulge in the denial of the rest of the Fundie agenda. They have an agenda. They have not altered it one bit.
This Party has opposed the undue influence of the Religious Right for decades. Now it welcomes them. That is a huge issue. Welcoming them wrecked the GOP. Expect the same, and this is the start of that ruin, right here.

[yardwork]

105. Thank you. I got tired of posting the facts over and over again, but they need to be posted.

Thank you very much.

[NMMNG]

145. I so wish I could give this post a recommendation

But I can, at least, say thank you. :hi:

[Duncan Grant]

150. Best post of the day!

But go on and think these folk are different now that they back Obama.

This is among the reasons why I continue to rant about the McClurkin incident. Perfectly stated. :applause:

[cboy4]

159. Oh hell yea

:thumbsup:

[tekisui]

60. He put a rainbow in his logo, that counts for something, right?

Truth be told, this is my main sticky point with Obama. His LGBT stand is not clear or strong enough. He wants change and Unity, this should be a cornerstone of his campaign. I was disappointed in him campaigning with the ex-gay, and I want him to move into a stronger position.

I hope that he will be embolden to do the right thing with pressure from us on him and a Progressive Congress.

[CTLawGuy]

61. These ads prove that Obama

is clearly Satan...

[Occam Bandage]

63. Obama's platform on gay rights is better than Hillary's.

1. He wants to completely overturn DOMA. She wants to leave in the provisions allowing states to refuse to recognize the marriages of other states.

2. He wants federal benefits for civil unions. She wants to leave benefits up to individual states.

3. There are literally no other differences.

[Tatiana]

66. Did she really say she wanted to leave benefits up to the states?

I thought she supported federal benefits, too. If not, I'd say that wasn't good enough. Without making it federal, you just know most of the conservative states will refuse to recognize the unions. Benefits have to be federal. Gays should be able to live in ANY state and know that their union is recognized.

[Occam Bandage]

70. Actually, I have to apologize. While I was correct on DOMA,

it turns out that I was basing "up to the states" off an old quote. As of 2006, it seems that she and Obama have the appropriate position on federal benefits.

[ruggerson]

He is incorrect

they both support the repeal of the section of DOMA, which would then open the door to federal benefits accruing to those couples legally joined at the state level.

[ruggerson]

71. You don't understand your #2

And when I told you about #1, I explained fully why she feels the way she does. She does not wish to prod states into further passages of individual state DOMA's nor create a political climate where a Federal Const. amendment might be pushed through congress.

As for #2, if the part of DOMA that they both want eliminated is repealed, then the states where there are civil union/marriage laws in effect will automatically be able to get full federal benefits. The only thing a "federal civil unions" bill would accomplish is to reiterate that couples in individual states where marriage or civil unions are legal would then be eligible for federal benefits. The exact same thing would be accomplished by repealing the federal recognition segment of DOMA. States marry and or "civil unionize" couples. The federal government does not. And I can find no place where she has said she is opposed to the idea of a federal civil unions legislation reiterating what the repeal of DOMA would do. If you look at the Human Rights page I provided you, you see that their positions are identical.

And since their positions are pretty much identical, then people go looking for other reasons and clues to differentiate between the two candidates. Which is what has happened in this race.

[Occam Bandage]

72. I've apologized for #2; it was misleading at best.

[ruggerson]

75. No prob

I know you're a passionate advocate for your candidate

[Baby Snooks]

69. What's missing in this?

He avoids the real issue. Equality under the law. Dignity and respect is not the same as equality under the law. Which even the 5th Circuit Court has said is guaranteed to all citizens, with no exceptions, under the 14th Amendment. Something Barack Obama apparently doesn't realize.

This is the one thing I have a problem with although quite honestly the same "pandering" to the fundamentlists is not restricted to Barack Obama. All the candidates seem to be avoiding the issue. Covering it up with catchphrases like "dignity and respect."

The message is still to treat them with dignity and respect by not asking but if you do and they tell, well, they shouldn't have because if they are fired or denied housing or denied protections and rights under the law, well, again, they shouldn't have told.

That is not what the 5th Circuit Court ruled not that long ago. And the 5th Circuit Court is one of the most conservative courts in the country.

What I really have a problem with is that by pandering as they are, politicians are furthering the belief by the fundamentalists that this country was founded as a "Christian" nation and so religious law is superior to the civil law.

That is not what the Constitution says.

Reality is "dignity and respect" is also demeaning. And offensive.

[Coexist]

80. would you consider watching this video, please:

http://www.youdecide2008.com/video/logo-visible-vote-08-democratic-presidential-forum/

[maddiejoan]

82. I think I'm gonna hurl

:puke:

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[mckeown1128]

93. So if Obama is buying ads in a Texas newspaper...

does that mean he is pandering to Texans?

I have a serious question for you. Have you ever read about Obama's policies in regards to the GBLT community? I would love an answer... but I suspect that you haven't. I suspect that you had already made up your mind about Obama and that you choose only to consider the McClurkin thing because it reinforces your self made image of Obama as a fraud. Hmm? I repeat the question. Have you ever read about Obama's policies in regards to the GBLT community?

[maddiejoan]

95. Yes I have

It might surprise you to know that --but I have indeed.

Just as I have read extensively ALL that I can possibly read that is available on his website.

He has a nice record on LGBT issues as a State Senator, and at an early point in the campaign I was thinking of supporting him.
His policy platform going into the election is nearly identical to Clinton's, though I don't believe he has any 'core' belief system that
motivates his desire to help the LGBT community. This can be observed in the manner that he speaks about the issues.

I don't think he has as deep an understanding of LGBT issues as Hillary, and I don't find that he has as strong a motivation to help.

The McClurkin episode isn't the cause of my not trusting Obama on LGBT -- it is one of many things, that when added together make me trust him less than Hillary.

His buying ads means nothing to me. The words in his ads mean nothing to me.

I already have Dignity and Respect. I want rights.

I don't want a President to talk to homophobes and tell them to embrace me. Their embrace is something I do not even care about.
In fact -- I'm quite annoyed at Obama whenever he speaks 'about LGBT", because I have yet to hear him speak TO us.

I've heard Hillary speak TO us. Obama speaks about us.

That's the difference in a nutshell.

[DURHAM D]

128. Right there with you

:puke:

[yardwork]

110. More of that splendid winning of hearts and minds for Obama, I see.

Do you think that you can bully and insult people into supporting Obama?

[mckeown1128]

135. I am insulting people?!?... she/he just said they want to hurl...

because Obama is buying advertisments in a GBLT magazine. That is the insult.

[NMMNG]

147. The insult is that

people like you think everybody should cream their shorts when they hear Obama's name, and just don't get why some people may not like him. Come down out of the clouds and realize that Obama is not everybody's messiah.

[yardwork]

151. I know that you think that post was about you, but she said that the ad made her want to hurl.

Not you. The ad.

[maddiejoan]

163. What's with the she/he crap?

It's quite obvious that I'm female.

Certainly you can't have missed my SN is my own and unambiguously female name.

[NMMNG]

146. That is the *exact* reaction when I first saw that POS thing

Not only the ridiculous text, but that crocodile tear he squeezed out for the photo. It's beyond obscene. :puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[ronnykmarshall]

164. Move over .....

:puke:

[Johnny__Motown]

87. He will be our nominee, he is trying to mend fences. It might be a good idea to consider moving

forward in a constructive way no matter what issues he still needs to make amends for,

[yardwork]

101. That ad really irritates me.

It appears to be scolding me and others for complaining about the McClurkin incident. If the goal was to encourage me to support Obama....it failed.

Now I'm more irritated with Obama than before.

[bicentennial_baby]

103. Can you explain how it's scolding you?

Specifically? Thanks :)

[yardwork]

108. Sure. Thanks for asking.

It's the sentence about LGBT issues by used by people "who seek to divide us." That's a slam toward those of us who complained about the McClurkin incident. The implication is that our concern isn't legitimate, we were just causing trouble in an effort to "divide us."

Then the message follows up with promising "respect and dignity" to all people. Well, whoop-de-doo. Who wouldn't agree that all people deserve "respect and dignity?" That's exactly what the fundamentalist activist ex-gays like Donnie McClurkin tell their huge, adoring audiences. They say that queer people are as bad as murderers and child rapists, but we "all deserve respect and dignity."

McClurkin has repeatedly said that gay people need to be prayed over, that our sins can be washed away if we just renounce our sinful evil gayness and accept Jesus etc etc.

Obama's ad actually echoes the words that offended so many of us in the first place.

[bicentennial_baby]

111. Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for answering

I see where you're coming from. As a GLBT Obama supporter, I've gotten some heat, i.e. that I was throwing the GLBT community under the bus, and that hurts, b/c GLBT issues are still of paramount importance to me. I'd still like to keep the dialogue open. :)

[yardwork]

112. As I've said in many posts, the queer community is not homogeneous.

We are as diverse as any other group of people. As individuals, we all have a unique set of beliefs and opinions.

I don't think that Obama himself is particularly homophobic (although I get tired of hearing his platitudes about how his religious faith dictates his opinions about gay rights). I'm annoyed with him about the McClurkin incident, and concerned about his connections with far-right religious extremists like McClurkin.

I think that Hillary Clinton would be a much better president.

[bicentennial_baby]

114. Agreed

And don't think that I'm not disgusted by McClurkin or Caldwell, because I absolutely am. I just happen to disagree, on the whole, over who would be the better president. We can agree to disagree. :pals:

[Bluenorthwest]

119. I'm chiming in

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.

[Mark Twain Girl]

127. Excellent post ... what is we can do again?

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? ... Allowing no criticism is what Bush did. Offering none is what the GOP did.

Thanks for summing up my thought process so succinctly. It's time to move to a new place in the Obama campaign, and quickly. The longer we go on with the "yes we can" when it's "no we can't" to issues like gay marriage and genuine universal health care, the more I think it's all a sham. You know, the Obama movement says it's all about sweeping change and new ideas but when it comes down to the policy nuts and bolts, they become very cautious and "well, it's an improvement over Bush/Hillary." So it's not really sweeping change beyond the marketing and packaging. Where the rubber hits the road, it's the lesser of two evils. Which is fine, but it shouldn't be presented as something so huge that it makes us stop fighting because we think we've won.

[Chovexani]

134. Thank you, thank you!

As a former born again this is what troubles me the most about him. I am intimately familiar with the language of the Christofascist extremists and he is constantly speaking it.

[polichick]

115. Are you sure those words weren't meant for people on the right? nt

[miceelf]

117. Really?

You really think the "people who divide us" was directed at people offended by McClurkin and NOT at the religious right? Wow, we read the ad very differently.

[yardwork]

118. I think it is a definite reference to the complaints about McClurkin.

The religious right doesn't discuss "GLBT issues."

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[elixir]

107. Kickeroo

[Solon]

109. "Dignity and Respect"?!?! When the fuck did Obama show that when he used McClurkin?

What a fucking asshole! :grr:

[Mark Twain Girl]

125. He would have done better with an ad that laid out his LGBT policies

Yes, there is a lot of work to do. Name a few policies that you will pursue vigorously. Don't sent me to a website, and especially don't send me to your website to vote for you, without even indicating what you want to do. What, does he not have an overview of his goals on LGBT rights? Is he hesitant to specify them in his ad, and if so, why?

If equality, dignity and respect are so important to Obama, why would he pay for an ad that doesn't indicate how he wants to fight for that equality? It would make me much more inclined to trust him if he's willing to hammer home his goals. Otherwise, it comes off as empty words, and I want more than that for LGBT Americans. More than icing on the cake, to be sure.

[The Anti-Bush]

130. What's wrong with them placing an ad? How can you expect to get

someone's vote if you don't ask for it?

[Straight Shooter]

131. Why didn't he run that ad before South Carolina, or the other deep red states? Pander, pander.

No, for South Carolina he had brochures proclaiming himself a "committed Christian," with pics of him in prayerful pose, in front of stained glass windows. Heaven knows what went out to the other states, tailor-made for their collective hippocampus.

Why this particular photo of him in the ad, posed at just the right angle, airbrushed to perfection? "Oooohhh, he's sooo handsome, I think I'll vote for him." :eyes:

The folks who think these ads are just so awesome are the same people who think bush looked like an idiot on the U.S.S. Lincoln even though the Repubs went wild for their "manly man." SSDC. Same shit, different candidate.

[Neshanic]

132. "WE?" That's gutsy. I also like the "seeking to divide us" angle...

Again with the if your not with us you're shit.

Also I had no idea that the founding of the nation was on "dignity and respect", I thought it was all men were created equal with equal rights. Guess he will bring that up later at a Log Cabin Republicans meeting as he reaches out to them.

This is not in any non-GLBT publication. Run that puppy in some newspapers Obama. Then we will let you know.

[NMMNG]

154. He speaks about those who are seeking to divide us,

while he was (and still is) pandering to those who are seeking to divide.

Then he claims that it’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with DIGNITY AND RESPECT. Funny, but I would think the best way for the nation to live up to its founding promise of equality would be to give us equality. But then maybe I'm just an idiot. :sarcasm:

[Chovexani]

133. Icing on the cake? LMAO

I'd make an inappropriate bukkake comment but I'm too busy laughing.

[NMMNG]

148. ....

:spray:

You always amuse me, my friend.

[Chovexani]

149. As my girlfriend likes to say

I'm the Apocalypse's very own court jester. :silly:

[CyberPieHole]

138. Obama needs to renounce and reject McClurkin...otherwise these are just more hollow words...

from the Charlatan behind the curtain.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

139. gawwwd daaaammmmn that's really pitiful

[avrdream]

140. I keep saying this:

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS, BARRACK!

How many days now since no apology?

[printpolitico]

141. o-arrogance

Finally somebody recognizes the arrogance of this man. He becomes much more arrogant as the campaign ages. We are just now getting rid of such arrogance, do we want this in office again.
He tosses a few catch phrases and crumbs and thinks we are all putty in his hands. Not this one senator.

[Hillary_Hillary]

157. Me neither. It's embarressing.

[DDQ]

162. I agree he is arrogant and dismissive. Great post!

[TheDonkey]

143. Does Hillary even say anything about gay people in her stump speech like Obama does??

He brings up GLBT issues in his standard stump speech everyday.

[yardwork]

152. Well, I hope to God that she doesn't say something as condescending as

"Gay people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but I won't close my ears to those who feel otherwise."

[Hillary_Hillary]

155. NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!

Not after her invited that anti-gay-preaching homophobe McClurkin to his campaign events. BO will do anything, say anything, to get people's votes. So completely untrustworthy.

[readmoreoften]

161. "Too often the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us."

Of course, other times it's exploited by those seeking to unite us.

[Bluebear]

171. You said a mouthful.

[NMMNG]

172. That she did

I'm just sick and tired of being exploited by everyone and never getting anything out of it. Enough already!

[IndianaJones]

165. Is it gays in general that are naive, or simply GLBT DU'ers?

While I am not gay, I am a racial minority, and am well aware of what I will get from white people. Why does it seem that gays are surprised by treatment they receive from straight people?

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

166. I don't think most of us are surprised by the treatment

So many people are strongly opposed to homosexuality that it really is not surprising. A lot of people openly show hate for gays, so most of us are used to it.

People who dislike gays usually do so because they think what we do is disgusting. This is illogical, in my opinion, since doing the same thing to someone of the opposite sex is not considered disgusting. There have been many societies where homosexuality was accepted. So, I think the only reason it is not surprising is because we see so much of it.

Anyways, regarding the original post, some people here are so blindly enraged by the Mcklurkin issue that they aren't seeing the big picture. It takes balls for a presidential candidate to openly say he'll push for gay rights. The politically "correct" thing would probably be to just not mention gays, since there are probably more anti-gays than gays. There is a reason why Hillary, who appeals to older folks, has not mentioned gays in her campaign.

[yardwork]

167. Nah, we're just irritated.

Surprised? No. Irritated by the condescension? Yes.

[Chovexani]

168. It's not surprise so much as irritation

Nothing straight, white or otherwise privileged people say surprises me anymore.

It's more like that "Aw geez, not this shit again" macro.

[cboy4]

169. When you mention "gays" you have to misspell "the" like

this: "teh"

And put it together like this:

"teh gays"

And I'm not surprised.

[NMMNG]

170. We're not surprised by it

What suggests we're surprised by it?