Re: Obama's letter to LGBT's. "Just as important...neither will I close my ears to the voices..."

[Bluebear]

'Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise
on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to
the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward
together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.'

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS

====

This is part of the letter touted as proof of Obama's commitment to LGBT Americans. In all sincerity, those of you who ridicule those of us who were offended by the McClurkin incident, can you understand why I question the necessity of including this paragraph in a letter "proving" his commitment to us?

What does he mean that "just as important" are the "voices" of those who need to be convinced?

Why in 2008 do we need to appease bigots, sexists, homophobes? I don't think their "voices" are just as important as ours. I would prefer he would say that those people can "move forward" with us if THEY choose to, but move forward we will.


Now, have at it. Again, I wil vote for whoever our nominee will be, and someone will be bound to call me a "scab-picker" again, but so be it.

[VenusRising]

1. I don't see it the way that way.

I see this as Obama's continued commitment to bring everyone to the table to allow all voices to be heard. That is what Democracy is all about. Even the hateful have a right to free speech. This statement tells me that even the smallest minority will be allowed a voice and included in discussions when it hasn't been that way for a long time, especially for the last 7 years. But because it is a Democracy, the majority rules and this small faction will not get their way, but they will not be able to claim they were left out of the general discussion either.

[yardwork]

7. Yes, the hateful have a right to free speech. But why does Obama have to make that point?

I don't see other candidates making a point of stating that the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, and other hate organizations have a right to free speech.

Suppose Obama made a point of reaching out to Jewish voters, which he doesn't have to do because it's understood that no serious Democratic candidate for president would be bigoted against Jewish people. (So there's a difference right there. It's still necessary to make a statement that one actually cares about gay people.) But let's suppose that Obama did write a piece like this on his website pointing out the obvious, which is that Jewish people deserve to be treated with "respect and dignity." (Are you feeling a little uncomfortable already? That's how gay people feel when someone has to make a point of saying that we deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Our reaction is - "ya think?")

Anyway, suppose that in the middle of this "nice" statement about treating Jewish people as human beings, Obama made a point of saying that he "wouldn't close his ears to those who have yet to be convinced." Um, there would be outrage. OUTRAGE.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton felt that it was necessary to put a statement on her website saying that black people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Some of her detractors here have accused her of lynching, so maybe they think that she should say something like this. Suppose that Hillary followed it up with a statement that her "ears aren't closed" to people who think that black people should *not* be treated with dignity and respect. Can you imagine the outrage?

Why do you think that I should feel any differently? I'm being told by a presidential candidate that he thinks I deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and then told that he's still going to listen to people who think otherwise. Ay yi yi.

[joeybee12]

20. That was my point exactly...

...and to see people here not getting it is bvery discouraging.

[yardwork]

107. I just added them to my ignore list.

Some people are actually proud of their hatreds, but I don't have to read their crap.

[VenusRising]

22. I don't think that you should feel any differently.

I would never deign to tell people how they should feel. I just want this country to be back on track when it comes to civil liberties and equality for everyone. I think that he made the statement because it shows that no minority will be left voiceless in the wilderness and it just so happened that it was this issue where he took the most heat and where he felt he could address it.

But, I won't claim to know his intention. I do see your position that it wasn't really necessary in this letter.

[goclark]

69. I am naive perhaps but I see the letter as one that

needed to be written.

I am a minority so I believe that I understand something about sensitivity or lack of it on the part of those that are not walking in my shoes.

That said,must we tear each sentence apart or do we work to build bridges to the future?

As Rodney King said so eloquently," Can't we all get along?"

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. How do you change minds if you do not engage them?

A number of years ago the leader of my congregation - he was a cantor, actually, not a rabbi, but all we had, held out his hand to a man who had been sending him and his family the awfullest hate mail. He was a local nazi leader, and so bound up in his hate and bitterness that he seemed unreachable. But to every insult, he was answered with gentleness and a willing ear. And finally, one day, the man took him up on an invitation to dine.

When he died, a few years later, from complications of diabetes, he had completely renounced his anti-semitism, and was always welcome at the Cantor's house, and he spoke at the man's funeral.

Where he was protested by the man's former nazi friends.

The haters CAN be reached. But not by ignoring them.

[joeybee12]

2. What if he had used those words in a letter to the NAACP or a prominent

Jewish organization...what voices would he be listening to then?

My point, he, and too many people, believe that homophobia is somehow different from other forms of bigotry, somehow not as bad, somehow acceptable.

[peacebird]

3. sounds to me like he plans to listen first so he can address their concerns as he explains

to them that it is fundamentally a question of fairness and equal rights for all.

Easier to make the case if you listen to see WHY people are against it.... No?

[yardwork]

9. We already know why people are against gay people. The Bible tells them so, they claim.

They have a right to their opinion. Why does Obama have to give them airtime? White supremacists cite the Bible to justify their beliefs. Does Obama give them airtime?

[MagsDem]

13. LOL -- yeah, and then he can listen to the KKK

[LisaM]

4. I don't think the voices balance out, frankly. It's hooey.

That's like saying you should bring in the KKK to balance out the NAACP. But they are groups with two vastly different aims and purposes.

[Alexander]

5. Good Lord. He wants to convince homophobes, not appease them.

That wasn't clear in the letter?

I know of several people I convinced in high school of the fact that homosexuality isn't anything to be afraid of, and I wouldn't have gotten anywhere if I just yelled "You bigoted asshole!" at them.

[joeybee12]

6. Then Obama needs to start talking to the KKK as well...

...or is that different?

[Alexander]

11. Not even close. The KKK is a hate group.

Show me evidence Obama appeased a homophobic hate group, and I'll concede the point.

But you can't. Because he didn't.

Nice try, though.

[joeybee12]

16. Giving someone who says gays are out to kill our children a mic...

...may not be a hate group, but that is hate, and if you don't get that, maybe you need a new dictionary. Nice try.

[Alexander]

30. Letting a confused closeted homophobe speak for 30 minutes...

Is nowhere near the level of courting the KKK, whose members have lynched and murdered black people starting in the 1870s.

There are different degrees of hate, and if you really think every issue is in black-and-white terms, this board may not be the right place for you.

Nice try, though. Thanks for playing. You can pick up your consolation prize on the way out.

[LostinVA]

46. Research the ex-gay movement -- it kills people

McClurkin flat out says that gays are killing our children.

[joeybee12]

54. And he's part of an organization that preaches this sort of thing...

...not just a 30 minute rant...amazing how these homophobes on DU will try and convicne themselves of their open-mindedness.

[Alexander]

64. Who has McClurkin killed? Nobody.

Comparing him to the KKK is ridiculous.

[LostinVA]

77. Once again, research the ex-gay movement and gay teen suicide, then get back to me

The ex-gay movement kills. McClurkin is one of their spokesmen.

[joeybee12]

49. Oh please, the only reason he wouldn't ask for their support

is they wouldn't vote for him, homophobic black evangelicals will...glad to see you believe your homphobia is welcome here and deign to tell others to leave.

[Alexander]

65. Homophobia? Easy for you to say when you're anonymous.

I doubt you are gay or care about gay rights at all. This is just more fake outrage from the Shillbot camp.

[joeybee12]

67. Yes, I am gay...sorry that I like the Red Sox, too...

...please stop insulting people.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[joeybee12]

72. Trying to justify bigotry against gays and lesbians is homophobia...

...and that's pathetic...and you're too blind and self-righteous to see it.

[Alexander]

75. I never justified bigotry, and you know it. Your spinning and lying grows tiresome.

[joeybee12]

76. Let's see...not trying to engage racists is understanding...

...but we need to engage homophobes...do we need to engage anti-semites? Oh, that's right, it's just the bigots who might actually vote for BO...gotta make them happy.

[stevenleser]

115. You had me until you told me you like the Sox, Damn you!!! Seriously though...

see my post downthread. I have engaged at least one anti-semite and I am Jewish and the son of a holocaust survivor so it was not easy. I really wanted to kill this person. In most cases, I have not engaged but reacted much more harshly.

But no one can tell you that you HAVE to engage a bigot. That is the difference. If someone told me I HAD to engage anti-semites I would tell them to go pound sand.

But there are people who make a point of reaching out to bigots and trying to change them. They dont do that by going up to them and saying "You are an effing bigot, so you'd better change now!" They do that by engaging them. I think anyone doing that is doing something that is admirable, whether the people being engaged are anti-semites, racists, homophobes, sexists, etc.

[terrya]

10. Barack Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

If he can somehow get the likes of the Focus on the Family, the American Family Association and the Concerned Women of America, among too many others, to accept us as GLBT people.

[Alexander]

12. Well, he'll repeal all of DOMA, which Hillary won't. So who's friendlier to LGBT rights?

[MagsDem]

17. LOL - yeah, he'll repeal DOMA, right

Why doesn't he introduce a bill to do that now then? Why hasn't he in the 3 yrs he has been in the senate? He has no intention of repealing DOMA. Hell, he was too cowardly to even have his picture taken next to Gavin Newsome for fear it might hurt his presidential chances. Get real.

[terrya]

18. Personally, I don't think Hiilary will, either.

I think ultimately a court will rule DOMA unconstitutional. That's the only way it's going to be struck down. I guess I'm sort of discouraged about this one.

[joeybee12]

19. Agreed...neither will get the votes in the Senate or House...

...and it's not something either would be able to spend a great deal of political capital on doing.

[yardwork]

8. Aaaaaah! I knew it was too good to believe.

Told to go to the back of the bus. Again. Dammit.

[SoxFan]

14. Here we go again

[Bluebear]

41. It's a dead horse to YOU, because you don't give a shit, as you have shown many times.

[SoxFan]

97. Have I, now?

Please elaborate, and be specific.

[MagsDem]

15. He's a joke on this issue

This proves that he just doesn't get it. He wouldn't say he can't close his ears to the concerns of racists would he? Sorry, but he is a joke on this issue.

[Straight Shooter]

21. His patronizing purple prose is beginning to get on my nerves, big time. n/t

[maddiejoan]

23. Right here

"But neither will I close my ears to
the voices of those who still need to be convinced."

THAT's the problem.

Why is he giving bigotry equal weight?

We are talking human rights here --not a policy difference.

[1awake]

24. Not to sure

I can comment on this Blue... Whats the saying.. until you've walked a mile in another man's/person's shoes..? I haven't walked in yours, or many others, so I think I should sit back and pay attention rather than jumping in arrogantly to try and sway you to someone I have no idea if he will back ya. Peace

[Bluebear]

43. Thanks, that is respectful. Peace back at you.

[Unsane]

25. A new low, even for you.

Somehow, in your backwards mind, wanting to change bigots' minds is a bad thing.

W.T.F.

[hulklogan]

26. Wanting to change bigots' minds is not a bad thing

Telling the victims of bigotry that the views of the people who want to kill them are equally important is the bad thing.

[Unsane]

29. Where does he say their VIEWS are equally important?

[hulklogan]

32. Where does he say he wants to change bigots' minds?

[Unsane]

35. "those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do..."

Now, I'm waiting for YOUR response.

[hulklogan]

38. He says he will listen to bigots, not try to change their minds

"That is the work we must do..." relates to the verb in the previous sentence, not the adverb "convinced.

And stating that he will listen to bigots, in a letter specifically written to their victims, implies that he thinks their opinions are equally deserving of an audience.

[Unsane]

39. What does "convince" mean?

Are you serious?

[hulklogan]

44. If you believe that Senator Obama is 100% committed to full equality in his first 100 days

you've had too much koolaid.

We don't need the bigots to be convinced that we need equal rights, we just need them to shut the fuck up and mind their own business. I don't want to share a table at the Obama White House Thanksgiving with the bigots that Obama wants to listen to.

Thanks.

[Mark Twain Girl]

27. Why on earth was there a need to say that he will give an ear to bigots?

Why, why, WHY is it acceptable to listen to homophobes? It would not (appropriately) be acceptable to listen to people who need to be "convinced" that blacks or Jews or women deserve equal rights. And this is not acceptable, it's just opportunism about basic socio-economic and civil rights. Obama can couch it in whatever pretentious prose he chooses -- it doesn't change it. I will not sit at a table with people who think there is a class of citizens who can be legitimately denied civil rights. And I think Obama is an appeaser if he will. Frankly, most politicians are, shamelessly, appeasers on this issue, but pretending Obama is any different is the problem.

Obama is saying that bigots are equally as important as LGBT Americans and their civil rights. To hell with that.

[Occam Bandage]

28. "of those who still need to be convinced." OMG OBAMA THINKS BIGOTS SHOULD BE CONVINCED

TO STOP BEING BIGOTS.

You can't convince someone if you don't talk to them.

[JuniperLea]

33. Any bigot who thinks BHO is trying to convince them otherwise...

Isn't going to listen to him anyway.

[Unsane]

36. Wow, you call yourself a christian but don't believe in redemption on this issue.

weird

Are you saying bigots can't reform their ways and we shouldn't even try? That isn't a very christian position to take.

[JuniperLea]

42. Ummm... where the hell did I call myself a Christian?

I'm pure Agnostic... a recovering Fundy, if you will. I have never, ever professed to be a Christian here on DU.

[joeybee12]

52. Then go to talk to racists and anti-semites...listen to their voices...

...and not just the voices of the homophobes whose votes you can get.

[LiberalAndProud]

79. I have observed that bigots can't be convinced.

Have you had a better experience than I?

In the past, equal rights have been adjudicated and legislated, not "convinced".

[Jamastiene]

92. If we had waited to "convince" those people in Selma

or Montgomery, Alabama way back when, we wouldn't even be having this debate now because Obama wouldn't even be allowed to vote, much less run for president. You don't wait to "convince" a bigot that they need to quit being a bigot. You make laws that punish their violent actions.

[JuniperLea]

31. Fence sitting is always unattractive...

And giving voice to bigotry is about as disgusting as it gets. All Fundie Christian groups that hate on any human being is a) not Christian (Christ-like) and b) a hate group by virtue of their actions.

Great OP, Bluebear!

[Bluebear]

45. Thank you. I was so hopeful when I read the letter posted here until I reached that paragraph.

[JuniperLea]

51. Hate groups should have no voice, imho

Free speech doesn't hurt others. The KKK shouldn't have a voice either... cross burning isn't free speech... painting swastikas on a neighbor's fence isn't free speech either. Encouraging people to hate one another isn't worthy of protection.

[Bluebear]

56. 'Encouraging people to hate one another isn't worthy of protection.' BRAVA!

[cali]

62. No you wern't .

You've made it clear that there is nothing Obama could do that would redeem him in your eyes. If he apologized for McClurkin I don't believe you'd accept. You have an industrial size case of hate.

[JuniperLea]

70. I should have known Little Miss Merry Sunshine would chime in...

:eyes:

[Alexander]

74. Well, she's 100% correct.

[JuniperLea]

80. In your opinion...

And you are welcome to it.

[David Zephyr]

91. The OP is just another transparent way to introduce a new McClurkin thread every day.

It's getting to be somewhat of a sport for me watching for the same handful of posters with their faux outrage take a topic (any topic from split pea soup to bowling in winter) and work an angle into it in order to get still another "Obama and McClurkin Hate Gay People" thread going.

It's fun to watch how inventive they are actually.

I usually ignore them, but this OP taking such a positive message from Senator Obama and then by post #48 equating his comments with a sinister, evil subliminal message was just too reprehensible to ignore.

Don't worry. There will be more. It's easy to play:

1.) Take a news story of the day.

2.) Begin an OP and by the second paragraph begin linking it to Donnie McClurkin.

3.) PM the usual participants and let them know that there's another opportunity for "faux outrage".

[bigtree]

34. voices of those who still need to be convinced? Bigots?

who else "needs to be convinced?"

I'd run with this. It just sounds ignorant.

[RunningFromCongress]

37. EVERY voice is as important as the next. Welcome to equality.

[Bluebear]

47. Equality for Nazis! Equality for KKK! EVRY voice is as important as the next!

Bullshit.

[Unsane]

50. False analogy

He isn't saying their views or voices are equally important; he is simply saying we should act to convince them otherwise. I'm done with this nonsense. The "Obama hates gays" crew will see what they want to see. Luckily a majority of gays don't even agree with you.

[JuniperLea]

53. How fortunate that the majority of gays have you for their voice!

:sarcasm:

[joeybee12]

55. Then act to convince ant-semites and racists of them being wrong...

...not just black homophobic evangelicals whose votes he needs.

[JuniperLea]

48. So, Hitler's voice is important too...

good to know.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

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

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Because I don't think that's intended to be about appeasement

I read it as realizing that there is still much work to do persuading people to see things as we do. That ignoring the bigots or pushing them away in the end solves little, but bringing them around creates huge change. To me that's akin to what happens when someone has spent their life believing homosexuality to be evil, then befriends the nice guy next door, only to discover he's not evil at all, he's actually quite human, and maybe, just maybe the hate has been wrong.

I do understand your concern. But I also think that the way forward is to bring change to people, not just divide into "us" and "them" and hope for incremental victories. Every single person who has their eyes opened is a big jump forward, and that will snowball, until equality isn't an issue, but a simple fact.

[Unsane]

58. Beautiful post. Thanks.

[JerseygirlCT]

60. Thank *you*! nt

[VenusRising]

84. Great post, JerseygirlCT!

:applause:

[JerseygirlCT]

88. Thanks! nt

[anonymous171]

59. SHUN EVERYONE WITH DIFFERING OPINIONS!

BECAUSE THEY WILL TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU THEN! Way to gain converts!

[joeybee12]

71. Bigotry is not an opinion....

...racism is not an opinion...anti-semitism is not an opinion...sexism is not an opinion...homophobia is not an opinion...stop trying to justify bigotry...it's very unbecoming.

[anonymous171]

83. Who said anything about justifying?

[readmoreoften]

86. Is repealing civil rights for Blacks also just a differing opinion that needs to be entertained?

What about refusing to allow women being doctors? Or girls to go to school?

God forbid a candidate should turn their backs on a voting bloc with such valuable opinions as these.

[anonymous171]

87. What the hell are you talking about?

Seriously...

[Bluebear]

96. Yes, I shun bigots, racists and homophobes. Sorry about that.

[Danger Mouse]

61. I don't necessarily think it's about appeasing...

more so than listening, so that at least their voices are heard.
Obviously, some people will need to be convinced...they're not evil, just ignorant and scared of what they don't understand.
Fred Phelps and his kind, and others like him, are just plain evil.
Anyway, that's how the words struck me. I don't think he would appease...at least, I hope he wouldn't.

[dcindian]

66. Did you read the whole letter or did you just...

Pick out a paragraph out of context to justify your vote?

Really who is the bigot? The person who picks their side and ignore others or the person who engages for betterment of all?

The really really sad thing here is that you are so bigoted against Obama you cannot see it for what it is. That quality which you claim to detest is the exact same as the quality you most often show.



Edited for readability

[1awake]

73. bigoted.... get a grip. n/t

[dcindian]

81. I believe I have used the word correctly

Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.
2. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person


One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[joeybee12]

78. Let's engage the racists! n/t

[dcindian]

82. Sure I am up for that.

They may hold a different value system then me. They may hate me for the race I am.

But I will not become them to try and beat them.

That is what progressivism is all about.

[Bluebear]

94. No, I just picked out a paragraph out of context to justify my vote for Edwards. (oh brother)

The really "sad" thing is calling someone "bigoted" against Obama and talking about my "qualities". When you're here 5 years and see my posts which don't involve your candidate you can judge me.

[angie_love]

110. say what you want to about Obama, but he is the only presidential candidate in history

to place an ad specifically for the Gay and lesbian community. No other candidate in HISTORY has done that. He is making a small step forward and it should be appreciated.

[readmoreoften]

85. Who would want to close their ears to the beatitudes of Those Who Need To Be Convinced.

So what is it that "Those Who Need To Be Convinced" are saying?

1. Satan get thee behind me-- I sure do hate a faggot.
2. Gays kill children.
3. But they're inferior to us!
4. They're a plague. I know it's unpopular to say, but AIDS is a plague sent by the Lord.
5. Love the sinners, hate the sin--especially those sinful 20 year, happy, monogamous gay relationship.
6. They are infected with a disease that can be cured through the miracle of forced bisexuality.
7. My beloved candidate, what can you do to limit the scourge of the gay upon my family?

Who wouldn't want to listen to the Need-Bees?

[NMMNG]

89. Exactly

Why is he never anxious to hear the voices of racists who need to be convinced? Why is it only homophobes that he thinks need to be heard, "reached out to" and given a place in his big tent? I am sick to death of his blatant double standard.

[ecstatic]

90. So why isn't Clinton for gay marriage? Is it due to her beliefs

or is she trying to appease homophobes?

[terrya]

93. Oh...recommended.

[Bluebear]

95. So, no record left of someone calling me "mentally ill" I see lol

[donheld]

98. Great letter. I still say Barack Obama will do us well

I will proudly vote for him again, if I get a chance.

[Mr. Mule]

99. Not again...

I've been lurking in the shadows here on DU for a couple of months and just registered this week. Every time this topic comes up, it devolves into a wrestling match with boths side retreating to their respective corners. Personally, I'd find the Obama letter encouraging except for the fact he DID share the stage with McClukin. To me, it's seems more like an affirmation of a bigot's beliefs, rather than listening to "the voices of those who still need to be convinced". Sorry if anyone's offended, but that's the way it felt in my gut.

Imagine if Hillary courted the vote of the Dobson, Friend of the Family crowd. There'd be outrage! "How dare she get in bed with those folks, just for some votes." As I stated in a post the other night, those who claim we're overreacting remind me of those people who tell someone grieving the loss of a loved one to get on with his/her life. Each person is different. Just because you're uncomfortable with how we feel doesn't make those feelings invalid.

I'm a yellow-dog democrat, so I'll most definitely vote for whoever the nominee is. That doesn't mean I can't express any concerns I have with the candidates. Isn't that what the primaries are for in the first place?

[CyberPieHole]

100. Obama's pandering to the homophobic bigots is DISGUSTING...

He's barely offering an olive branch to the LGBTQ community. NOW he needs the support of the very same group of people he stepped on when he pandered to the likes of McClurkin. Shame on him and shame on anyone who feels this behavior is acceptable.

[xchrom]

101. this ranks right up there with that ''set of basic rights''

barack wants to give gay folk so we can learn how to act right and won't get ourselves discriminated against.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

[CyberPieHole]

102. Did Obama ACTUALLY say that? "Live their lives in a way that DOESN'T CAUSE DISCRIMINATION"?

:wtf:

I suppose Lesbians need to look all pretty and should be flirtty and giggly. And gay males should stop skipping and saying "SNAPS FOR DRAMA"? At least in PUBLIC, so as to not "CAUSE DISCRIMINATION".:grr:

*runs to the google to read up on this info*

[Morning Dew]

103. that quote

just sickens me every time I read it.

I'm so tired of being thrown under the wheels of the bus.

[CyberPieHole]

105. I'd never read that quote before. Obama only cares about minorities if he is in the minority...

Otherwise he's as bad as W. Obama did not need to pander to these religious bigots: He chose to do so.

[Hillary_Hillary]

104. I don't buy it.. He's already shown his true colors wrt GLBT.

[barack the house]

106. ...

[NMMNG]

108. Here's something you might enjoy

It's long, but interesting.

[angie_love]

109. Say what you want to about Obama, but he is the only presidential candidate in history

to place an ad specifically for the Gay and lesbian community. No other candidate in HISTORY has done that. He is making a small step forward and it should be appreciated.

[NMMNG]

122. First of all, I doubt you even read the piece.

Second of all Obama only placed those ads now: when he's desperate for the LGBT vote after he threw us under the bus and thinks he needs to suck up to us. Where were the ads when he was touring SC, which is chock-full of homophobes? Oh, that's right, he was using rabid homophobes to get votes from other homophobes back then.

[stevenleser]

111. Long story, one I hope you find worthwhile...

I was the Democratic Party District Chair of District 50 in Pinellas County, Florida. The county chair made it known that she wanted us to have more county minority caucus groups to help us reach out to various minority groups. We already had an African American caucus and a Women's caucus, but no Hispanic caucus, GLBT caucus, etc. I volunteered to try to start a GLBT caucus. At the time, those in Florida were called Triangle Caucuses even though the nationwide ones were called Stonewall. I think all are now known as Stonewall, not sure.

I invited one of the Nationwide heads of the Stonewall caucus to a District 50 meeting to talk to us and see if he could help me get people to join the new Triangle caucus in Pinellas. He enthusiastically agreed. He gave a great speech and then opened up the floor to questions and answers. The question that he was asked almost caused me to faint with shock. I was so shocked that even with my poor memory I will never forget this. During his speech, he explained that he was a gay man and was the leader of a scouting troop, etc. The question that was asked of him was whether we ought to be concerned if Gays and Lesbians went camping with children. The questioner said that she was concerned and wanted to know if she was right to be concerned.

Now, the person from the National Stonewall Caucus turned out to be just about the most patient and understanding and unflappable person I have ever met. He was completely unfazed by this obviously inconsiderate sounding question. He proceeded to say that just like straight people, gay adults are interested in complete relationships that involve intelligent conversation, shared responsibilities, etc. and are not interested in being with children. He explained that there is no correlation or connection between being a member of the GLBT community and being a pedophile.

Now, I have explained this to many people before and since, but I cannot imagine being a person who is presenting at a gathering of people and then having someone come up and ask if essentially, you are a pedophile who cannot be trusted with children. But, as a result of his patient and well delivered answer, you could tell that this woman was convinced. I would have described her opinion prior to this as being bigoted, perhaps many of you would too, but afterwards, I think she understood better what it meant to be gay and understood that her prejudices were wrong.

If you engage people who have prejudices, this will happen at least some of the time. If you shut those people out, opportunities like these to change opinions will not happen. I understand the idea that it is hard to do. I have a multi minority background that includes African, Hispanic and Jewish. My father is a holocaust survivor. Reaching out to members of the KKK or Neo Nazi groups would be VERY difficult for me. But, I dont criticize people who are trying to reach out to people in those groups to try to change them.

Just my 2 cents.

[Solon]

112. Apples and Oranges...

The guy you are talking about in your story CHALLENGED someone's prejudice, I have yet to see Obama do so in a clear way. In fact, in many of his speeched(the "We're all sinners speech", for example), actually makes things worse because he adopts the languages of the homophobes, and in cases like that, reinforces their own beliefs. The McClurkin incident is another classic example, he made a half hearted attempt at bringing the pro-acceptance side into a situation dominated by homophobes. He decries homophobia in GENERAL terms all the time, while at the same time seems to appease the homophobes themselves by adopting their language and characterizations. That's just horrendous.

[stevenleser]

113. He didnt challenge the Prejudice...

... he discussed it with the person. It was most certainly done in non-challenging language. I probably would not have been as able to do that.

Obama's general way about him is to not turn off anyone. He is the same way in the Israel vs Palestinians issue. He closes the door to no one. I think he believes that coming from that angle, he gets everyone to listen to him and therefore has an opportunity to affect change and change people's minds.

I think he is right. I think because of the way he addresses these things, he has the opportunity to make change and change people's minds. Perhaps you think the way to change someone's mind is to go to them and say "You are an effing bigot so change your mind or else?" Has that worked for you?

Actually, I have to say in my own defense that I have been able to do this with respect to this one temp that was hired at work who turned to me to tell me how terrible Jews were. I was fairly non challenging as well. I asked him what his thoughts were on the Israeli Palestinian conflict and got the answer I expected and then calmly told him that there was a party in Israel (Labor) whose thoughts were not far from his (unlike the Likud party) and that it is hard to lump all Jews together because like in this situation, Jews have very different beliefs and goals.

He stared at me blankly for a few seconds and again asked me the names of the political parties in Israel and then promptly wrote them down and started researching. Did I change a mind? I dont know. He was let go not long after that for unrelated reasons so I couldnt follow up. A few weeks later I told my boss the whole situation and she asked me why I didnt go to her right away and I said that I knew if I did he would be fired and that would not have changed who he was.

So, OK, enough with patting myself on the back. In reality, I am not sure how often this will work, but the point is being more confrontational generally has zero chances of working. Obama has a dialogue with the religious right, there is no question about that. The question is, can he leverage that dialogue to help change who they are. I think that is his goal. I think he is helped by new forces within the religious right who believe that the fundies are going off on the wrong path, that they need to stress being anti-poverty, anti-war and violence, and being forgiving and gentle vs what they have become. More later...

[Solon]

114. You can challenge someone's beliefs without insulting them...

Your other example proves that, what I'm saying is that Obama hasn't really done that at all. He basically says "Homophobia is bad, mmmkay?" and that's about it. That's not challenging anyone's beliefs, and then he turns around and uses a blatant Homophobe in a concert he sponsored, with a half hearted attempt to alleviate GLBT concerns by hiring a white gay minister who had 5 minutes to speak, before most people even arrived at the concert.

That isn't opening up a dialog, its playing both sides for your own benefit. Taking your example, if you responded by saying "antisemitism is not cool, okay?" I doubt you would have changed that person's mind about it.

ON EDIT: To bring my point home, Obama should have told the audience at the concert that it was impossible for McClurkin to be "ex-gay" considering that being gay was an immutable characteristic, according to the scientific community. That would have challenged their beliefs, and forced them to think. He didn't do that.

[stevenleser]

116. But just think for a moment about how it would be if someone who has the relationship that he has

cultivated with all of these different groups, GLBT, Religious Right, Palestinians, Israelis, etc., actually is given the mantle of the Presidency and now can reach out and talk to people and say, Palestinians, you deserve a state and we are going to do that right now, but you have to stop bombing and killing people, Israelis, you have the right to be secure in your country, but the Palestinians deserve a state too so lets give them one right now. Fundies, you have the right to practice your religion as you see fit, and I will fight for that as well as some basic religious principles like being anti-war and pro the poor, but you do not have the right in this country to deny others their basic rights, etc.

He has a relationship with all of these groups now that can be leveraged. They will listen to him. That doesnt automatically mean that they will give in to his demands, but with his ability to persuade, I dont believe it is beyond his abilities. I think we will come back a few years from now and realize that this guy had a lot more in him than even his most fervent supporters realized.

[Solon]

117. You seem to put a lot of faith in a politician...

that's just nuts.

[stevenleser]

118. Voting for and supporting someone for office, or for that matter, hiring someone for a job is...

just that, a leap of faith. You never really know what someone is going to do when you give them your vote or a job. I see the potential for real greatness in Obama, the kind that comes around maybe once or twice in a century. Its true that he could disappoint me, no question about it, but I am a pretty good judge of people. When I have had the ability to hire people for jobs, I often went through 50 applicants for a single position, but those who I have hired had a very high probability of being successful.

Obama would assume office with the economy in a shambles, our troops overextended in a war that didnt have to be fought, our country divided like it hasnt been since the civil war, etc. etc. It would really be no surprise for any given person to fail in a role with the situation being so horrific. I think he is going to really turn things around. I think while taking care of all of those things, he is going to really change things for the GLBT community, for blacks and for a lot of other disaffected groups.

[AtomicKitten]

119. I wonder if you caught Dan Savage reporting on the Obama campaign on Real Time last night.

He followed Obama into black churches where Obama chastised them on homophobia. I've been saying that for a while now, falling on deaf ears; I guess it's tough to keep up an internets jihad with actual germane information.

[stevenleser]

120. Which is what I thought he would do as I mentioned to Solon just a bit upthread

He can do this because he has a dialogue with them and because he knows how to do this without turning them off. This is what I would expect from someone like him who is on our side and has the gifts that he has.

[Solon]

121. Problem is he uses that bullshit "Love the sinner" framing that is really damn...

offensive to most GLBT people. They AREN'T sinners because of who they are, so Obama should stop alienating them in this manner.