If only Obama had shunned McClurkin the way he

[cboy4]

has Louis Farrakhan, there's no telling how many more supporters he'd have.

But apparently, someone referring to Judaism as a "gutter religion" crosses the line more than someone referring to homosexuality as abnormal and a curse.

Interesting.

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Yep!

I like Obama, but that episode still sticks in my craw.

[anonymous171]

2. He hates gay people.

:sarcasm:

[redstate_democrat]

5. Well

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is apart of Hillary's "35 years" of experience. Obama is a supporter of the LGBT community. He is not a homophobe. Now, when you can provide me proof of Hillary or Bill Clinton, going in a black church, denouncing homophobia, as did Obama at Ebenezer Baptist Church, then you might be able to argue that Hillary and Bill Clinton are on Obama's level on this particular issue. They aren't close. Check out his page on LGBT issues. He sponsored a bill giving protection of those in the LGBT community in the Illinois state senate. He is for federal protection as well under Civil Rights Law, something that has yet to be accomplished by all those so-called progressives up in Washington like Hillary Clinton.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. And DADT was a compromise

with rabid conservatives who wanted no gays to serve at all.

You guys really need to learn a little history before you start spouting off. Clinton didn't run on the the platform of DADT - it's what he ended up with after stiff opposition from republicans.

[jackson_dem]

20. They think agents of change don't face stiff opposition

Bill Clinton tried to bring change on gays on the military and universal health care and he failed. Now he and his wife are attacked for both by Democrats while these same folks absolve the rethugs, who they now want to unite with, of the blame they truly deserve along with the $100 million the special interests spent against the Clintons' health care proposal.

DOMA is another example. If Bill hadn't signed DOMA the rethugs would have gotten a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Which is easier to correct? A bad statute or a constitutional amendment?

[MonkeyFunk]

29. You don't have to convince me!

I know who's responsible for both of those things: Republicans.

[redstate_democrat]

32. The Repugs

would have never, ever gotten a Constitutional amendment for that bullshit. NEVER.

[jackson_dem]

48. Why not?

We are talking about the mid-90's, not today. You need 3/4 of states to do it. That wouldn't be hard because you don't need supermajorities in the states. Could they get 2/3 support in Congress? Hell yes. Look at what the vote tallies were for DOMA.

[redstate_democrat]

56. I don't think so

You need 3/4 of states. What is that 37-38 states? I HIGHLY doubt they would get that. HIGHLY DOUBT IT. There would be mass outrage, marching, picketing, and political suicides occurring. Just think of it, if they could do that, then they could set Civil Rights as a whole back. There are just too many organizations prepared to take something like that down. Then they have to get 66-67 votes in the senate? What Democrat would vote for that? Even some Republicans would not vote for something like that. Of course you would have some wack jobs voting for it because they are politically safe in their traditionally bigoted states/districts, but, come on. The majority wouldn't stain the Constitution with something like that.

[Creideiki]

64. It would have gone through

It went through in Illinois, which is pretty laissez-faire.

[jackson_dem]

65. Sadly I think they would have gotten that then without DOMA

DOMA took the steam out of the gay marriage amendment "movement." In the 90's. I think there are at least 37-38 states where a majority of people oppose gay marriage and politicians respond to voters. Even if, as would have happened, many progressive organizations opposed it these pols would be looking at polls that showed overwhelming opposition to gay marriage. Look at DOMA. It passed overwhelmingly in Congress. I think the only shot there would have been to prevent a constitutional amendment is if some people who favored its goal nonetheless opposed it because they believed the Constitution should not be amended for something like that. Maybe Clinton should have taken a stand but the risk would have been a constitutional amendment that would have set back gay rights for generations. DOMA can easily be repealed. Imagine having to fight the bigots to repeal an amendment banning gay marriage.

[dsc]

112. We even today barely have more than the 13 states necessary to block

even protecting gays on the job. Back then it was under 10.

[LostinVA]

135. It would have passed, hands down

[jackson_dem]

6. You don't have to be a bigot to use bigotry to win votes

Many politicians who aren't personally bigoted have done so. Guess who invented the racist southern strategy? A guy who had a better record on civil rights than JFK and LBJ in 1960.

[MagsDem]

19. Yep, but BO supporters know that

They just don't care. Apparently that's called "transformational" now.

[jackson_dem]

25. It worked for Reagan and they think he was great

[redstate_democrat]

35. What do you think the Clinton

campaign has done this primary? What were Bill's comments in SC? What was the whole brown v. black thing and when Hillary claimed it was a "historical fact" that black and brown people were having it out...and it was a historical fact, no less. This whole thing has been a crock. Why imply Barack was a "drug dealer"? Why send out the costume picture? There is no doubt in my mind that they have used bigotry of voters to garner much, desperately needed votes. Hell, Bill Clinton is even trying to connect 9/11 with Iraq now. What won't they say and do? You heard her, she will do "everything she can" to win.

[LostinVA]

136. The Clintons are NOT racists

[MagsDem]

14. No, he's just happy to throw them under the bus to get the black...

religious bigot vote. That's pretty obvious.

[writes3000]

18. How is that obvious when he speaks up for gays and against homophobia IN black churches?

Explain.

[MagsDem]

23. First dem presidential candidate in my lifetime.....

to deliberately hand a homophobic bigot a microphone and stood next to him while he denounced gays for 30 minutes. I can't think of a worse case of craven pandering from a democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime. Fuck him.

[writes3000]

30. If you argued in a more mature fashion

I'd continue to discuss this with you.

But "fuck him" is a tantrum. One of many such tantrums you throw daily.

You seem pretty unhappy and miserable here. Hope it turns around for you.

[MagsDem]

37. I hope you can learn to have more respect for yourself

as a gay person. How many black people vote for rethugs that support the confederate flag and give a wink and a nod to southern racists? It's a matter of self respect. And "fuck him" would be putting it mildly.

[writes3000]

43. You are so beyond rational thinking, it's plain sad.

Once again, Obama speaks out against homophobia and for gays ALMOST DAILY. Those are the facts.

And don't tell me what it's like for black people please. I am black. And I find your willingness to fling around inaccurate, exaggerated, racist comparisons to be obnoxious, false and, once again, sad.

[MagsDem]

52. He does nothing of the sort

God, he was too cowardly to even have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome. You are sadly misinformed.

[writes3000]

54. Yes, he does.

It's in his stump speech. Oy.

[MagsDem]

63. Help me out... here's a link to his stump speech

Where is it?


http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/full-text-barack-obama-stump-speech-our-moment-is-now/

[writes3000]

72. His stump speech has been updated...

Any Obama supporter who watches his recent speeches can confirm what I'm saying.

And then there's this video and transcript.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/video-text-transcript-barack-obama-speech-ebenezer-baptist-church-atlanta-ga/#more-2215

"For most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity..."

PS - NOTICE WHO HE'S TALKING TO.

[MagsDem]

78. That's not his stump speech

That was one speech he made on MLK day with one line in it. "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them." Guess who scorned his gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them? Barack Obama when he gave a bigot a microphone and 30 minutes of time to heap scorn on GLBT people.

Using your logic, Hillary could invite the grand dragon of the KKK on stage to make a 30 min speech denouncing black people, say one sentence mildly denouncing it later on, and it would all be cool. Would that be cool for you?

I didn't think so.

[writes3000]

84. Here's an article about his more recent stump speech

http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews36_07/mobile/page3.cfm

"Talking the talk

Obama mentioned Gays in his stump speech at least twice during the past week - before large, general audiences in Seattle, Washington, and Alexandria, Virginia.

In Alexandria, he said, "I've seen how politicians can exploit our fears to make us afraid of each other. & Afraid of immigrants, afraid of Gay people. I've seen how destructive, how corrosive fear can be." He was also prompted by a questioner in the audience in Alexandria, a Gay veteran named Dustin Davis, to explain what he would do to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"Why would we not want able men and women who are willing to sacrifice on our behalf - why would we tell them no?" said Obama. "Why would we spend money kicking out Arab-speaking linguists that we need right now in order to apprehend terrorists because of some hang-ups that are outdated and outmoded and make no sense. We are going to overturn it."

"How am I going to do it?" he continued. "I'm going to do it by putting together a military panel made up of people like General ."

Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during President Bill Clinton's first term, said last year that, although he initially supported the "don't ask/don't tell" policy of excluding all but the most closeted of Gay men and Lesbians from the military, he no longer believes Gays would undermine military efficacy.

"If we can get military officers to credibly talk about this issue - the most recent polls have shown the average person who is serving in Iraq and Afghanistan don't think this is an issue," said Obama. "This is a political issue. It needs to stop being a political issue. We need to solve the problem."

[MagsDem]

89. Seattle, huh? Very risky.

And it's very big of him to declare we shouldn't be afraid of gay people.

Look, he got his use out of his KKK moment against gays.

Now let's imagine a similar scenario -- Hillary invites the grand dragon of the KKK to speak for 30 minutes and share a stage with her, because she really wants to get that southern racist vote. All's forgiven if she goes to CA a few months later and encourages us not to be afraid of black people? Hell, she wouldn't have been in the race the day after the KKK episode.

I repeat, I have more respect for myself than to vote for a politician like that.

[southern_dem]

144. Was it because Newsome

has pro-gay stances or because Newsome was in the middle of a sex/cheating scandal at the time? It's an honest question because I don't know how the timing went.

[Creideiki]

38. See, Obama does bring hope.

You hope other people can stop being upset about being mistreated.

For me, Obama brings me hope that I'm wrong.

[alteredstate]

121. He didn't "hand him a microphone"

or "stand next to him for 30 minutes".

Ditch the drama.

[jackson_dem]

28. And Bush said racial progress had been too slow at the rethug convention

Does that mean he didn't also use racism to win? What was Bob Jones? What was his "quota" speech on MLK's birthday a few years ago?

[writes3000]

36. Sorry, the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of Obama

taking pro-gay stances.

When you can show dozens of times when Obama has spoken against gays or stayed silent when others have bashed gays then I will concede.

The black religious community KNOWS that Obama is against strongly homophobia. And they're voting for him anyway.

[MagsDem]

39. LMAO - it's about SELF RESPECT

Ever notice how black people don't vote for rethugs because they give a wink and a nod to racism? They have self respect.

[writes3000]

46. I AM BLACK

Are you?

If not then DO NOT tell me how ALL black people act, feel or think.

[MagsDem]

57. I don't care what color you are....

You can't deny that over 90% of black people vote democratic, can you? You don't think that fact that rethugs pander to racists have something to do with that? I didn't realize that was even debatable.

The same holds true for me about politicians that pander to homophobes. I don't vote for them. Period.

[writes3000]

62. You don't care about any opinion but your own. Got it.

Enjoy that lonely place you're in. It may explain why you're so angry.

[jackson_dem]

40. Who is saying Obama is a homophobe?

No one thinks that but what is clear is that he has no problems using homophobia to further his political career.

The black community was for Hillary until Obama swiftboated the Clintons on race.

[writes3000]

51. Bill Clinton swiftboated himself on race

When he made that stupid, stupid Jesse Jackson comparison. Before then, I found the question of Clinton "race-baiting" to be unfounded and stupid on the part of Obama supporters. And so did most other black people I spoke to.

[jackson_dem]

55. What was racist about making a factually and historically accurate comment?

Two candidates have won the South Carolina presidential primary with nearly unamious support from one racial group while losing badly among the other big racial group in South Carolina. One was Barack Obama (78% black support in a three candidate race while at 24%, a distant third and 16 points behind the first place candidate among whites). Who was the other? It wasn't John Edwards, who many Obamites cited in their spin after the comment. Edwards won both the white vote (53%) and the black vote (37%). Bill Clinton in 1992? He won both the white and black vote too.

[writes3000]

58. There was an inherent subtext to Bill Clinton's point

That every black person understood.

No black man has come close to succeeding at this and don't think this one will either.

He got his point across. It just didn't have the effect he wanted it to.

[jackson_dem]

68. Or maybe he meant "This win is an anomaly like Jackson's becaue of the racial split in voting"?

Super Tuesday was a week after SC and they needed to diminish Obama's win as much as possible and this was an easy way to do it since, aside from Georgia and Alabama, no Super Tuesday states would mirror South Carolina's demographics.

Why would Bill Clinton be that stupid? Look at who benefitted from the racial flap. Who won Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina? In those states people voted for someone of their color by very big margins. Even in Georgia where Obama got a solid 43% of the white vote he ran 40 points better among blacks. Conversely Hillary was over 40 points worse among blacks than whites. In every state where there are roughly equal numbers of blacks and whites in a Democratic primary Obama has won. It is clear he benefitted. Was the Clinton team so naive that they didn't realize this would happen? Obama gained greatly among blacks and lost nothing among whites with the flap as Obama won very white states like Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, and Alaska in landslides on Super Tuesday.

[JoFerret]

147. Probably not...

I am sure many of his best friends etc.

But I don't actually care how he personally feels. It is equal rights that are needed not "tolerance" and "hands of friendship" and crap like that.

[AX10]

3. True.

[writes3000]

4. As a gay man here, I feel Obama has denounced McClurkin's positions. n/t

[Bluebear]

7. Whatever. I "feel" differently and it cost him my vote in my primary.

[writes3000]

8. Well, he got my vote and my donations.

Obama repeatedly speaks up for gay people in his stump speeches. How many hundreds of thousands of people have heard him on this? He's won my vote on this issue and many others.

I respect that you disagree though.

[KLee]

12. Hmmmm..

Why would he pubicly speak out against homophobia in a church?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

Please stop the attacks....I can't stand it on either candidate.

If it were true, then I could maybe understand somewhat, but research about this man says otherwise.

[jackson_dem]

21. The same reason many other bigots who court bigoted voters denounce bigotry

No one in modern times has run on a "I am a racist" platform. Even Bush 43 has officially denounced racism and claimed he was for tolerance of gay folks. What these people do is give signals to bigots that they are on their side. That is what Bob Jones was. That is what McClurkin was.

[MagsDem]

41. Because he was against homophobic bigotry before he was for it?

[Bluebear]

134. Hmmm please don't join...today...and tell people what not to do.

And it's not an "attack" if you think it to be true.

[cboy4]

17. Seriously? Maybe you just don't have very much self

confidence and are used to people walking all over your feelings.

And I'm not trying to sound mean.

It's just that I don't know many gay people who aren't mad about this.

[writes3000]

26. I have tremendous self confidence and I don't allow people to walk over me.

As for my feelings, they are mine to control. No one else's.

I don't give power to McClurkin. He's wrong. Misguided. And clearly, running from himself. I can only imagine the pain and struggle he's imposed on himself.

I do pay attention to Obama. I pay attention to what he says. How consistent he is. And his record.

Of ALL of the candidates, I find him the most outspoken on the issue of how gays have been villanized. When he speaks of bringing everyone together, it's clear gays are included.

And most of all, I like Obama's message for ALL people. Gay, straight, American, non-American, race by race by religious denomination.

PS - I also believe Hillary is supportive of us even though we're not mentioned in her daily stump speech.

[Umbram]

80. I give you credit.

Were I attacked as psychologically deficient for supporting someone I'm supposedly not allowed to support, I would have handled it far less politely than you just did.

Cheers to being civil.
:toast:

[sniffa]

114. Damn dude

I know that's your steeze, but damn. :wow:

[MagsDem]

33. Yeah, like Reagan denounced racism

in Philadelphia, MS. Look, he KNEW that McClurkin was going to use the stage to do what he did. McClurkin made it very clear. And Obama handed him the stage anyway. The best way he could have "denounced" his positions was to not give him the stage and a microphone.

Does your theory make sense if we turn it around and make this about racism? Would that have been acceptable? Not hardly. I'm sorry, but when I see posts like yours I think "self loathing gay person." I have more self respect than excuse his very deliberate pandering to bigots.

[cboy4]

42. That's what really gets me. Obama was cautioned

ahead of time, yet he still allowed that idiot to take the stage,

And what's so amazing is Obama didn't/doesn't even need McClurkin.

I'm positive he'd still be in the lead had he told McClurkin "no."

[MagsDem]

59. Yes, the fact that it was deliberate really sealed it for me

[jackson_dem]

60. He did in South Carolina and had he not won SC he wouldn't have had the mo' for Super Tuesday

His rise in South Carolina began right after his gay bashing tour... http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Without SC Clinton would have won Super Tuesday. She would not have dominated but it would have been a clear win and she would be the front-runner right now and it would be Obama facing a do or die contest in Ohio and Texas. South Carolina gave him a head of steam heading into Super Tuesday and allowed him to essentially tie her on ST.

[MagsDem]

67. That's exactly right

The polls were showing that black female voters were split between HRC and BO, and that is precisely when he did it. It was literally THE most craven political manuever I have seen from a dem presidential candidate in my lifetime. That was the moment I knew he was a complete and total fake.

[jackson_dem]

71. Yup

It ranks up there with Nixon. Nixon was pro-civil rights his entire career, even more so than JFK and LBJ before they went to the White House. For instance Nixon publicly said he was disappointed the 1957 Civil Rights bill was watered down (by LBJ). Yet he was the first rethug to use the southern strategy because he knew it would cripple his Democratic opponent by swinging the historically Democratic South to him.

[Creideiki]

50. He said he didn't agree

With Farrakhan, he said, "Please, Rev. Farrakhan, don't help me, I don't want it." With McClurkin, it's, "Well, I disagree on a personal level, but thanks for the help."

Here, McClurkin represents one "special interest" and we, you and I as gay along with all the other gay people in the country, represent a competing one. Will you be satisfied when Obama answers the phone and McClurkin is on the other end asking for that favor back? You're one vote.

At best, Obama is showing first, an incredible naivete toward GLBT issues, and second, a willing to go with the rightwing talking points, like when he pulled out the, "churches should decide," line during the Visible Vote dialogues on Logo. And no movement since then.

The cynical part of me is looking at this as a, you got it, triangulation. Farrakhan's support is likely to alienate a lot of people, while his support will get a smaller number. McClurkin may alienate a portion, maybe even a sizeable portion of gay people, but will get him the support of other people, and probably more people--but civil rights should never, ever be put to a popular vote. I know that I've always supported the civil rights of people that are different from me, and I'm glad I have--I sleep well at night. Unfortunately, it seems that the man who thinks he should be the leader of our entire country is already considering himself the leader of 90% of that country. That's not something that I can support.

[Cronus Protagonist]

113. Maybe if he had embraced Gavin Newsom instead of shunning him

I might believe you, but Gavin Newsom isn't even gay and got shunned by Obama for supporting gay marriage, a homophobe got embraced, hired and presented by Obama - who knows what for, but I can guess. Talk is cheap, actions tell the truth.

[AtomicKitten]

9. He did denounce McClurkin just like he did Farrakhan -- He just doesn't shun them.

Because, and I hope some of you are starting to catch on, that's how he rolls. Some of you have taken it so personally, and it has nothing to do with any of the false implications imposed on his pretty straightforward agenda of bringing people together that does, as it turns out, include even assholes and icky people. That is the way to change hearts and minds. That is how change happens.

[writes3000]

10. So perfectly stated. You get it.

And I've experienced it. I've disagreed with people vehemently but I haven't shunned them. And time and time again, I've seen them come around to my point of view, just by spending time with me.

Opening minds takes time and promixity.

[AtomicKitten]

11. "Opening minds takes time and proximity."

:thumbsup:

[MagsDem]

49. So where are the racists he is cozying up to?

I mean, using your logic, he deliberately seeks out assholes to embrace as a way of bringing people together. So where are the racists he is bringing into the fold? Please. That argument is completely unsupportable.

[writes3000]

53. Ummmmm.....

He IS bringing people to him that disagree with him on a whole host of issues. Have you missed the exit polls?

Ohio is supposed full of racists. Some have said that there are so many that there is no way Obama can do well there. Yet, every day, the polls show him doing better and better - in that state supposedly filled with racists.

[MagsDem]

70. So what famous racist has he invited to speak for him?

Which one has he invited to share a stage with?

[claudew]

61. Double Standard

As I said earlier today on Daily Kos, I have come around to supporting Obama. However, tonight once again showed the double standard between the treatment of homophobia and other forms of bigotry.

Obama denounced and eventually rejected the support of Farrakhan. In the case of McClurkin he not only accepted his endorsement, he allowed him to headline a fund-raising Gospel concert and let him MC the event, giving him a platform to spew his anti-gay hatred. If he had done the same with Farrakhan his campaign would be over. If McClurkin had made an anti-Semitic remark at that concert, Obama would have had to renounce McClurkin's endorsement and return the money.

As I said before, I beleive that sometimes LGBT activists need to wear two hats - one as a citizen and one as an LGBT activist. ACT-UP protested at Clinton events even though I'm sure some of them voted for him. When Obama came to San Francisco shortly after the McClurkin concert he should have been greeted by a large protest. If we had done that and repeated it in every city with a significant LGBT population, we might have been able to at least get Obama to apologize unequivocally and promise never to host such a campaign event ever again. I wasn't looking for him to reject McClurkin's support, just not give him a platform. Instead, we got Hillary supporters hypocritically using this while supporting a candidate who supported DADT and DOMA and who still (unlike Obama) refuses to call for the complete repeal of DOMA and, on the other hand, Obama's LGBT supporters making excuses for the inexcusable.

[MagsDem]

76. You got that right

Thanks for your post, even though I will not be coming around to support Obama. I have to tell you though I have pretty much had it with the base of our party accepting this, particularly when there were perfectly good non-homophobic pandering candidates to rally around. As you said, had it been around Farrakhan it would have been over and out for him.

Perhaps I am not so forgiving having witnessed DU go into an anti-gay tirade for a straight month after Kerry lost, blaming it all on teh gays!! It was a complete stab in the back after the GLBT activists had worked so hard for his election.

Bill Clinton took a beating over moving to DADT from a previous policy position of drive out and vilify, and it was 16 yrs ago, so I can't say I blame him there. DOMA was a little harder to take, but Hillary does not support DOMA, and even better, she has never pandered to homophobes. Obama is dead to me after the craven McClurkin episode.

[jackson_dem]

22. This is what we heard in 2000 when Bush went to Bob Jones

He was a "uniter" who was just "reaching out" to all types of people.

[casus belli]

27. Si mple logic really.

If there was no one to persuade or change, then what would be the point of change exactly?

[cboy4]

34. Tragically, it's not the same thing.

Obama specifically rejected Farrakhan's support.

He did not do this with McClurkin.

In fact, McClurkin was a headline performer for Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign.

[saracat]

47. No kidding and I think he should 'denounce McClurkin but he doesn't .He has said he needs to

"reach out " to those folks as those are votes he needs.Apparently the votes of the gay community are not what he "needs".

[MagsDem]

44. Change through pandering to bigots

Gotta love that pretzel logic. How many racists does he pander to? Just wondering. And my, but you make such a convincing case for him by referring to GLBT as "icky" people.

[zabet]

87. Pandering to bigots and

giving them a platform to
spread their bigotry and hate.

[donheld]

69. You are so right

Too many were totally upset, feeling like Mr Obama had thrown us gays under the bus. They expected Mr Obama to save us and throw Donnie's sorry ass under the bus instead. I think it's Obama's goal to make sure NOBODY is thrown under the bus.

[cboy4]

74. Donheld, why is it you won't address what I wrote in the OP?

Obama clearly told Farrakhan to keep away.

Yet, despite warnings about what McClurkin stands for, he was welcomed with open arms.

Have I pinned you in a corner with this?

Because it sounds as though you don't want to place yourself in the uncomfortable position of criticizing Obama.

Honestly is the best policy.

Right donheld?

[donheld]

83. There's a vast difference between McClurkin and Farrakhan

Most of the world knows about Farrakhan and his insanity. Most of the world and the country has no idea who McClurkin is. As for the corner, I didn't know I was even near a corner let alone pinned in one. Sometimes it can be fun to be pinned in a corner :D As to criticizing Obama, I can do that. I really hate what he did, but I also try to understand what when on with that whole thing. If I don't I'm afraid I will wind up bitter like some of you all who will not even try to see anything from Obama's side.

[cboy4]

92. So what you're saying is it's okay to choose insanity as

long as the country has no idea who McClurkin is?

Just so you know, McClurkin happens to be a Grammy winner who has performed on Black Entertainment Television, etc.

So it's not exactly like he's a nobody.

That's one of the reasons he was a headliner.

How can you justify allowing Obama to get away with this, when he could have told McClurkin "no thanks," and still be ahead of Hillary?

Come on donheld. You seem like you're a smart person.

[donheld]

99. It would certainly hurt Barack more to be seen as a friend of

Farrakhan than McClurkin. Right or wrong that's just the way it is. Sounded to me like in South Carolina , Barack was trying to win over some of the religious crowd. Rather than throw McClurkin and the religious folk under the bus, he let Donnie go ahead and do his thing. Barack made a rather feeble attempt to appease our side, but many on our side still felt stung. The man is trying to appeal to a lot of sides here. He can't do anything for anybody if he's not elected. And just so you know winning a grammy for Traditional Soul Gospel Album does not bring about a lot of fame outside the religious community. And no I'm not trying to make excuses for him, I'm trying to see it from his side.

[MagsDem]

101. LOL - aren't you gay?

Only in Obama la la land could NOT giving a homophobic bigot 30 min., a stage, and a mic be defined as throwing someone under the bus. When is he going to invite the grand dragon of the KKK up on stage with him? I mean come on, he wouldn't want to throw the KKK under the bus, now would he?

[donheld]

103. Oh sweety your so very very bitter

Seek help.

[MagsDem]

109. Let me see if I have this straight (pardon the pun)

Because I have enough self respect not to prostrate myself before a politician that uses bigoted homophobes to get votes from bigots, I am bitter? Gee, and all this time I thought it just meant I had some self respect.

[cboy4]

104. I guess I can sorta understand how a straight person

might not completely understand what all of the fuss is about concerning McClurkin...

But I could live till 100, and still not understand how any gay people give Obama a free pass.

I actually even feel embarrassed for them, because I believe they're being taken advantage of.

What a shame.

[MagsDem]

108. I think they lack basic self respect

[Bluebear]

138. It's important to reach out to bigots, otherwise we're just like George Bush.

That's what I was told when this whole McClurkin thing started. :crazy:

[JoFerret]

148. Gays were/are disposable

in the Obama campaign.

[Bluenorthwest]

140. Republican Convention 2004

While we were trying to unseat Bush, McClurkin sang his big hit 'Stand' to and for Bush, on national Television. So millions of Republicans sure know who he is. When he sang for Bush, I already knew him, as I have history in the music world, church world etc. It pissed me off that Bush would add that extra insult.
At DNC 2004 Patti LaBelle sang and we first heard from Obama on a national scale. Donnie was a huge star when Obama was unknown. Sorry, but stick to the facts. You might not have known Donnie, but trust me, millions do. The Republicans do. Bush does. Donnie did much for Bush. Donnie has appeared on 700 Club with Pat Robertson.
Way back before he got into the Ex-gay thing and was known as a singer, he performed on Oprah and perfomed for President Clinton. Then he wrote his book and opened a chruch and all of that. Bush, Robertson and that crowd have been his mainstay.
He is who he is and he is known to millions, and has been for many years.

[terrya]

125. I'll die an old man before any of those hatemongers accept us gay people.

I refuse to talk to the McClurkin's of the world. Not until they apologize to me and the GLBT people for the bigotry that they espouse. Fuck that.

[MagsDem]

13. He's a craven panderer, but only when it will get him votes

Perfectly timed to get him the black religious bigot vote. I guess that's what makes him craven. I wouldn't vote for him if he was the last democrat on earth, and I mean that quite sincerely. Had he been a white southern dem pandering to racists in the south, it would have been a career ending move.

Equally as "interesting" is the dem party base that ignores it, and embraces him anyway. God forbid they hold him accountable, or consider supporting one of the 8 other candidates that doesn't pander to homophobes. The base is always ready to throw their loyal GLBT supporters under the bus for political expediency. It's why they get less and less of their votes in every GE. 4 million voters is a lot of people to piss off year after year.

[redstate_democrat]

24. What is it that you are not getting?

The "black religious bigot vote"? So are you ready to say that black people who attend Christian churches are the "black bigot vote"? And need I remind you, the Clintons have never missed an opportunity to speak from the pulpits of many, many black churches, but I have never heard them speak directly about homophobia as did Obama. Do you really want to go there?

[MagsDem]

79. I've been there and back

Happened in SC. You might have caught it on the news. I don't have the time or inclination to catch you up. Sorry. You could try reading the thread.

[KLee]

31. Wait a minute.....

I am a white woman and really offended by your first sentence.

Bigot=A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

This country is a country of many faiths, believers and non-believers alike. To refer to anyone being a bigot just because they may or may not hold a different view than our own is exactly why we need a President who will inspire us to rise above all this pettyness and hatred for our fellow Americans.

You say he was trying to get votes? If by your definition, that was true, why on earth would he take the stance of speaking out against homophobia to a bunch of "bigots" as you call them?

[MagsDem]

85. Are you kidding me?

Anti-gay religious bigots have spent their lives denying me and my family basic human rights, and you're offended that I noticed? Should all of us gay people just go sit down in the corner and shut up so you don't have to feel offended or what? Unbelievable.

"why on earth would he take the stance of speaking out against homophobia to a bunch of "bigots" as you call them?"

The better question is why he would deliberately give a national stage, a microphone and 30 min to a complete homophobe to denounce gays? Sorry, but one 10 word sentance in one speech does not make up for that any more than if Hillary had given the grand dragon of the KKK 30 min to talk about how awful black people are, and then said, "oh shoot, please be nice to black people."

Unbelievable.

[KLee]

122. With all due respect....

When I mentioned him speaking at church against homophobia, your charge was to come back with they must be black religious bigots(regarding the congregation at the church), and he was merely trying to get votes....

It is simply unfair for anyone IMO to somehow suggest that just because someone is religious means that they are somehow closed minded to your views. I am a Christian woman, and I have a few Lesbian friends that I've known for years and I love them dearly! Not all people are closed minded, regardless of their personal or religious convictions. I believe each of us has to choose our own destiny and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Have you been to MLK's church yourself? I haven't, so it would be unfair of me to say anything about how I know they "feel" this way or that way because they are religious. This is what I meant by being offended, you "lumped" everyone together.

I'm sorry you have been mistreated by closed minded people in your life time, it is unfair and unjust! I believe America is better than that and one day as a whole will act kinder to it's people regardless of age, sex, orientation, race, class, disability, or region. We are never going to be 100%, because lets just face it, there is always a few rotten eggs in the basket.

In order to get there, we have to stop treating everyone with disdain just because they may hold a different view than our own. In order to change the mindset, we have to listen to one another, including people we don't agree with. You never know, you just might help to bridge the gap, and by choosing to listen, whether we agree or not, will hopefully at least gain some respect for one anothers views and each other.

Back to Barack, his legacy has and always will be that he chooses to listen to both sides. (Before I get flamed, I am in no way suggesting that Hillary doesn't) To me this is what a leader does. President Bush never listened to anyone but the voices running around in his head. Look where that got us. At that concert, he was exercizing just that by having both someone who was a homophobic and someone who was an open homosexual on the stage. If he held the view of the former, why would he turn around and give the mic to someone who was a homosexual then? He did it because no matter his views, he is a fair minded person and is willing to listen to the issues, not shut them out as if they don't exist, like this presidency has done. It's acts like that, where hopefully we can get to a place where we can have some open dialog. We can't just sing the praises of people who hold our views and shun people who don't. That will get us nowhere and only fan the flames more.

If you read his book you will also find his stance on the issue. Since there are two, I guess I better specifically state which one LOL DUH His view on this issue is in "Audacity of Hope", mentioned several times throughout the book. It also has an index with "homosexuality" and "gay marriage" in the topics, to direct you faster. As far as I know there was nothing about it in "Dreams Of My Father" but I can't say for sure, as I have yet to read it.

Peace :) :hug:

[Bluebear]

139. So, do we "listen" to the KKK? Invite them on stage with us to sermonize?

Would that help "bridge the gap" and help change their mindset? Let some idiot go on a half hour about how black people are as result of the curse of Ham, blah blah blah, because it's "in the Bible"?

I think not.

[donheld]

16. Hopefully soon you will see that

No we gays will not get everything we want from Obama, but he will not throw us under any buses either.

[jackson_dem]

45. Unless it is politically advantageous to him

That is what GLBT folks should be worried about. He has proven he puts getting votes ahead of GLBT rights. I am not GLBT but if I were I would support Hillary just because of this. At least she hasn't used GLBT folks as political pawns to win the bigot vote. With Obama there is a question of trust. Would he buck the polls on behalf of GLBT people?

[redstate_democrat]

66. Whatever

It is clear you are trying to scare up some votes for Hillary. Obama's record is great on LGBT issues. GREAT. Now you can TRY to diminish that by trying to project on him comments made by an entirely different person, comments he has denounced, but hopefully, those in the LGBT community will see straight through it. This man doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body. He has grown up around all sorts of people and I think that is one of his greatest strengths. He is not a divider. It is clear you want to cast your vote for Hillary Clinton. Fine. You live with that vote. Hell, you can even write her name in on the ballot if you choose to once Obama is the nominee listed on the ballot in November, but don't even try to disparage OBama's record on LGBT issues. His record is fine. And he is NOT using LGBT community as pawns. Standing up for what is right is not always politically safe, but he has done it. Now, if you choose to defer voting for the democratic nominee and McCain gets in there and appoints SC justices who will limit the rights of those in the LGBT community to bring suit because of discrimination, limit their rights to challenge discriminatory laws, then who will be the loser? If the democrats lose the house and the senate, and then they enact all of these bogus laws against the LGBT community, who will be the loser? There won't be a supreme ct who will be sympathetic to the LGBT community and interpret the Constitution properly to bring them under its protection. Who will hurt because of it? America, that's who. Focus on what is important, here.

[writes3000]

75. Notice how he's doing exactly what they're claiming HERE...

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/video-text-transcript-barack-obama-speech-ebenezer-baptist-church-atlanta-ga/#more-2215

"We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity."

Just shameful, that Barack Obama. Ruthless, in fact.

[cboy4]

77. Then huh come he didn't kick McClurkin to the curb

like he did Farrakhan?

Talk is cheap writes3000.

Tell me why he didn't tell his people he could win without selling himself out and pander to a notorious homophobe like McClurkin?

Nobody from the Obama side wants to answer this question.

[writes3000]

81. I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt for one simple reason...

In his career, has the man done more for or against equal rights for gays?

He's done more. By far.

Could he improve? Sure. Could Hillary improve. Yep. But are both of them our allies? Absolutely.

[cboy4]

86. Alright, since you don't want to answer, I'll give you

the correct answer.

The correct answer is he cares more about campaign dollars and winning than he does about the gays.

I'm totally right, aren't I writes3000?

[writes3000]

93. No, you aren't. If that were true, he wouldn't bring up gays at all.

He certainly wouldn't bring them up positively, in places where he knows there is heavy anti-gay opinions. In fact, I'm willing to bet Obama has brought up the subject of gays to more people, more often, than any other Dem candidate.

Obviously, you and I will continue to disagree.

Fortunately, I think there's a very good chance that Obama will get to prove me right both as the Dem nominee and the next President. And most likely, Hillary will battle for us in the Senate. So for me, it's win-win.

[cboy4]

98. Just brace yourself writes3000. If and when Obama gets

into the White House, he won't need you anymore.

He'll have gotten your vote and that's all he wanted.

He'll decide Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA will be used as wedge issues by the other side, and abandon his positions.

I'm not mad at you. I just feel bad that you're being used.

[MagsDem]

91. He already did

[Jamastiene]

73. I couldn't have said it better myself.

:hug:

[Behind the Aegis]

82. I understand what you are saying, but...

...as someone of both identities, Jewish and gay, I really take exception to what you wrote. Just as it is never appropriate to fight bigotry with bigotry, I feel by being dismissive of anti-Semitism does no justice to issues of homophobia. Yes, it is true homophobia seems (IMO, is) more acceptable than other forms of bigotry, to make it seem like a competition between the two is not helpful. Perhaps you didn't mean to write it that way, but it is how I see it. In 2006, more Jews were victims of hate crimes than gays. Also, one doesn't see ridiculous theories on how gays were behind 9-11, the London and Madrid attacks, and tsunamis. The bigotry against both my identities are just as important as racism and misogyny and I don't think trying to "one up the other" really helps.

I understand comparing and contrasting issues of bigotry, but I just feel like your post was dismissive of anti-Semitism. Perhaps I read it wrong or more into it.

[donheld]

88. Best post of the thread!

Thanks.

[Behind the Aegis]

90. Thank you.

PS...were you able to access the newer ADL files about GLBT (actually, I don't know they include "T" because not all hate crimes laws do) hate crime laws?

[writes3000]

94. They've been making comparisons to KKK folks as well.

The Klan is known for murdering and terrorizing people. I just don't see the need to taunt and goad in ways that trivialize other forms of murderous hatred.

Thanks for the post. It gave me new insight to my own feelings about this.

[Behind the Aegis]

95. You are welcome. And belated (yes, i know you've been here for 2yrs) welcome.

Having two identities, which are often reviled, gives one pause when it appears one group is trying to "out do" the other. Bigotry knows no bounds, as you will see in your discussions. :evilgrin: Perhaps the OP didn't mean to write it the way he did, or perhaps I read more into than I should have, either way, bigotry shouldn't be acceptable, no matter the target. One doesn't combat bigotry by saying; "well, so and so has it worse." While it may be true, to trivialize the suffering of another group to make your own suffering seem more profound, even if it is, does an injustice to all victims of bigotry, at least in my opinion.

[dsc]

116. and the religious right has never murdered or terrorized

just ask Matthew Sheppard, no wait you can't, he's dead.

[cboy4]

96. BTA, how am I being dismissive of anti-Semitism?

A gay person with a smashed skull is just as important as a Jewish person with a smashed skull.

Therefore, my point is why didn't Obama dismiss both bigots equally?

I don't get into general discussions about which hate crime is worse than another, because it's irrelevant. Hate is hate, hurt is hurt and death is death.

I think you completely misunderstood my post if you think I'm actually categorizing hate by minority and importance.

[Behind the Aegis]

97. Thanks for the response.

As I said, I may have read more into it, but when I read...

"But apparently, someone referring to Judaism as a "gutter religion" crosses the line more than someone referring to homosexuality as abnormal and a curse."

...I saw it as "don't offend the Jews." It seemed more of a 'competitive' remark than one saying bigotry against one should be as bad as bigotry against another. In all honesty, I have seen this issue (the Farrakhan "flap") used in ways which I feel were to more defame Jews, than Obama, or even Clinton. As for the McClurkin "mess," I felt Obama didn't really do a stellar job in clearing the issue, but again, I see it more as an attack on gays, then Obama. I see both issues as non-issues, in most respects.

So, if I misunderstood you, I apologize. If you want me to expand my thoughts on what I wrote, just ask.

(Oh moderators...can we pleeeeeease add "Obama" to the spell check dictionary?!)

[cboy4]

100. No worries. I could have been a little more clear with that

line I guess.

But yea, calling Judaism a gutter religion and calling homosexuality abnormal and a curse are equally offensive in my book.

[Behind the Aegis]

102. It's all good.

And, I agree that both examples are equally offensive and should have no place in our society!

[xchrom]

105. i don't know about where you live -- but falwell's comments regarding 9-11 and lesbians and gays

made it into several national newspapers headlines.

[Behind the Aegis]

107. I am aware of that tripe.

However, that is religious based bullshit. No different than the MK in Israel who blamed the recent earthquakes in that area on gays. The point is those accusations stem from ultra-religious mutterings, which many dismiss. However, the "Zionist rule the US," "all Jews are more loyal to Israel than their home country," and other anti-Semitic rantings are far more common and acceptable to the public. While both types are reprehensible, one is more religious based than the other, oddly enough, it is not the ones about Jews. Falwell's ignorant remarks were that it was because the US was "accepting" (snort) of GLBT people is why we were punished, in my opinion, that is very different than the Jews are responsible for 9-11, not some Arabs with boxcutters.

This is where comparisons are useful. The level of "believability" make a huge difference in end results. After 9-11, attacks against gays were about the same, against Jews, they increased.

[xchrom]

111. you can't know what crime rates against lgbtq people are

since so many go under-reported or not reported at all.

and i would include in those crimes the inability for gay folk to transfer needful assess ts when issues of critical care come up.that denial is based in bigotry.
and the number of states denying gay folk marriage equality has grown in number. states can legislate their bigotry against us.

and the point is that in headlines all across the country we got to hear about how lgbtq people were to blame for 9-11.
no other group was picked out for that -- we were.

i know there is probably more agreement between us on this issue -- than disagreement -- but there is some difference.

[Behind the Aegis]

115. Some agreement.

"you can't know what crime rates against lgbtq people are since so many go under-reported or not reported at all."

I go on stats as reported by the FBI. Sadly, not all states report hate crimes, five specifically don't include sexual orientation/gender identity as "reportable" categories, and even more states do not report all stats. However, it is still a useful tool. I have been a victim of anti-Semitism and homophobia on more than one occasion (for both) and not reported, so I am well aware that hate crimes go unreported and are largely underreported.

"and i would include in those crimes the inability for gay folk to transfer needful assess ts when issues of critical care come up.that denial is based in bigotry.
and the number of states denying gay folk marriage equality has grown in number. states can legislate their bigotry against us."

I agree those cases should also be included. I just saw the post in DU-GLBT about the case in FLA. I was disgusted and saddened. I am currently in the process of having my six-year relationship "validified" through various documents, though a 'marriage' would easily rectify those needs.

"and the point is that in headlines all across the country we got to hear about how lgbtq people were to blame for 9-11.
no other group was picked out for that -- we were."

This is simply not true. While the headlines did say religious iconic "freaks" said we were responsible, most people ridiculed those statements, so much so, that they eventually "apologized" for the remarks. However, to this day, you can still read, even here at DU, how the Jews were responsible for 9-11; from the Odigo rumor, to Mossad, to the "dancing Israelis", and other anti-Semitic bile about 9-11 is still taken as reality.

When it comes to everyday violence and hate, gays will generally be the target (given the two groups we are discussing), but when it comes to on-going hate and vitriol, well, the Jews have that sewn up! G-d forbid I were to be murdered, it would more than likely be be because I am a "faggot." However, in day to day dealings, being a "kike," I am more likely to be blamed for every other problem the world faces. To quote a recent article, supported here at DU, "We have created a culture of violence (...and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity." Do you honestly think if that quote said "gays" instead of "Jews" it would have been defended at DU?

The fact is the recent gay and Jewish flaps Obama is facing are more about Jews and gays than about Obama or Clinton or the Republican slime machine.

[xchrom]

118. but it's the same tactic as used by obama --

falwell wasn't stupid -- and he was ''made'' to back-off his statements -- but the damage was done and he knew that -- and the millions he was speaking to knew that.

it was there in the headlines for all time -- that's my point re: historical record.
same with donnie -- and barack reaps the benefit.

and we here at du are told how gay folk should just wait for the rights they need.

my deceased partner was jewish -- and he and i owned property together -- and even here in cali -- we had to jump through hoops to get things in order when we combined households -- but that didn't stop his family from acting the nightmare both when he was sick{they didn't take care of him -- i did, but they made his last days a nightmare} and after he died when they raided what they could of our life together.

and i couldn't stop them. -- and my point there actually isn't personal -- that bigotry gets excused right down the smallest events.
it'll never make headlines -- but everyday this happens to us.

[Behind the Aegis]

119. I understand what you are saying.

My partner left DU after the 2004 re-selection. The "gays" were the reason Bush was re-selected. We were told we were to blame and we were "asking for too much too soon" and "being selfish." I remember those days vividly!

I am sorry to hear of your loss and the tragedy that followed and only compounded your loss. It is something I also fear. It is something we, as gays, live with everyday.

Jews, as a nation, face similar things on a world-wide perspective. While the discrimination is not the same, it is still there, and just as nasty. That was my original point, Jews and gays often get the short end of the stick, world-wide. In the US, African-Americans have more problems on a day to day basis. Bigotry should never be used to combat bigotry, nor should victims of bigotry be made out as having it better than others.

[xchrom]

120. indeed -- well said. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

141. In the interest of honest facts

I'd just like to point out that the comments made by 'iconic religious freaks' were made on the 700 Club TV show, hosted by Pat Robertson. This is the same show where McClurkin has made his most inflamatory statements, sitting beside the very same iconic religious freak. I'm not sure they are as out of the mainstream as you assume. They are not Koresh. So whose feeding the freaks?

I am finding this portion of the thread very interesting by the way. It is almost like a discussion!

[xchrom]

106. i want to remind people that barack EXCUSED donnie and his beliefs

while try to put air between them.

with comments like donnie wasn't trying to cure all gay people just those who wanted to be cured.

since then more and more evidence has been coming out about the abuses that go on inside these ex-gay ministries.

[Mr. Mule]

110. Hi Everone.

:-) I'm a newbie and this is my first post. Interesting discussion. As a gay man, I have to say the whole McClurkin "episode" pissed me off. I've discussed this with many of my friends, and all of them except one felt the same way. The one friend who wasn't terribly bothered with what happened keeps telling me to look at the big picture -- it's all about getting a democrat in the White House. I'm quite aware of that, but it still doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Those who say we're being too sensitive remind me of people who tell someone mourning the loss of a loved one to get on with his or her life. Each person is different. Just because you're uncomfortable with a person's reaction doesn't mean it isn't valid. I do find it interesting that BO starting inserting "gay" in his speeches AFTER McClurkin did him a favor. Perhaps a way of trying to make amends? I don't know. As my grandma used to say, "actions speak louder than words."

[Behind the Aegis]

117. Welcome!

You make some great points!

• it's all about getting a democrat in the White House. I'm quite aware of that, but it still doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.
  
• Those who say we're being too sensitive remind me of people who tell someone mourning the loss of a loved one to get on with his or her life. Each person is different. Just because you're uncomfortable with a person's reaction doesn't mean it isn't valid.
  
• I do find it interesting that BO starting inserting "gay" in his speeches AFTER McClurkin did him a favor.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[cboy4]

123. What an excellent post! :)

You must be a good guy to choose such a wonderful woman as your avatar.

Dang I sure miss her. :(

[terrya]

124. Yep. Very, very telling.

And sad. I'm still, to this day, offended by the McClurkin thing.

[susankh4]

126. I agree!

But... ya know... noone is gonna call him out on the McClurkin connection.

The Farrakan connection is far more damaging in the larger picture.

Too bad he is "just another politician" like the rest of 'em.

[rucky]

127. I'll have to agree.

I'm not sure if Obama really "gets it" on that issue - even now.

[Bullet1987]

128. Yea...he has over 1,000,000 supporters

[RoadRage]

131. That's totally incorrect..

He has MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF SUPPORTERS! He has over 1,000,000 DONATORS. :)

Think about it.. if every one of those people gave him $25 per month.. he'd make $25,000,000+ each month.

I can totally understand why he flip/flopped a bit on the McCain finance question last night.. he never in a million years thought he'd have this kind of campaign cash last fall. And, as much as Hillary supporters like to throw him under the bus for it now.. if he wins the nom, they're going to want him to use all of that cash and then some to secure a win in November. Stop thinking short term!

[cboy4]

132. Does anyone know what RoadRage is talking about...

other than not giving a shit about the feelings of decent human beings who happen to be gay?

[Bluebear]

142. Not a clue.

[KLee]

129. Found this also...

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/11/senator-barack.html



“If you are elected President, what concrete steps would you take to overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?' ”

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL):

Fourteen years ago, the Democratic Party faced a test of leadership, and our party failed that test. We had an opportunity to be leaders on the World stage in eliminating discrimination against gay and lesbian service members, to recognize the patriotism and heroism of the hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian citizens who have served our country. Instead, we bowed to fear and prejudice. We were told that American soldiers weren’t ready to serve next to gay and lesbian comrades. We were told that our airmen, sailors and Marines would lose their “unit cohesion” if we implemented a policy of equality. And so, rather than embracing leadership and principle, we embraced Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — a policy that is antithetical to the values of honor and integrity that our military holds most dear. Patriotic gay and lesbian Americans are now told that they may serve their country only if they hide their true identities. They are forced to live a lie as the price of risking their lives for their country.

Fourteen years later, the United States of America lags far behind. We lag behind our military allies, who are repudiating discrimination against lesbian and gay soldiers in ever increasing numbers — in Great Britain, Canada, Israel, nearly every NATO member in Europe — all with no impact upon military readiness and performance. And our politicians lag behind the American people, who now call for the repeal of Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell in super-majority numbers. It is time for a change.

As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military. I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I will direct my Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop procedures for taking re-accession requests from those qualified service members who were separated from the armed forces under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and still want to serve their country. The eradication of this policy will require more than just eliminating one statute. It will require the implementation of anti-harassment policies and protocols for dealing with abusive or discriminatory behavior as we transition our armed forces away from a policy of discrimination. The military must be our active partners in developing those policies and protocols. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office.

America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. All that is required is leadership.

[Solon]

130. I find Obama's choice of words especially revealing...

He "disagreed" with McClurkin, while he "strongly condemned" the Anti-Semitic remarks of Farrakhan. Hell, he CALLED Farrakhan an anti-Semite, but he couldn't say that McClurkin was a homophobe.

[cboy4]

133. Yea. Something else, ha?

:eyes:

[Catherine Vincent]

137. Great point!

:kick:

[avrdream]

143. Agree.

That is when he lost me.

[GoldieAZ49]

145. He has a strong Christian background and position

He is courting the conservative Christian vote, they support Israel, he is not going to alienate that large of a voting block.

His stump speeches are similar to a 'revival', some of his supporters are more like 'followers'. It is very emotional, the crying, the fainting etc.

[JoFerret]

146. Excellent point

Preachy, patronizing and prejudiced - Obama is a little bit of all three.