Audio: Obama campaign's 'gay lifestyle' gaffe

[PageOneQ]

It's a bad PR day when a gaffe makes more news than the message.

That's what happened June 11 when Steve Hildebrand, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama's openly gay Deputy Campaign Manager, used the term "gay lifestyle" during a conference call with the LGBT press.

The call was to announce the hiring of David Noble as Director of the LGBT Vote. During a brief question-and-answer period...

Full Story: Obama campaign's 'gay lifestyle' gaffe

[hendo]

1. It is a shame that the anti-gay RWers have coopted "gay lifestyle"

maybe the gay community needs to "take it back".

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. no.. i really dont think we do.. because lifestyle detracts what is our LIFE

[terrya]

3. "lifestyle" directly implies a choice about being gay.

No, I don't think we should "take it back". Ever.

Hildebrand has some explaining to do.

[hendo]

4. sorry, apparently i misunderstood

my gay and lesbian friends all refer to it as a lifestyle.

[Zuiderelle]

5. Hmm. You have some odd gay and lesbian friends then.

They should educate themselves.

[hendo]

7. I suppose they are a little odd, but I try not to hold it against them

:silly:

[terrya]

8. To this gay man, "lifestyle" is a loaded word.

The religious bigots have co-opted the word "lifestyle". And the hateful "ex-gay" movement especially.

People who are trying to reach out to the LGBT community in an election campaign should choose their words more carefully.

[hendo]

9. It is a loaded word

but why is that any excuse to give them exclusive rights to using it? So long as it continues to have negative connotations, it will be used against the GLBT community.

Lifestyle should be redefined as the way in which any individual chooses to live. Or in this case, the way in which anyone who is secure with thier own sexuality chooses to live, gay or straight.

[Zuiderelle]

10. WE DO NOT CHOOSE to be gay. That's the entire issue. We are not choosing to live this way

And there's nothing to REclaim when we never claimed the word "lifestyle" in the first place.

[hendo]

12. but it is a choice to live a closeted life or not

A lifestyle choice is the way that you express who you are.

[Zuiderelle]

15. It's still not a "lifestyle" to BE gay. It's a choice to live in the closet or not, but that has

nothing to do with this conversation about what "lifestyle" means and why it is a negative term to us.

[hendo]

17. sorry, you and I have very different perceptions of that word nt

[Zuiderelle]

19. You really don't understand how the word reduces us?

I'm always amazed by straight people who simply refuse to understand things like this. It leads me to believe that you think that my being gay is a choice of lifestyle. That somehow I could just as easily have a straight lifestyle, or a black lifestyle.

[sui generis]

21. edited to advise myself that reading is fundamental

sorry Pel!

[Zuiderelle]

23. I really hope you're not talking about me.

I'm going to assume you're not, because I really respect you.

Now that I re-read it, I guess you are. Then, that's a shame. I don't think you're giving me a fair chance here. But that's ok. Read my other post to you below, maybe you'll feel differently. I hope so.

[sui generis]

24. gentle humor

I thought you thought I was straight. :hi:

[Zuiderelle]

25. Well, no. I know you're gay.

I think we've just had a misunderstanding here. We're both pretty strong proponents for gay rights around here, and I'd like to think we're on the same team.

:hi:

[sui generis]

27. ...

:grouphug:

I just read the wording wrong. I do have some thoughts unfolding now though that I'd love to take to a private forum with some of the folks here just to discuss and get input from trusted colleagues and peers.

Any such place on DU? I may be batshit and I expect no one will hesitate to tell me so, but better from a private focus group first. PM me - this may be a group project.

[Zuiderelle]

29. I like that idea.

Posting things here means that we have to choose our words carefully, and always keep our dignity about us. That's not always possible, and certainly not much fun.

:pals:

Keep me posted on any ideas about how we could accomplish this. I don't know if DU has any private groups that would fill that need.

[hendo]

26. I understand how the way the neo-cons use it reduces homosexuality

to little more than a fickle choice and an immoral act. Of course it is neither. However, I do not see any reason why the term "lifestyle" needs to have that meaning To continue to allow the neo-cons to give it that meaning hurts the glbt community. The way that you chose to live your life does define your lifestyle. However, sexual orientation or race are not choices that can be made. No one can control who they are attracted to, it is something that is hard wired.

The battle is lost when neo-cons are allowed to coopt any word and use it to discriminate against anyone. So stop allowing them to use it as a tool of discrimination.

[Zuiderelle]

28. But we can't just make a word not mean what it does. "Style" cannot be changed to mean something

that is not a "style."

They didn't co-opt this word, there is nothing to reclaim.

And you keep saying that I chose to live my life a certain way. I understand sui generis even more now, as even that shouldn't be used to denigrate people who DO choose to live their lives however they want.

But it is not a lifeSTYLE. It is a life.

[hendo]

30. definition

life·style also life-style or life style (līf'stīl') n. - A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group.

The definition of lifestyle in no way should be taken to indicate sexual orientation, race, or gender. It is a means of expressing one's self. If you are proud of who you are, you act in a way which suggests that. If you are ashamed of who you are, the same also applies.

If you disagree with the way the word is being used by the neo-cons, do something about it. Because, as long as they are allowed to use it in a way that suits thier purpose they will continue to use it as a means of discrimination.

[Zuiderelle]

31. Attitudes and values are all very different among gay people. So you just proved my point.

Being gay is definitely not a lifestyle. It makes no sense to try to "reclaim" it or "embrace" it simply because some people use it against us. We cannot disallow them from using whatever words they use, and we also shouldn't be expected to embrace those words either.

I know several gay people who have an entirely different lifestyle than I do. And I know several straight people who have a very similar lifestyle to mine. So how can you think that there is such a thing as a gay lifestyle, when there simply is not? What do you think it is anyway? What is our style?

[readmoreoften]

41. Then is there a "Cubs Fan lifestyle"? They all seem proud of "who they are."

"Do something about it?" What the fuck do you think we're doing? We're doing it. We're telling you--our supposed ally--to stop using the word because it's ignorant and idiotic. Sorry that your friends use right-wing terminology to define themselves. Not everything can be recuperated ironically.

Why don't you start lobbying for "the straight lifestyle" to be used in the media incessantly? Why don't YOU reclaim the word if it's so fantastic?

[hendo]

53. As an avid sports fan, yes

but I am sorry for applying the term to the GLBT community.

I want to be an ally, but apparently I still don't quite know how.

[readmoreoften]

63. It's cool. There's a learning curve to everything and all allies are welcome.

But there is no gay lifestyle. Even beyond the issue of "choice" there is the issue of diversity. It's a little like saying "the Democrat lifestyle". The problem is that it excludes everyone who doesn't fit into the white, middleclass, rainbow experience. Poor South African black women trying not to get gang-raped for "acting like men" are not living the same lifestyle as I do. It's just life.

Best thing to do as an ally is first listen and ask questions. If 50 gay people agree on something about what it means to be gay, whether they're "right" or not, they undoubtably know what they're talking about.

[Toasterlad]

42. Must... Not.... Flame... Straighty!

"The definition of lifestyle in no way should be taken to indicate sexual orientation, race, or gender."

Exactly.

If you understand what you wrote, why are you still continuing to shove the word "lifestyle" down our throats? Being gay is what we ARE. It does not determine the way we live. There are as many different "lifestyles" as there are people, gay or not. Go see if you can start a left-handed lifestyle forum, and kindly stop using the word here, where you've been told repeatedly by people who know better than you that it's fucking rude.

[hendo]

52. okay, point noted

I will stop.

[ruggerson]

45. Let's take back "Negro" while we're at it

[hendo]

50. I thought rappers had already tried to do that. nt

[Creideiki]

46. So what do you do with LGBT people that tend to live

far from urban settings, away from identified "gay neighborhoods", etc.

My "lifestyle" is very similar to my parents'. Until I moved to Denver, I lived in the suburbs of Chicago, took care of my two dogs, had good relationships with my straight neighbors and had a primary social group that was all straight.

When people say that I've chosen an "alternative lifestyle", I'm confused. My lifestyle is pretty stereotypical Midwestern guy. The only difference is that I form emotional relationships with other guys.

[mitchtv]

36. Sorry, It's not our word

you can keep it just don't call my life a lifstyle. It's just a life (with style)

[hendo]

51. i want a lifestyle :(

my life is little more than trying to finish my MA thesis :( While that technically would be a life style, it is decidedly lacking in style.

[terrya]

18. Sexual orientation.

It's an orientation. It's who you are. It's who we are. It has nothing to do with what car you drive or what kind of cola you may drink or any of that stuff that would reference a "lifestyle".

That's why I have problems with the term sexual preference. Even that connotes a choice.

[sui generis]

13. but be careful that doesn't have a neg connotation

as if we're flawed or something, but can't help it.

Personally I am completely in favor of eliminating the term "gay". From our language. I am an American. I live my life by my own grace, and under my own stewardship. Nobody knows if I'm into men today and women tomorrow, or the opposite, except if I volunteer it. It's not on my driver's license. It's not on my birth certificate. It's not a numeric sequence in my social security number, and unlike credit scores we don't have gay score.

There is no test for gayness, just as there is no test for catholicism. Like freedom of religion, we are talking about Shit We Can't See. We don't say jews, who aren't catholics, can only get civil unions because judaism, like gayness, is both by nature and/or by choice.

I am by god a grown up and I am THE ONLY PERS0N ON THE PLANET who knows what is best for me. In my life.

[Zuiderelle]

16. I don't think I understand your response.

Be careful that what doesn't have a negative connotation? If you mean about "can't help it" as if we're flawed... not sure how I can control how that is taken, if negative or positive. Personally, I think it's most important to be sure that people know that we are not choosing to be gay, any more than I choose to be white or a woman. There's nothing negative in that.

[sui generis]

20. well you just minimized honoring people's choice then

it should have at least equal weight in this argument, and I would argue that choice should have MORE weight.

I make my own choices about my own life. Nobody has a say in that. I choose who I live with. I don't care about gender, or eye color or anything else.

The problem is we don't vilify eye color, and that's not a choice. We vilify choice.

If we go down the "no choice" path all the way, they can say, "we respect that you're gay and don't have a choice, we just don't respect that you choose to live that way", because in their mind they view us as little better than child molesters.

It's a harder battle to fight but an easier one to win. I CHOOSE who my property goes to when I die. Their sense of morality is interfering with my choice.

[Zuiderelle]

22. Ok, then I get the point. Some people do choose. I've known several gay people

who have chosen to live straight lives. I would never call it a lifestyle though. They are gay living as straights. Bi-sexual people too aren't really making a choice. They are capable of feeling, loving, wanting either gender.

But I do see what you're saying. If it WAS a choice, it still is nothing to vilify.

[hendo]

32. excellent post! nt

[readmoreoften]

38. A lifestyle is a market segment. Beyond that there is no gay lifestyle.

I live in a house with my girlfriend and we go shopping and pay the mortgage. Other gay people we know are musicians who tour constantly. Other gay people we know are on welfare, struggling, working and have never left their home state. Other gay people we know are the children of wealthy folks who were cut off and after a lifetime of being spoiled rotten live like pigs. Another gay person I know was cut off by his family and lived in the school library for years, showering in the gym, and working 5 jobs to pay his way through college. Other gay people I know are born against Christians. Stockbrokers. Communists.

Do gay people in Darfur live the "gay lifestyle"? What about Iraq?

[Laughing Mirror]

33. Do they refer to being heterosexual as a "straight lifestyle"?

If they don't, then it would be easy for them to see how "gay lifestyle" doesn't work either in describing who we are.

[keepCAblue]

37. And how 'bout "black lifestyle"?

I, for one, am curious about Barack and Michelle Obama's black "lifestyle"...:sarcasm:

[sui generis]

11. well choice should be honored too, but I agree, it's our Life

not a lifestyle.

[hendo]

14. apparently we are at odds on what the term "lifestyle" means. nt

[readmoreoften]

39. Lifestyle is an invention of 20th century capitalism to sell goods and services. Period.

There was no "working-class lifestyle" of 1915. There was life, there was struggle, there was shared community. There was no "black lifestyle". There was "I'm black. Where am I permitted to live?"

Gay people are not a western invention from the 20th century.

[xchrom]

6. i find this in line with how i see obama.

so it's not a gaffe if you ask me.

[Laughing Mirror]

34. "We messed on the vetting of Donnie McClurkin"

Sure.

If only they could just come out and tell what it is probably closer to the truth. That they had heard about McClurkin's controversial homophobic attacks, but they were happy having McClurkin perform for the campaign in SC, because, his deranged self-hate aside, McClurkin is after all a top gospel act, and he does win those Grammys and he does bring in the crowds.

What I don't understand is this: If they wanted him to perform so badly, to bring in those crowds, they could have at least instructed him just to go out and sing a few songs and then to shut his trap, and and to not start mouthing his "God delivered me from my fag shit" shit. If they would have thought about that -- let him sing, but not talk -- they wouldn't have had the response to this sad affair that they've had.

It doesn't bother me anymore that it happened the way it did though. I think we should use it as leverage in the Obama administration, if he gets in.

[xchrom]

44. you don't think donnie mcklurkin, mary mary and the others

anti-gay stands weren't part of the plan?

i can't understand that.

they used these guys and their messages calculatedly -- that anti-gay message is part and parcel of their appeal.

and it happened at a critical time in obama's campaign.

[kdpeters]

48. Dude, it's over. Your comments are out of line.

This line of over-the-top crazy talk should be every bit as off the table in a post-primary DU as is any perceived race-baiting from the former Clinton campaign. You had a week to get this out of your system. That should have been enough time for you to do whatever it takes for you to get yourself where you need to be to discuss this without the inflammatory and divisive language.

[Zuiderelle]

49. Wait a minute. Did I miss a public explanation from Obama about all this?

Did I miss an apology, a reaching out to gay Americans to explain how much he disagrees with McClurkin and that he wasn't aware of his anti-gay record? Are we all supposed to unflinchingly and without criticism or question support him now? Why? He has my vote, but he sure as hell isn't going to have my unquestioning support.

[kdpeters]

56. If your criticism and questioning requires flimsy broad-brushed accusations of bigotry

then yes. Yes you are supposed to go without it. I guess you did miss that much, though I don't see how. How in the hell you got the idea that divisive, inflammatory, unfounded attacks on Democratic candidates and fellow DUers is acceptable here is far beyond me. If you cannot conceive of ways to offer criticisms and questions without being divisive and inflammatory, then that's for you to decide to if you want to keep quiet or keep disrupting and risk a TS?

Let me illustrate it by turning it around on you in a way that you can understand how the prior poster's comments are received by those not already of the same mind:

"you don't think Geraldine Ferraro, Bob Kerrey, the Jesse Jackson comment, the white Americans comment and the others' racist stands weren't part of the plan? I can't understand that. They used these guys and their messages calculatedly -- that racist message is part and parcel of the Clinton appeal. They all happened at critical points in clinton's campaign."

in all sincerity, tell me how you react to those remarks. I hope you found them offensive and insulting because that is how they were meant both when the original author crafted them and when I adjusted them to illustrate a point to you. Not only have I accused the other candidate with many admirers of horrible bigotry, I have also insulted YOU personally, fellow Democrat, fellow DUer for beinng attracted to the racism that is "part and parcel" of her appeal. How is this NOT divisive and disruptive and completely against the spirit of this forum that Skinner et al. have made clear will be enforced from here on out?

You might feel more inclined to actually see merit in that argument as stated one way while I find the converse argument to have merit while we both feel the other is full of rubbish. It's the same argument: the other candidate is satan incarnate and his/her supporters possessed. Those days are over and those points are moot. It's time for both primary candidates' supporters to grow up, be magnanimous to the other candidate, and swallow some our strongest reactionary impulses for the good of the party and for the good of DU.

I'm happy to discuss issues and concerns, but not if you're going to come out of the gate with unfounded character attacks on the Democratic presidential nominee and with implied accusations of homophobia against me personally . That's not much to ask.

Karl

[Zuiderelle]

58. All those words, and you didn't answer the question. This is about Obama and not Clinton.

Aren't you aware that the primary is over? I have concerns about the man that I am going to vote for, and I and everyone else who has concerns has every right to discuss them. I have no intention of "swallowing" my concerns simply because he is our candidate. What an idiotic and undemocratic thing that would be to do or to expect.

For the record, I have never attacked Obama's character. Not once.

[kdpeters]

60. Your questions were irrelevant to my point & challenging me to defend positions I don't hold

How is a person supposed to answer questions like that? I'm not a person with a lot of patience for being talked "at", so I tried to bring you back around once more and explain again the point I was making originally. It still seems to elude you but now I suspect it's being missed intentionally. I don't see us getting any further with this same back and forth whether we try it one more time or a hundred times. It's been pleasant up to this point. How about we just leave it where it stands and end it on a high note? I've said all I have to say on the matter. The last word is yours if you want it, but I'm done.

Peace,
Karl

[Zuiderelle]

61. You've been pleasant? Really?

Well, at least thanks for the last word. Appreciate it, Karl.

Maybe you think you were responding to the person I was responding to. If not, I'm a little confounded by your attitude towards me. It's almost as if you think that Obama should not be criticized at all.

[kdpeters]

62. There were comments made by another poster that I felt crossed a line.

My complaint was strictly limited to those comments and those comments only, or at least that was what I had intended. I have no problem with anything in the way you've questioned or criticized or raised your concerns. I don't know where the breakdown occurred, but it was probably on my end and I'm often not as clear as I think I'm being and hit 'reply' on the wrong post. If I've done that to you in this instance, I apologize. It wasn't you, so I thought you were defending what was said.

Remember that bit I said to you about Clinton and the racism of her campaign trying to illustrate the point. Well, I wasn't actually making that point or making any point about Clinton at all. That was word for word the same remarks I was raising objecting to only I replaced Obama/homophobia references with Clinton/racism references. It was not about Clinton but only a tool to better show how hostile they come across so that you could feel how I interpreted them. As you've pointed out, civility doesn't preclude dissent and disagreement. That could not be any further from my actual position on this matter. I was trying to say that even robust, highly contentious disagreement and dissent need not be so hostile and unwelcoming. I don't think you were trying to argue otherwise, but I think I was mistaken about just what it was your response meant. That is probably due to some brain fart on my end. It just took a little bit of push and pull to flesh out where the other was coming from. I'm glad you did.

[xchrom]

54. if you're so upset over what is factual history -- take it to the mods. nt

[kdpeters]

57. I'm WAY ahead of you, my friend.

[xchrom]

64. k buddy --

[Toasterlad]

43. Bingo.

He's never been terribly concerned about what we think.

[keepCAblue]

35. Vegetarianism, living in the suburbs, joining a nudist colony ....

...Those are all lifestyle choices. Being gay is an inherent facet of identity. I've never heard other immutable characteristics (e.g., race) defined in terms of 'lifestyle.' Immutable characteristics are unchangeable, they are not "lifestyles". Obama's rep, in using the term, was not so much a gaffe but an indictment of his (and perhaps Obama's) archaic and biased mindset about LGBTQ people.

[readmoreoften]

40. Do Iraqis live "the Iraqi Lifestyle"?

Man, we're steppin on their style.

[kdpeters]

47. That audio is HILLARIOUS!!! This is a joke, right?

One could almost hear an audible gasp coming across the muted press phone lines.

But on the version provided by PageOneQ, the dramatically delayed, comically offended gasp of exasperation, no no, make that TOTAL SHOCK, is quite clearly audible and clearly faked for a side-splitting farce of the perpetually-offended touchy-queen stereotype. It's so funny 'cause it's true!! We all know that guy or girl that always seems to be a drama magnet.

It's a bad PR day when a gaffe makes more news than the message.

Ummm, not really, but thank you for your "concern". Nice attempt to manufacture "gaffe" news. His word choice is not even worth mention except possibly to note that it is a phrase associated with a certain amount of negative association among GLBT folk, but that's it. He quite clearly meant no negative implication. Even for those too socially inept to figure that out from the context of the rest of the conversation, the simple fact that the man himself is gay might have started to clue them in.

I checked a couple of established gay news outlets to see how it was being reported elsewhere to see if this nonsense truly reflected a consensus in the gay press or if this truly is just silliness and nonsense.

• The Washington Blade: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/6-13/news/national/12766.cfm
  Hildebrand irked some gays, however, when he referenced “the gay lifestyle” in the June 11 call.
  ...
  Such phrasing is offensive to some gays, since it can be taken to imply that people choose to be gay.
  
  This "gaffe" of which you speak was given brief mention midway through for "irking" some on the call. Just a mention of this nonsense within a much more substantial piece than PageOneQ.
  
  
• The Advocate: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid55737.asp
  In their article about the same call you report on, not even a mention of this "gaffe makes more news than the message"
  
  
• The Southern Voice, my hometown paper: Same article as Washington Blade. Oh yeah, they're almost the same newspaper these days.
  
  
• Neither QNotes nor Matt Comer's blog (the person who asked the question to the answer at issue) have reported on the campaign announcement and conference call.
  

Doctored audio and melodrama at the expense of reporting information that GLBT readers might actually find useful. Is this how PageOneQ presumes to serve its readership?

[xchrom]

55. does a fanatical devotion won't serve obama

nor the lgbtiq community.

the remark was offensive and it's another marker in a series -- whether you like it or not.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

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

[insleeforprez]

65. This is "gotcha" politics if I've ever seen it

[trickyguy]

66. "I am what I am.... sometimes the ace....sometimes the deuces."