Sen. Obama: In light of the cold blooded murder of the 15 year old gay teen

[ruggerson]

in Oxnard, CA last week -

Could you take five minutes out of your schedule to address the issue of gay teenagers and the problems of violence and suicide?

Many of us (2/3rds of the gay Dem voting public if you believe exit polling) voted for your rival in the primary, in part because one story after another about you in the media left many of us somewhat concerned about your commitment to gay and lesbian teenagers and your basic understanding of the lives of gay men and women.

It won't take much. Just publicly make the linkage between the "ex-gay" movement and gay youth suicide and murder. Argue the case for us that the "ex-gay" movement targets gay teenagers and fosters the kind of attitudes that end up in unspeakable tragedy.

Reassure us that you understand what hate disguised as religious double talk can mean to real people and real teenagers and their families.

Show us that you understand the ramifications.

------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/23oxnard.html?em&ex=1203915600&en=d0c85187d9ba7001&ei=5087

On the morning of Feb. 12, Lawrence was in the school’s computer lab with 24 other students, said Mr. Keith, the police spokesman. Brandon walked into the room with a gun and shot Lawrence in the head, the police said, then ran from the building. Police officers caught him a few blocks away.

(more)

[IndyOp]

1. Lawrence was a handsome young man and I hope all politicians and all citizens will

speak publicly about his murder and why and how we must work to end hatred in all its forms.

[Bicoastal]

2. And if he doesn't respond, he does in fact hate gay people?

[VotesForWomen]

41. well, if it was a racially motivated murder, you can be sure he would have said something. draw your

own conclusions, and the rest of us will draw ours.

[mckeown1128]

82. Weirdest logic I have seen today.

Obama is black... therefore he would say something if a black man were murdered... therefore he should say something anytime a hate crime occurs, therefore he HAS to say something about this particular murder... if he doesn't he hates the GLBT communnity... Hillary is white therefore... she doesn't have to say anything aboutthis particular murder...

Did I right your line of thought correctly??? :sarcasm:

[zulchzulu]

3. If you're gay and voted for Hillary, you are a fool

She and her husband did more to promote homophobia with the "Defense of Marriage Act" than ANYTHING a single gospel singer who sang at one event on one night in a small town in South Carolina could ever do. Add that Obama denounced MClurkin's past comments as well as his 20+ years of working for equal rights for ALL.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" spawned countless anti-gay initiatives across the country that fill the Republican coffers with more cash to spread more hate and divisiveness. Like NAFTA causing many thousands of jobs to leave this country, the "Defense of Marriage Act" has caused homophobia to thrive like a weed where the parents of this killer who killed Lawrence to teach him that gays are "bad".

Thanks to Bill and Hillary, we have more homophobia in this country. You can't deny it. So you voted for them...against your own interests.

As for Obama commenting on this very sad event, email him and the campaign to see about a response. If you think he would condone such a tragedy, you need to have your head examined.

[TheDonkey]

8. please do not forget about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" that the Clintons pushed onto America

real leadership from them (ie. Another group thrown under the bus in order to get ahead).

[Zhade]

59. Indeed.

NT!

[enid602]

4. speaking

But speaking out against the ex-gay movement would jeopardize Obama's republican base.

[anamandujano]

5. Bingo!

[scheming daemons]

6. Did Hillary speak on it? If not.... STFU

...

[ruggerson]

12. Actually Hillary has spoken quite eloquently about gay teens

and the need for society to respect them. It's on video, I'm sure someone can dig it up for you.

[Straight Shooter]

25. Video of Hillary at the Human Rights Campaign

This is a good introduction to Hillary's views:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bSPxGmePSiA

[ErnestoG]

55. not about this incident she didn't. Wanna try again?

[enid602]

91. stfu

I have a feeling this will be the standard response in Obamaworld.

[shaniqua6392]

7. Bingo!

That is exactly right.

[TheDonkey]

11. I thought words didn't matter?

Which way is it?

Obama speaking about this boy or Clinton extending DADT and DOMA for political expediency?

[ErnestoG]

9. Did Hillary say TWO WORDS about this incident?

NO? Then ZIP IT.

[Mezzo]

35. Is this about Hillary? What will you say in the general when they ask?

...

[ErnestoG]

54. I repeat - WHAT DID HILLARY offer about this horrid affair?

Zippidy doo da. Nothing.

Next....

[Mezzo]

86. and *I* repeat:

WHAT DID OBAMA do?

[Mezzo]

101. >>

I wonder if you think you detract from your candidate, or help, when the only answer you have is an attack on a fellow democrat.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Nyet!

And she won't.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Why single Sen. Obama out? Why not ask Sen. Clinton to do the same? Their positions on LGBT issues

are identical.

[ruggerson]

14. Because Hillary has publicly spoken about gay teenagers

and made very clear where she stands.

Senator Obama may very well be our nominee. You don't want him to take a courageous and morally correct stand on this?

[Occam Bandage]

15. I'm simply asking why you're setting a particular standard for a particular candidate.

[ruggerson]

Because

as I noted in the OP, this particular candidate has done a few things which raise some red flags.

He has yet to speak out about gay youth.

Why would you object to him being asked to make the case linking religious condemnation to violence and suicide?

[Occam Bandage]

20. At the same time, he proposes

a full repeal of DOMA, and of federal benefits for gay and lesbian couples, while Hillary is more of a states'-righter, so your "red flags" business is bullshit. He's come out and said McClurkin's ex-gay business is wrong.

Gay teenagers are a niche interest group. I have nothing against speaking on their behalf. At the same time, holding up a failure to yet specifically address the concerns of a niche interest group as suspected opposition to that group is disingenuous.

This killing is tragic, and I have no problem with you asking him to make that case. However, if you suggest that his failure to make that specific case is indicative of anything, then I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you. Candidates are not expected to speak to every individual act of injustice.

[ruggerson]

22. I don't think any human being is a "niche interest group."

Sorry, but you just lost me on that one.

The "ex-gay" movement propogates just this kind of violence against gay teenagers.

I'm asking him to make the link and condemn the cause.

It's not much to ask of someone who quotes Dr. King on a daily basis.

[Occam Bandage]

23. I'm sorry accuracy of phrasing offends you.

Again, ask away. Go to a town hall and ask him; perhaps he will. However, suggesting that his failure to voluntarily speak to a specific act of injustice has any implications as to his positions is flawed.

[ruggerson]

24. Not offended, just had my eyes opened a bit

but regardless, nowhere did I write that his failure to voluntarily speak about this bears implications about anything.

That is a strawman you just set up.

What I wrote very clearly was that I urged him to speak out about this to ease some concerns about the depth of his understanding of the issue.

It's a call for him to be courageous and lead.

[Occam Bandage]

28. And do you have any reason to believe

that Sen. Obama is reading this page at this moment? You have not urged him; he is not here. You are expressing an expectation that he speak to a specific act of injustice. Were you to raise the subject in front of him, I have no doubt you would find his answer favorable; his positions on gay rights are the best of any candidate still in the race, and he has never spoken any words or proposed any policies that might lead any minority interest to believe that he disregards their concerns.

If you want him to speak on it, I suggest a letter-writing/telephone campaign, or perhaps forming a political action group.

[ruggerson]

31. Thanks for the suggestion

but I've already written his campaign numerous times about these issues, without a response.

And your standard for my posting this on DU is very selective. You could make the same point about many posts here, but this is the one you choose to selectively object to.

Very telling.

[Occam Bandage]

39. And, again, you're looking to form patterns out of a single point.

If I were, today, to only respond to a post that is falsely implying that Obama is anti-Semitic, would you walk in to insinuate I am not concerned with the welfare of Jews?

[ruggerson]

45. Again, a strawman

Did I say that he was homophobic? Do a search, and you'll find that I said a number of times that I don't think he's a homophobe.

I'm asking him to lead, and you have a problem with that, it seems. This OP was not about an Obama/Clinton divide - it was about Obama and whether he can step up to the plate and show some courage. If he's going to be the nominee, then it's a legitimate thing to expect of him.

Your constant use of strawmen is interesting.

[Occam Bandage]

47. Again, a strawman.

Did I say that you said he was homophobic?

I believe that you are not asking him to lead, because he is obviously not here. You are, rather, using a common rhetorical device to make a point, and it's a point I disagree with.

[ruggerson]

49. "falsely implying that Obama is anti-Semitic"

I guess you just accidentally wrote those words using them as an analogy to what I wrote in the OP.

So now you're denying your own false analogies after first attempting to turn this into a dynamic about Hillary vs. Barack.

You can't be disagreeing with me, because you have so far showed no comprehension of what I've written.

[ErnestoG]

56. That was pretty disgusting, by the way.

[Occam Bandage]

67. I didn't use them as a strict analogy to your OP.

Rather, I was providing a loose parallel. Allow me to explain: you claim that my opposition to this post is "selective" and might be indicative of some deeper feelings. I provide a hypothetical, and ask if that would also be indicative of feelings similar to those you were suggesting I possessed.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Actually, the ex-gay movement is the OPPOSITE of this incident.

It claims (albeit falsely) that gays can be 'redeemed' and reaches out to them to reclaim them and change their lives - not murder them.

The ex-gay movement is wrong, and self-loathing, but it is NOT a violence driven hate movement. You don't break something you are trying to fix.

It is inconcionable to conflate them with murderers of gays.

[ruggerson]

46. It's incredible that I'm reading this on a liberal political board.

you don't have a clue about what the "ex-gay" movement is nor what harm they do.

[Occam Bandage]

48. He did not say that they were not harmful.

[ruggerson]

50. Now you're apologizing for that post?

"It is inconcionable to conflate them with murderers of gays."

That's what you just defended Occam Bandage.

[Occam Bandage]

68. No. I'm saying that they did not claim that ex-gays were not harmful.

[ruggerson]

79. Here's what he said in his post

"It claims (albeit falsely) that gays can be 'redeemed' and reaches out to them to reclaim them and change their lives - not murder them. The ex-gay movement is wrong, and self-loathing, but it is NOT a violence driven hate movement"

Now read this post in this thread and read the links in depth:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4748772&mesg_id=4751967

Now, answer this: If a movement results in higher suicide rates and by its very message and nature creates a culture of hate that results in violence against gay teens, was it wrong to say that this "movement" needs to be loudly condemned?

The line I wrote that he objected to was: "The "ex-gay" movement propogates just this kind of violence against gay teenagers."

I stand by it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. I know exactly what the ex-gay movement is, and I am very

aware of the damage they have done and will no doubt continue to do. The numbers of guilt and despair induced suicides and 'accidents' engendered by them is literally incalculable.

But I defy you to find any ex-gay adherant who had committed murder of another gay. When this kid's killer is identified, or when the next Matthew Shepard is crucified, it won't be an ex-gay movement member who did it.

I think you are deliberately conflating McGurkin or whatever the fuck his name is with this kid's killers, out of your hatred for Obama. McGurkin, in his misguided zeal to save the kid, might have driven him to suicide over his inability to change (though from the description, that is apparently not an option the kid would have ever chosen), but he would never have shot him.

If you can't see the difference, then you are blinding yourself to reality.

[Bluebear]

57. Yes, it's all because we just "hate" Obama so much. What a nut.

And if you can't see how the religious-driven "ex-gay" movement is part and parcel of the problem of violence against gays then it is you who are blind.

[ruggerson]

62. we're not supposed to bring it up

it's unpleasant for them to have to think about it.

[NMMNG]

70. You don't know what the hell you're talking about

Do some research on the "Ex-Gay" movement. They are a hateful, vicious pack of psycho-spiritual terrorists masquerading as therapists and religious people providing "assistance" to LGBTs. They cause, either directly or indirectly, emotional, spiritual and even physical harm (including murder and suicide) to LGBTs through the hate they spread and the "programs" they operate. They need to be stopped for the good of every existing and future LGBT . To claim that they are merely "misguided" is to either not understand them or to completely ignore what they are. They are monsters.

Truths about the Ex-Gay Movement

http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publications1/Responding_to_Anti_Gay_Change_Ads/agpb.pdf">It's about anti-gay politics

Ex-Gay Watch

[RaleighNCDUer]

90. Perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension.

I never said they were 'merely misguided'. I don't diminish what they are. You do know, however, that the word 'misguided' means 'wrong', don't you?

I very clearly said that they were wrong, they endanger the people they claim to be helping and induce guilt and despair when their 'therapy' fails to work - and it DOES fail to work because they are WRONG.

My ONE point is that they are NOT murderers. They are religiously insane zealots who are twisted into self loathing by their own insane religion and they inflict that self-loathing on others, but nowhere in those links did I see any reference to the ex-gay movement murdering gays, as this poor kid was murdered. They ARE responsible for the suicides, more than the suicides themselves are, but they did NOT murder.

So lighten the fuck up.


I can't believe that what I said could be twisted to sound like I am defending those assholes. But that takes me back to my original point - Hillary supporters conflating the murder of this kid with McGurkin talking at an Obama rally just so they can excuse HER backing DOMA and DADT, both of which actually give homophobia the imprimatur of LAW - both of which she never spoke out against until she started her run for the presidency.

[NMMNG]

96. GWB hasn't killed anybody directly

That doesn't make him any less a murderer.

"Ex-Gay" shitheads incite murder and suicide through their hateful rhetoric. They need to be held responsible for their actions.

[Orsino]

43. They both oppose full civil rights for same-sex couples.

Trying to frame a debate about gay teens looks pretty silly, in the broader context.

[ThatPoetGuy]

78. Because Obama spread this.

He gave a microphone and a podium to Donnie McClurkin, who traveled throughout the south preaching this. He continued to introduce McClurkin and to praise him in public and to give him an audience, even after he said things like this:

"The gloves are off and if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose? I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children."

He wasn't talking about terrorists. He was talking about "The Gays."

After handing a man a bullhorn to spread that kind of thing, Obama could at least condemn this murder. He didn't condemn McClurkin, but his campaign did issue an apology for inviting Rev. Sidden to speak. Sidden is gay. He didn't speak about homosexuality at all. McClurkin continued to spread nasty crap about gays at Obama's rallies, even after the gay community had expressed their outrage.

[nonconformist]

99. How many gay pride parades has Obama marched in?

Hillary has been marching in them since she was First Lady.

[sfam]

13. So Hillary spoke on this? This is why you voted for her? Link please?

I think its a fine thing to ask a candidate to address a truly troubling event which has occurred and its impact on a larger issue. I think the problem you have is stating that Obama didn't and that's why people voted for Hillary. Did Hillary address this event? If not, why not instead make a plea toward both candidates to highlight this event?

[rasputin1952]

16. The poison drips down...The crux of the situation is that a

15 year old kid was murdered...I think we should see it for what it is, a vicious act, a sensless act...that neither Obama or HRC could have done anyhting to stop.

I believe they both should speak out against such things, but we need to remeber, that it is the communities these victims come from that hold the power to stop this type of tragedy, or at the least, slow it down.

May Lawrence Rest in Peace.

[ruggerson]

19. Exactly

and it's the "ex-gay" movement (amongst other hate groups) and its supporters who create the kind of environment within these communities that perpetuate this kind of horror.

But, the "ex-gay" movement specifically focuses much of its damaging message on teenagers.

If Obama is to be our standard bearer, and especially since he's running a campaign based on change at the local level, shouldn't he make a strong argument against this and link it to its cause?

[rasputin1952]

32. What i know is that people are being murdered because they

are not being seen as being human beings. I think that rather than look for a panacea such as a national figure, that because of the climate in politics, will not take a stand, that we, straight, gay, whatever, make the stand and fight this.

I'm straight, but i have stood for gay rights, I call them human rights, same thing I do for Civil Rights based on skin color, gender, religion. Thing is...these are all human rights, and once people understand that, things will get better.

[ruggerson]

52. I understand

that change has to come from family to family, person to person.

But for many years, we've had a noxious ass in the White House who has implicitly lent institutional approval to homophobia. The message that comes from the top has both authority and influence and has contribute to the climate we have today.

If Obama makes it to the WH, which I hope he will if he's our nominee, I want him to use the bully pulpit in the same way Johnson and Kennedy did. Johnson made some wonderful speeches about our role as human beings in his fight for civil rights and moved America in the right directioin. Why shouldn't we expect and hope that a President Obama might do the same?

[rasputin1952]

60. We should expect either candidate, which ever one makes it

to the WH to push for human rights. In fact, we must demand it.

But let's get someone in there first...:)

[bluestateguy]

17. Go to one of his town meetings and bring it up

It wasn't Obama who signed the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" law or the "Defense of Marriage Act".

[NMMNG]

18. It wasn't Hillary either

Thanks for playing.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Hey, she's the one who counts it as "experience."

[Control-Z]

51. Gosh, I wasn't aware

that Hillary signed it. Thanks for enlightening me. Link please.

[candice]

26. Obama didn't want Gavin Newsom in the same photo with him...

even though he asked him to campaign for him. S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom, who allowed gay marriages at S.F. City Hall as an act of civil disobedience, is supporting Hillary.

It's understandable that the most liberal voting senator this year might not want to be photographed with Gavin (the "liberal" label won't win over most of middle America), but it is not courageous.

[dcindian]

27. I don't think I have ever seen such a sick post

Why use such a tragic despicable incident to hammer another democrat over? Obama or Clinton had nothing to do about this. Obama or Clinton never wished for any of this to happen.

What sort of perverse, sick, and twisted logic are you using to call a democrat out over this? Do you think someone owes you an apology for someone else's sick act?

[ruggerson]

29. Because of the troubling events

of which we are all aware that happened in South Carolina. Amongst succeeding troubling revelations.

It's okay to point to the deaths of soldiers to ask politicians to end wars, but it's not ok to point to the deaths of innocent kids to ask them to use the bully pulpit to speak out against those who propogate homophobia?

[Occam Bandage]

30. And do you count as a "troubling revelation" the fact that he has the most comprehensive

pro-gay-rights policy platform of any candidate currently running for President?

[ruggerson]

33. He doesn't

and millions of gay and lesbian voters apparently don't agree with you.

[Occam Bandage]

37. He doesn't? Name one regard in which Hillary's is better. I'll start off by naming one in which

Obama's is better: He wants federal benefits for gay and lesbian couples; Hillary wants to keep it at a state level.

(pre-election polls also showed that the majority of gay and lesbian voters were not voting on gay rights, and that the only advantages she had on her perceived gay-rights record was the fact that her record was longer than his.)

[Occam Bandage]

69. Ah, no answers.

[ruggerson]

71. this post wasn't a debate about who's better on gay issues

It is about asking him to do something courageous and lead.

But, since you claimed he was better on civil unions:

http://www.hrc.org//documents/Questionnaire_ReportCard-ClintonObama.pdf

Note, you won't find this there: she supports repealing the section of DOMA that prohibits federal recognition, but feels repealing the other section (exempting states from HAVING to recognize each other's contracts) would only prod more states to enact even more DOMA's at the state level. Obama is in favor of repealing both.

On paper they are roughly equivalent in their views. But Clinton has gone out of her way to court the gay community - her record is pretty good (it can always improve.)

Here is a video that might enlighten you as to why she got more support than Barack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvuwovEAl9s

[Occam Bandage]

72. I'm sorry, I would have thought "Obama is in favor of fully repealing DOMA,

while Clinton wants to ensure the right of states not to recognize gay marriages" is actually a reason to vote for Obama. Worst case scenario under Obama, several states pass mini-DOMAs and end up in the exact same situation that Clinton wants to put every state.

So, there's advantage #2 for Obama: He is in favor of a full repeal of DOMA, while Clinton wants to enshrine the right of state bigotry at the federal level.

[ruggerson]

83. Actually a point could be made for both

If you try to repeal the "full faith and credit" part of DOMA without broad consensus, you risk generating a worse backlash, as I pointed out, which not only might engender further state DOMAs but a renewed push for another Federal one, which would then totallly wipe out all the state gains we've made.

They both want to repeal the part that, by its removal, would instantly grant federal recognition of those state unions in MA, CA, VT, NH, NJ, CT, etc.

Their differences on issues are mainly strategic in nature.

But, as I said, the reason Hillary has more support is because of her very vocal commitment to and support of gays and lesbians. I provided you a video to watch wherein she talks very sincerely about gay teens. Would you kindly provide me with a video where Barack does the same?

[dcindian]

34. No one needs to point to dead soldiers to know war is bad.

You are not pointing out the death of innocent kids. You are making a specific incident a call out card for someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the incident.

This child died because someone did not have the sense to respect him as a human being while he was alive.

Your call out post was made because someone did not have the sense to respect him as a human being in death.

[ruggerson]

38. Read it again

and tell me where I called anyone out. I'm asking him to lead, so that we don't have more of this kind of tragedy in the future. If he's going to lead our party, shouldn't this be the exact kind of thing he uses the bully pulpit for?

[sfam]

42. Still awaiting the link where Hillary mentioned this event...

Are you just ignoring those requests? Did Hillary discuss this event or not? If not, why aren't you angry at her about this as well?

[LeftCoast]

44. Hillary isn't cozying up to the ex-gay movement

That's why.

[Bluebear]

63. 'Hillary Speaks for the Unspoken; Addresses Gay Teen Suicide'

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/26/0409/69649

Words like "metrosexual" have entered the vernacular, and 'gay' can earn big bucks at the box office, but when popular culture is juxtaposed with our actual culture, a crowbar separation remains. There are a multitude of reasons why there is a high incidence of depression and suicide among gay teens, and, in her latest "Ask Hillary" Web video, Hillary Clinton had the courage to speak up and address what remains largely unspoken.



There's a start.

[ErnestoG]

58. To use this poor kid's murder as political fodder for Hillary Clinton...I agree

Sick ass as it comes.

[ruggerson]

61. So says my little stalker

who follows me from post to post ever since he lost a debate.

When you actually care about gay teens, come crawling back.

[Forkboy]

64. I care about gay teens, but he's right.

You're using this to jump on one single person when you could have used it to highlight to BOTH candidates, and others here and elsewhere, the severity and seriousness of the plight all to many of them are facing. Instead, you chose to use it as political fodder to beat a candidate with. :shrug:

[ruggerson]

66. No he's not right

and you've never been a gay teen.

And I'm asking this guy to LEAD. To be courageous. Since when is that "beating" a candidate?

When you've worked long shifts listening to call after call from abused gay kids whose parents have told them they're worth shit, when you've logged years at your local community service center counselling runaways from fundie households, then you can fucking talk about this with integrity. Until then, I'm not listening to your bogus "I'm not partisan but I really am" lectures. And I won't add the stupid emoticon.

[Forkboy]

73. You don't have a lock on caring, nor do you own the sadness and anger these things cause us.

No, I have never been a gay teen. By this logic I should only talk about things affecting white males. Are you female? better not talk about sexism. You a candidate or a politician? Better not talk about politics. By your logic you'd have no integrity in doing so.

You know jack shit about me Ruggerson. You have no idea what I've seen, what I've done, and who I am. Again, you don't own the caring. You are not the only one who has dealt with this stuff. Understand?

And I'm asking this guy to LEAD. To be courageous. Since when is that "beating" a candidate?

You chose to use this story to attack Obama. You didn't mention Hillary. Why not ask her to lead as well? Yes, she's spoken out on it, but hell, it wouldn't hurt to have her do it again, would it?You took a tragedy and tried to turn it into a fucking "gotcha" moment for Obama.

If the issue is so damn important to you, if leading is what you want, why single out Obama? You could have used this story to question both our candidates, and hell, even other DUers, or to highlight the plight all too many of these kids are going through. Instead, you turned it into a biased political attack on one man, taking what could have been a thread that actually helped you and those you care about into just another GD-P thread that ends up dividing us further.

Until then, I'm not listening to your bogus "I'm not partisan but I really am" lectures.

How am I partisan? For not agreeing with you? I don't like either of the choices we have left. I've defended both, I've attacked both. So, what is your definition of "partisan" here?

And I won't add the stupid emoticon.

I will. :eyes:

[ruggerson]

84. Here's what I know about you

You come into discussions with the claim that you're bipartisan and fair, when you have a clearly pro Obama agenda. Anyone who disagrees with you is unfair and a hypocrite. You don't know this little fucker who has been trailing me for weeks like an angry little rodent, yet you swoop in defending him, not because of the substance of anything he said, but because you PERCEIVE (wrongly) that I attacked your candidate.

Read the OP again. I'm asking Senator Obama to stand up and do something courageous. I wrote more than a week ago that I thought that Hillary's candidacy was essentially over, so why would I want her to address it? She already HAS to my and many other's satisfaction, but that's besides the point. This wasn't about Obama vs. Clinton. He's going to be our nominee in all likelihood, and I want to see him clarify and move in the right direction on these issues. Is that a bad thing? If you care as much as you profess you do, you would be sharing my sentiments and echoing them. Instead, you're hung up on Hillary vs. Obama, which is seemingly more important to you than dead gay kids. Move past it. If we don't ask our OWN leaders to do the right thing, who the hell will?

[Forkboy]

85. And you couldn't be more wrong.

I like Obama only fractionally better than Hillary. The two are fucking identical. If I don't like one why on earth would I like the other? Duh.

Anyone who disagrees with you is unfair and a hypocrite.

Nope. I've had plenty of disagreements here with people I like and respect, and just disagreeing with me doesn't make me mad at someone, nor does it make me think they are unfair.

You don't know this little fucker who has been trailing me for weeks like an angry little rodent, yet you swoop in defending him,

I'm defending him because I agreed. I couldn't care less about the soap opera between you two.

not because of the substance of anything he said,

No, it was because of what he said.

but because you PERCEIVE (wrongly) that I attacked your candidate.

I'll type slowly for you, and I'll put in all caps so you can't miss it. I DO NOT SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA. Here, let me repeat that. I DO NOT SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA. My candidate was Kucinich, not some Third Way DLC wannabe. The reason you're convinced he is my choice is because YOU are the one who has to try to put a label on people who don't agree with YOU. The fact that someone might defend someone who you don't like pisses you off, and you seen unable to fathom it may even be someone who doesn't like the guy either, just like I've defended Hillary at times (which you've seen) even though I don't like her.

I hope this analysis of me isn't a look into your powers of perception.

This wasn't about Obama vs. Clinton. He's going to be our nominee in all likelihood, and I want to see him clarify and move in the right direction on these issues. Is that a bad thing?

Nope, it's not.

Instead, you're hung up on Hillary vs. Obama, which is seemingly more important to you than dead gay kids.

Says the Hillary supporter who doesn't care about a million dead Iraqis. :think:

[ruggerson]

92. Right back atcha

You still have yet to address the crux of what I said. This isn't about a partisan issue. We should all be concerned with this. (And I know you are because I've read many posts from you on the subject.)

This OP was not meant as a partisan shot at Barack Obama. I don't know how to spell it out for you any more clearly. I plan on supporting him fully, when this is over, and I want the man to do the right thing when it comes to these issues. This kind of horror happens daily, and I want a President who will actually address it. It's either going to be him or McCain and I trust that Obama will be far more likely to step up to the plate on this issue than McCain will. Hillary, imho, is not much of a viable candidate any more, so how could this even remotely be construed as a post intended to boost a candidacy I believe to be all but over?

I'm aware that you supported Kucinich. I didn't start out as a Hillary supporter either. My candidate withdrew after Iowa. But you're divining the wrong purpose from the OP, I'm suspecting (I may be wrong) because you see pro Hillary partisanship at times, when there is none, due to your bias against her. That's not a bad thing, it's just human nature. In this case, there is no pro Hillary partisanship. The post is not cynical or political. It's about asking the guy who is going to more than likely lead us to do the right thing.

[Forkboy]

95. Ok, let's step back.

I'll retract what I said because I trust you and respect you. I'll take your word on how you meant it, and that I took it the wrong way.

The post is not cynical or political.

When you're as cynical as I am it's hard not to view things in that light, especially on a political board.

I offer you my sincere apologies.

[ruggerson]

98. I know you're a good guy

and the trust and respect is mutual. My apologies for the dead kids remark. I will freely admit this particular issue drives me up a wall and I have an emotional reaction to it, because I know how helpless these kids feel. And they have no one in power who will take up their cause. No one. I can only pray that Obama has it within him to do it, because if he doesn't use the bully pulpit, the violence will continue unabated.

[Forkboy]

100. My fear is that it's going to continue no matter who our president is.

It's something within humans, and I'm not sure how much we'll ever change the fear of the "other" in all too many of us, whether that other is a gay person, a black person, or whoever. I got jumped by two dudes at a bar one night because they didn't like the band on my t-shirt. That's how lame the thinking gets at times. A president can use that position to set a tone, but it's up to the rest of us to follow that tone, and that's where my hope crashes and burns.

I'd like to be wrong, but my faith in the human race is at an all time low.

[ErnestoG]

87. Your Obama hate clouded your reading of their post, big time.

You say you want the leaders to stand up and say something about antigay violence.

Well bravo...but you level that at Obama, while ODDLY ENOUGH giving Hillary a pass.

Hint: Don't be so transparent next time.

[ErnestoG]

75. Please put your ego in the bottom drawer, little man. No one bothers stalking you.

This is a forum. People say things, and others respond to them. Get used to the dynamic.

[hulklogan]

65. The militant straights around here seem to be incapable of showing compassion towards anyone

but themselves.

Asking that our party's frontrunner (and likely nominee) address a serious and significant act of violence against a GLBT American is not outrageous, disgusting, or using it for political gain.

Senator Obama released a statement on the NIU shooting. Why didn't he release a statement on the Oxnard shooting?

Oh, that's right. He, like the kool-aid drinking cultists who follow him, just want the whole "gay issue" to go away.

Here's the link to the statement on the NIU shooting for those of you who will no doubt demand it: http://obama.senate.gov/press/080215-statement_of_se_15/

[ErnestoG]

76. militant....straights?

ROFL!!!

[Beausoir]

74. Yes. And this is what is so sad about Obama. He HIRED a gay basher. HIRED.

Obama has serious issues with gay people.

And his hiring and promoting a gay bashing preacher to pander to the homophobic haters is a cautionary tale to ANYONE who believes that gay people deserve the same rights as straight people.


If you support a candidate who can't support basic human rights for EVERY person, gay or straight, you can not possibly call yourself a human being.

[ErnestoG]

77. Using a gay teen's murder to benefit Hillary's campaign is BENEATH contempt.

You and all others who clammored aboard this sordid tactic should be completely....utterly...ashamed of yourselves.

[hulklogan]

81. Why do you think the OP intended to benefit Hillary's campaign?

Her campaign is basically finished.

[ErnestoG]

88. Clear as spring rain water to me.....

[hulklogan]

97. What is going to be the excuse from the Obama supporters

after he wins the nomination and we continue to demand that he address GLBT issues properly?

Just curious.

[Muzza]

80. Hypocrit!

Obama is pro-gay when it suits him (California) and anti-gay when it suits him (South Carolina). Does this man have a consistent opinion about any issue? His record in regards to LGBT rights is appalling.

[Forkboy]

89. You forgot shameless.

You're already slipping.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[depakid]

94. He's not going to touch that one with a 10 foot pole

which is probably expedient at the moment.

In the off chance that he gets elected, that'll be the time for him to actually do something about the issues.

[Hippo_Tron]

102. I think you should write and ask him to address it, I know I certainly would like him to

[Bluebear]

103. When I wrote about McClurkin, all I got back was solicitations for money

"Thanks for writing and won't you donate today?"

I don't think anyone even read it.