What will some Obama supporters say about GLBT members' concerns if he wins the nomination?

[hulklogan]

For weeks now, several people raising non-McClurkin concerns about Senator Obama's out-of-touch statements and missteps when it comes to GLBT issues have been accused of being Hillbots and attacking Senator Obama to score political points.

What will happen after Senator Obama is the nominee? Some of us have real doubts that have yet to be fully addressed by the Obama campaign, and these doubts are probably not going to magically go away once the nomination has been decided.

Before anyone accuses me of being a Hillbot, I will come out and say that I did not caucus for Senator Clinton and will vote for Senator Obama in the GE should he win the nomination (though I shouldn't have to justify my post this way). I'm not trying to create flamebait with this, I really would like to have a calm and serious discussion about how we can heal this rift in our party.

edited to correct my problems with verb agreement in the first sentence. did not change meaning.

[Bicoastal]

1. What will I say? I'll say no matter what Obama thinks about GLBT folks...

...it's surely miles and miles away from John McCain's opinion.

[hulklogan]

3. I worry about the "At least he's better than McCain" approach, to be honest.

How does that address the concerns of those GLBT voters, really? I've read many posts here that say the "At least our guy is better than the alternative" view just isn't good enough any more.

[anonymous171]

2. I haven't heard anything but Mcclurkin concerns.

Although perhaps the legitimate threads were drowned out by McClurkin threads.

[hulklogan]

4. They're here, but they do get overshadowed by all the McClurkin shouting

The "set of basic rights" statement, the perceived difference in Senator Obama's reaction to racism compared to his reaction to anti-gay bigotry, and his religious justification for not supporting full marriage equality are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I've seen other concerns, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Edwards gave the exact same justification. Only Kucinich & Gavel supported full marriage equality.

Hillary sure doesn't.

[hulklogan]

14. I'd appreciate your opinion on the original question

which was how should or how will the Obama supporters address GLBT concerns if he is the nominee?

I think we've all realized that Senator Clinton is a long shot for the nomination, and the other three candidates you named are no longer in the race.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. "we've all realized that Senator Clinton is a long shot for the nomination"?

She's been in a near statistical dead heat with Obama for a while, now. If he's leading her, it's only slightly. She based her entire early campaign on the idea that she was the inevitable nominee, so get used to it. She hasn't dropped out yet, so I don't see why she should get a free pass for having essentially the same stance on marriage equality that Obama does.

As for your question, I can't really speak for "the Obama supporters". Obama wasn't my first choice, he wasn't my second choice. My first choice didn't run. My second choice dropped out early. So I can really only speak for myself, and my view as a straight, white, married male is, that there should be no compromise on the issue of full equality, including marriage equality, for our GLBT citizens. Period.

As for "addressing concerns", I don't know- as others have noted, most of the Concerns seem to pertain to the McClurkin episode. Frankly, the McClurkin thing pissed me off, too. Being an Atheist, so did Obama's comment that he didn't think any kids "felt discriminated against for having to say Under God" in the pledge.

But I thought Edwards's comments on gay marraige (John's, not Elizabeth's) were idiotic as well. Fact is, NONE of these people represent where I stand on 100% of the issues. I want a candidate who will end the idiotic drug war, legalize and tax marijuana, immediate institute a SPHC system, cut the military budget down to 1/3 of what it is now, and commit the human race to begin terraforming Mars before the end of this century. I realize I may not get everything I want in a politician. But I'm firmly committed to the idea of Marriage equality; I don't think equal rights are negotiable or 'baragainable'. I've been disappointed in almost all of our candidates on this, save Gavel and Kucinich.

I don't think it's the place of Obama supporters to address the concerns of some GLBT voters (obviously not all, since as the SF Chronicle noted, Obama's Deputy Campaign director is an openly gay man) ... that onus really falls on the candidate and his statments and actions.

Here's what the Obama website has to say regarding LGBT Americans:

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

It's interesting to note that Obama acknowledges LGBT Americans, issues, and supporters on his website. Hillary, as near as I can tell, does not.

[ruggerson]

5. Here you go

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/02/08/barack-obama-and-the-fierce-urgency-of-now/

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Let's distill this down to the basic points raised in this piece, okay?

#1) "he seemed, somehow, uncomfortable and out of his element discussing issues of importance to gays and lesbians."

That's one person's opinion, one person's feeling, but the proof is in the pudding in the positions Obama has taken and the statements he has made. He doesn't support full marriage equality, to his shame- but neither does Hillary Clinton.

#2) McClurkin, which has been re-hashed endlessly and which we're assured this isn't about.

#3) According to Willie Brown, Obama didn't want his picture taken with Gavin Newsom in 2004. Let's see what Obama's Deputy Campaign mgr. has to say about this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL&type=printable

His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it "a ridiculous story."

"Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time," Hildebrand said. "Including me, his deputy campaign manager."

Now, we all love Willie Brown out here in Northern California (and Gavin Newsom as well), but the guy is nothing if not tied into establishment Democratic power corridors and status quo party pooh-bah networks. And nothing says party pooh-bah like Bill and Hillary Clinton. So is the story true? Maybe, maybe not.

According to the same SF Chron piece, Willie Brown's take on the whole thing is as such:

Brown says he doesn't blame Obama for his caution. Today, of course, the Illinois senator is happy to embrace gay causes. But in 2004, nationally, same-sex marriage was a radical notion.

"What they ought to say is, 'Damn right I did it, and I'd do it again,' " Brown said of the Obama camp. "He was in a race for the Senate, and I am guessing that downstate Illinois is a pretty red (meaning conservative) group of voters."

So what you're left with, here, after you take away McClurkin and an admitted Hillary supporter's feeling that Obama's stated support of gay rights wasn't emphatic enough... is a hearsay story about a potentially political decision by a 2004 senate candidate running in a state with a difficult demographics.

And how is this different (or worse) than Hillary's clearly political decision to vote for the Iraq War, and her political decision to not acknowledge that vote as a mistake?

At least thousands of American lives and a trillion tax dollars weren't lost as a result of Obama not getting his picture taken with Gavin Newsom.

[ruggerson]

18. Okay

1) Yes, it's my personal opinion. We all make personality judgements about candidates. They may be dead on target or they may be off base. We have no way of knowing for sure unless we know the candidates personally. This was a gut value judgement that still resonates when I see him speak about these issues. It's my take, but it's just as valid as yours or anyone elses.

2) "He doesn't support full marriage equality, to his shame- but neither does Hillary Clinton."

Yep, but Barack has said that his religious beliefs inform his opinion about same sex marriage (although he admits this should not affect decisions in the civil arena). Hillary has said the country is not ready for it. That's an important distinction for me and many other people. One is tactical and one is not. I believe Hillary has absolutely no problem with same sex marriage. She just thinks the country isn't there yet.

3) I know for a fact that the Newsom snub occurred. I have a friend of many years who is very close with Gavin, and he told her about it when it first happened in 2004. He's since been vocal about it, at many different events, as he is still, to this day, a bit blown away by it. The story is true.

4) I don't believe Hillary's platform on these issues is remarkably better than Barack's. They are almost identical. What I see is a difference in priority and commitment and tone. I'll be delighted if Obama gets elected and turns out to be committed to using the bully pulpit to speak out about this and other human rights issues and to really push for concrete legislation. But what I've seen so far is cynical exploitation, for political gain, of the black evangelical community's anti-gay prejudices.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Obama acknowledges LGBT issues and Americans on his website. If Hillary does, it's well hidden.

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

How's that for a difference in priority and commitment and tone?

[nonconformist]

6. He's refused to be photographed with SF mayor Gavin Newsom, for one. nt

[Hieronymus]

15. What are you talking about? Newsom endorsed Hillary long ago .. did he ..

switch?

[nonconformist]

17. Here you go

Obama snub still rankles Newsom
<snip>
In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.

He was asked about the flak he took after announcing that San Francisco would allow same-sex marriages - flak that included claims he had helped Republicans by handing them a wedge issue heading into a presidential election year. In the interview, Newsom admitted he'd been hammered over the decision. "And I'm not just saying from Republicans," he added at the time.

"One of the three Democrats you mentioned as presidential candidates, as God is my witness, will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that particular person - not once, but twice - because of this issue."
<snip>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2008/02/07/1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/obama-snub-still-rankles-_b_85077.html

[xchrom]

7. i'm not a hillary supporter -- except the donnie thing

turned me off to barack completely.

[NMMNG]

8. They want to be able to blame us for losing the election if that happens

Maybe if they'd, for once, take our needs seriously that wouldn't be such a concern.

Then again, there's the dual issue whereby the simultaneously claim we're so insignificant that we aren't worthy of attention yet so powerful that we lose them the election year after year. I wish they'd make up their minds.

[ruggerson]

9. Great point

[hulklogan]

10. I hate to say it but I do see that as likely to happen

As much as I try and tell myself it will be different this time, I keep thinking that the new response to GLBT criticism will be "Shut up, you'll lose us the election."

I'm still hoping for someone to assure me that won't happen.

[NMMNG]

11. They've used that on us every election cycle

I say we fight back with an adaptation of this:

The subject: How should Greens handle attacks from Dems who call a
Green presidential candidate a "spoiler"?

The perfect response:

"Tell them you wish we had 'spoiled' the election because then they
might pay attention to our demands!"

[grantcart]

16. I think all of those - regardless of how they identify themselves - who

want to hold out for the perfect rather than the good should not lower their standards by working to advance the interests of the Dem party and should reorganize themselves into their own political party.


Again regardless of what the issue is there are always people who would prefer to destroy the good in search of the perfect. Their perception of their own particular point of view is so elevated that they make meaningful discussion impossible. Rather than take 5 incremental steps they want to hold out for a perfect 10.

Of course in reality they are the Republicans and the bigots best friend.

It doesn't matter if the agenda is LGBT, or universal single payer health coverage, or nuclear disarmament. If you cannot make reasonable strategic compromises you cannot be effective in a mass party.

Let me ask you a question. When this campaign started maybe 20% of the DU folks supported Obama (and I assume that most of them had some issues that they were not in 100% agreement with). Our candidates and our issues were defeated and we made choices - most for Obama, some for Clinton. Even a majority of African Americans did not support Sen. Obama at the start. Here is the question:

Can you identify a single group in here that doesn't hold some part of Obama's campaign or the democratic party that either makes us uncomfortable or disappoints us?

However in order to achieve great goals (like eliminating war as the primary tool of foriegn policy, start an earnest reduction in global warming, restoring basic constitutional guarantees - including the eventual achievement of equal marriage rights for all Americans) many of us are willing to take the pretty damn fucking good over the perfect (and even more important) Sen. McCain.

If your ideals are so high and you view the transgressions Sen. Obama has inflicted so great then please do not lower your standards and feel free to join with Mr. Nader or form your own political party.

[ruggerson]

19. The OP and many of us

have already stated, many times, that we will support Obama in the general election. So I don't understand what you're trying to convey in your post.

[grantcart]

31. I misread the sentence about you supporting Obama in the GE

so I apologize for that. Its just so many LGBT threads of late have been all or nothing. Again I misread yours.

Now if we can talk about how to advance issues of interest to the LGBT I have two thoughts I would like to share

1) Because there is a such a huge difference between urban and rural areas in the US I think that we have to advance issues like equal rights in marriage locally and not expect the national campaigns to do much. In reality most of these issues are state issues anyway and strategically they will only deter support for the national candidates.

2) Secondly I think that once issues are framed as gay issues they will become more difficult to achieve. I am against gay marriage. I am for the rights of any two individuals to commit to a permanent relationship and receive all of the legal protection. By making it a civil rights issue and not an endorsement of gay issues I think we will be more persuasive.

Again sorry for jumping the sentence regarding GE support.

[PurityOfEssence]

22. True, perfectionists fuck up everything, but that doesn't justify denying faults

Humanity is in an endless, headlong flight from reality, and it's typified by the abject fear of uncertainty that sustains religion.

It's a tough one to choke down, this blatant political pandering to bigots in the name of race and religion, but it'd be a damnsight easier to stomach if more of his supporters actually admitted that it REALLY HAPPENED, happened the way it did and for the reasons it did. Yes, I'm aware that people HATE nuance and qualifications to their positions, but to deny this is way beyond dangerous and unseemly.

Sure, I'll march righteously to the polls and proudly vote for the less-shitty alternative if he's the nominee, but that doesn't mean I endorse this particular deplorable episode, and I'd like to hear a little more agreement on the subject from the lemmings. If we're "about" anything, we should be about this: pluralism and coexistence. Sucking up to powerful religious blocs isn't a glorious aspect of human activity, it's the cause of much of human suffering as it was here.

[grantcart]

34. Clearly there is homophobia in much of the African American Church.

The African American Church holds an entirely different position in the African American community than in White community. During slavery and then in segregation and even till today two institutions remain almost completely segregated churches and funeral homes. Slave church meetings and African American Churches during segregation were the only occassions where Black leaders could stand in front of their communities and in symbolic language (i.e. Moses in Egypt)speak to the oppression that they faced. They were the only leaders they had for 200 years. That historical reality makes the public rebuking of a pastor very sensitive. Sen. Obama has made gentle but direct remarks to that issue in Black pulpits.

On the issues of maintaining a firmer seperation of Church and State, the confrontation of religious assaults on science education, and working towards full equal rights including equal marriage rights, we should be completely committed. Some like the marriage issue is better fought at the state level.

[hulklogan]

24. Thank you for a calm and reasonable response

Unfortunately, the great goals you speak about often do not include civil rights for GLBT people. We all have to prioritize issues on a personal level and no candidate is perfect, like you say. However, I don't think LGBT concerns are fully comparable to single issues like universal single payer health coverage or nuclear disarmament, because the LGBT "agenda" touches many single issues (taxation, marriage equality, civil rights, immigration, inheritance rights, adoption, employment, health care, and more).

I would hope that the answer to concerned GLBT Americans is not "If you don't like our candidate, form your own party." The Democratic party should be working to expand its base of support, not encouraging people to leave. I believe that there are enough people in the Democratic party for us to make progress on all of the issues you listed at the same time -- we don't have to choose one over another or put them in some kind of priority ranking.

[grantcart]

35. My response of, if you can't make compromises and support the party's

nominee, find an alternative, was not directed to GLBT but any individual that feels it necessary to nit pick the party's nominee - which I think will be decided on Wednesday. (Which again I was mistaken in your case.)

Let us speak directly. I reacted to your message without reading it carefully because of my fatigue on the anti-Obama McClurkin issue. He is not going to apologize. It was a fuck up. McClurkin is not a former gay or a reformed gay. When I finally saw the video I was struck by how pathetic he was as a self hating gay. I see him as a continuing victim of homophobia. The continued fanatical unrelenting obsession with McClurkin by some has in my case made it very difficult to find a positive way of discussing GLBT issues here.

It is especially galling because the other candidate has either exactly the same position or something slightly less progressive on actual policy issues.

And though I don't like to discuss it and it shouldn't be relevent in discussions for your knowledge please know that in my immediate family we have a member who has suffered tremendous physical assaults as a GLBT person.

[stillcool]

20. I think he will be

a valid spokesperson for civil rights for everyone.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm

[theboss]

21. I will continue to say: Obama will be the most openly pro-gay president in American history

It won't even be an argument.

[Emit]

23. I just watched this clip, and

I tend to agree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIQLwe-MmxY&feature=related

[hulklogan]

25. If, perhaps, you are wrong and President Obama makes no effort to show support for GLBT Americans

will his supporters demand that he take action? I don't know if hope is a convincing argument for those GLBT people who are concerned about what Senator Obama has shown us so far.

[theboss]

26. Well, we already know the Clinton record of throwing gays under the bus

So, your choices are the 1) the devil you know or 2) the devil who goes into large black churches and tells them to give up their homophobia.

[hulklogan]

28. See reply #3

Here's two more choices:

3) The Democratic party values its GLBT members and we'll make sure our nominee doesn't ignore your concerns.

and

4) The Democratic party doesn't need GLBT support, so vote for Ralph Nader or don't vote at all.


I have yet to see anyone in this thread choose the third option, which is what I believe we should stand for.

[KLee]

27. l

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4829406

[hulklogan]

30. |

This one is more graphic than the one you posted, just to warn you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2594149

[Jamastiene]

29. They'll just beat us up, literally, instead of figuratively.

Until then, they'll tell us we are lower than pond scum and that we are shit who are going to hell and do not deserve the oxygen we are breathing. When he gets the nomination, then they'll start rounding us up to beat us to death for kicks.

At least, that's the feeling they give me and why I'm still not voting for Obama in the primary if I ever get the chance to vote, thank you, North Carolina for being 50 years behind the times and about 4 months too goddamn late for me to have any say in this primary.

[RandomKoolzip]

42. Obama supporters will beat GLBTs to death after he wins? Are you fucking serious?

Please tell me you're not serious. You REALLY get the feeling that we'd kill you?

That's a pretty serious accusation to throw around, and one I resent strongly. You're basically saying that Obama supporters have no conscience and will murder anyone if given the chance. Even if it's hyperbole, it's still really out of line.

[cali]

32. I'll say, you have to make up your own mind but

I'll also say that any dem who doesn't vote for Obama over McCain is a selfish fool. Sorry. Obama's position on GLBT issues is marginally better than Clinton's. He speaks out about equal rights for GLBT folks in every speech. His positions are posted at his website. His record is easily viewed. If the McClurkin thing is an obstacle of such significance that you can't vote for him in the general against fucking JMac, you're missing the forest for the trees.

[hulklogan]

38. I'm pretty sure most GLBT Democrats will vote for Obama in the GE

But I think you might have missed the point I'm trying to make. This isn't about McClurkin, this is about a whole host of other issues and the place GLBT Democrats will have in an Obama GE campaign.

If his most loyal supporters continue to use the "who else are you going to vote for?" approach and the "at least he's better than McCain" approach, I worry that some GLBT Democrats will just sit this one out. We're not all dwelling on something superficial like McClurkin when there are other issues that actually affect our daily lives like the domestic partner tax penalty, anti-gay bullying in schools, the lack of marriage equality, the lack of immigration equality, and more. If his own supporters don't care whether President Obama would address these issues, why will party loyal GLBT people care enough to vote for him?

[mkultra]

33. personally, i think the following

I believe that GLBT issues will not take as much of a central roll in obama's platform s they would in Hillary's , but i do think he will reinsert the anti-discrimination policies that Bush removed. I also believe he supports civil unions but this is much more of a stats issue than a Federal issue

Other than that, im not sure what other GLBT issues exits.

[Dawgs]

40. I think he will surprise you.

I just hope he doesn't make it one of his first accomplishments - like Bill's 'don't ask don't tell'.

[Dawgs]

39. Why would members of the LGBT community be concerned about getting civil unions?

Obama has never ever stated that he wouldn't fight for LGBT rights. He has never done anything as legislator that shows he will not fight for the gay community. He stated without hesitation that he does not believe the same things as McClurkin.

He has only shown to be 100% for LGBT rights.

I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

[rucky]

41. If he wins the nomination...

he'll be in a much better position to address those issues.

I can only hope he follows through.