Maybe I need to rephrase an earlier poll question. *SHOULD* Mcclurkin be an issue?

[Clintonista2]

[Orangepeel]

1. As a supporter of Obama, I say "yeah"

Even though Obama's platform on gay issues is as good as Clinton's and his voting history is good, I can see why LGBT voters might be skeptical. Besides, on most issues (LGBT issues included), there isn't a whole lot of substantive difference between the candidates, so it is logical to base the decision of whom to support on campaign issues. "Candidate X provided a platform to a bigot and candidate Y did not" is a valid criterion.

I wish Obama hadn't have done that or at least had been able to rectify the insult. But I understand that some people may not be able to forgive him and/or support him. I hope, should Obama get the nomination, that most LGBT voters would work against McCain, who keeps flipping back and forth on whether or not he supports a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman (he's been consistent in his support of state amendments to do so).

But, even though I voted for Obama in the primary, I realize that he might have fucked himself out of many LGBT votes.

[jackson_dem]

2. Yes. Obama needs to say this for the first time in his public life: "I was wrong"

[Clintonista2]

3. That would surprise me

[smalll]

5. But gods can't say that. If they admit error, they cease to exist.

The closest they can come is to promise not to do something ever again. The God of the Old Testament promised after the Flood not to do that to us again, right? And he sent a special rainbow to memorialize the promise. Maybe Obama can just set a magical rainbow over the skies in Chelsea or Provincetown or something (Quite apt, don't you think?) to promise he'll never McClurkinize people again.

[emilyg]

4. Yes.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

6. should Skinner reduce the number of threads started to "1"? n/t