Many on DU are now experiencing the same sense of betrayal/frustration us GLBT have felt for years

[Clintonista2]

With this administration and the democratic party in general. We were told to sit down, shut up, and accept Donnie Mcclurkin, Rick Warren, inaction on DADT, the Obama adminstration fighting equal rights for gay couples IN COURT, etc. When we were to point out the blatant broken promises and hypocracy, we were told that there were bigger battles, and any criticism would be giving support to the right.



We've been vindicated.

[stray cat]

1. If you are really lucky the republicans will come to your aid in 2012

[Clintonista2]

3. I'll give you my standard reply

If Republicans win in 2012 it will be a lesson learned.

P.s- Incase you didn't notice, the last sentence of my OP refers to people like you!

[Arkana]

13. I'm sure you'll appreciate that we TAUGHT THOSE FUCKERS A LESSON

when we're at war with Iran and gay people are being thrown in gulags by order of President Sarah Palin.

[QC]

18. Yes, that's exactly the kind of mindless bullshit we have been slammed with for more than two years!

Thanks for providing such an excellent example!

[jonnyblitz]

23. I am not so sure all of that wouldn't happen under a DEM

president these days.

[Forkboy]

26. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[Arkana]

31. I'm reminded of an old Bill Cosby routine.

[Forkboy]

33. I'm reminded of a Three Stooges one.

[butterfly77]

30. Exactly!

Don't you know that these issues are them most pressing issues of the day.

I notice that no matter what is going on this has to be the main thing to work on and it was supposed to be done on day one hell,some wanted him to solve everything before inaguaration day.

Though these issues may be important they cannot be the only thing the President works on because the CONS will be giving us a fight like hell because they hate the GLBT community.

[QC]

35. So which legal rights are you denied? n/t

[Jamastiene]

60. At least they ADMIT their hatred.

Right now, with your attitude, you don't sound very different than the Republicans at all. Why do YOU have so much hatred for the GLBT community?

[Rockholm]

84. Snap!

[LooseWilly]

65. So, you're asserting that Republicans could be fighting *harder* against "progress"?

You're asserting that, if the Democrats actually tried to overturn DADT and DOMA, then the Republicans would've fought harder against HCR? HOW? Would they have actually cast less than 0 votes?... The Dems would've had to come up with 63 votes for cloture, because 60 is required and the Republicans cast -3 votes?

There is no more hell to fight like than that hell like unto which the Republicans are now fighting... everything.

There is only a failure of Democratic Caucus (super majority) will and action. That and a fear of "exciting the Republican base"... but they seem pretty excited already. If, in the face of all that base excitement, the Democrats don't think they can put together the Democratic votes (with that super majority I mentioned) to actually do something to excite their own base (and DADT/DOMA repeal would work for a lot of us)... then they're going to be stuck walking into an electoral fight with a limp base... and they'll only have themselves to blame for the embarrassment.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

71. Yep.

If we fight them they might start calling us baby killers, grandma killers, communists, socialists, marxists, jihadists and un-American (and that's just the rethug members of congress).

[LooseWilly]

95. Well, if they cal me a communist, socialist, or even technically a baby killer or un-American...

they'd be right.

Is that what all the worry is about? They're gonna call us names? Pshhaahh...

:+

[ima_sinnic]

119. yeah, it's much quicker to take the time to challenge a court case giving same-sex benefits

to federal employees than to actually let the ruling stand.

I mean, did gays think "fierce advocate" actually meant "advocating fiercely" or something? They need to learn Obama-speak, where "fierce advocate" means I'll make up a clever phrase that promises strong commitment and then go back to the usual fierce dismissal.

I am in solidarity with gay friends and family members. The present situation reeks.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Garam_Masala]

111. +1

[Orsino]

165. Returning the GOP to power will prove that we have not learned a goddamned thing.

I support dissent. Your vote is your own, and there are many, many possible reasons to bestow it, or not, as you please. Lord knows our party has turned its back on plenty of people before--and certain people are of course a perennial target.

However, I see no way to paint the resumption of Republican rule as any sort of good thing.

[Democrats_win]

5. Denver Broncos and Obama: started out great ended up bad.

Obama started his road in Denver's Mile High Stadium and we had high expectations for him. Likewise, this year, our Denver Broncos won their first 6 games. Now, the Broncos lost in a terrible fashion to their arch rivals, one of the worst teams in the NFL, the Oakland Raiders.

In my book they are both massive disappointments this year. I won't get fooled by the Broncos or Obama again. I'm finished with these losers.

[girl gone mad]

28. If you wise up, progressives may come to yours in 2014 & 2016.

[racaulk]

69. FTW!

:applause:

[Phx_Dem]

29. +2

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[LooseWilly]

58. You do realize Cheney is to the left of Obama on GLBT issues, yes?

[ima_sinnic]

118. as if the "democrats" have come to the aid of gays

I think the astroturfers have run out of material, seriously.
they seem to be floundering lately, with nothing of substance to say.

and, yes, if the republicans come into power in 2012, the "democrats" have only themselves to blame for turning off voters.

[QC]

2. We were the canary in the coal mine.

Now it looks like women, environmentalists, labor, peace advocates, teachers, and pretty much every other traditional Democratic constituency are now honorary homosexuals.

[racaulk]

44. IT'S JUST A TWO MINUTE SONG!!!11!

Oh wait...

[QC]

45. HE'S ONLY GOING TO SING ONE PRAYER!1!1!1!!!

[racaulk]

50. Will you just give the man time to do his job?

Obama hasn't even taken office yet has only been in office for one week one month two months three months 100 days six months nine months eleven months now! Just be patient and hold your criticism until he can get a chance to address your "pet issues." He has a full plate and it's not like Obama doesn't have more important issues to deal with. Gah!

And stop being such a whiner!

:crazy:

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

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

[kiva]

105. You forgot the chess game

and the 'they would assassinate him if he did __________', and the 'I guess you just want President Palin!'

[Touchdown]

170. There is no Chess Game. He's got us playing Space Invaders.

No matter how long we stay in it, we will eventually lose the game.

[ima_sinnic]

120. yes, first he had to take the time to challenge a court case giving benefits to fed same-sex

employees. He's "too busy" to fiercely advocate--except AGAINST gays.

[Chisox08]

161. You also forgot about the all important pony

[Clintonista2]

163. No, we remembered the P word. That's what the "deleted message" up above is

it's a banned word apparently

[Kahuna]

4. I was waiting for someone to admit that this Obama hatred is about

GLBT civil rights.

[Forkboy]

7. He deserves all the abuse he gets on it.

Tell me, Kahuna, when you go to bed at night, do you do so with all your rights intact? Gay people don't, and Obama has not even come close to being the "fierce advocate" he claimed he'd be. GLBT civil rights are just as worthy as your hetero ones.

[Kahuna]

9. I understand the issue. I was saying that I have felt that the GLBT have been

especially harsh. I never said they didn't have a legit cause.

[Forkboy]

12. You can't put yourself in their shoes and try to understand why they might be feling the way they do

It has been harsh, and as I say, on this issue, Obama deserves it.

[Kahuna]

14. I can't? Maybe as a 55 year old black woman, I can. Don't assume. nt

[Forkboy]

20. Then why aren't you?

And are you a black GAY woman, because as a straight black woman you have rights that gay people still haven't been given yet. With your history you should be right there as pissed as they are. It seems like you've been given your rights, now the gays can go to the back of the bus instead.

You've been here a long time, and I'm honestly trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is exactly how you're coming across to me, and clearly to others as well. :shrug:

[NMMNG]

51. Want to share?

:popcorn:

[Kahuna]

59. Don't give me shit. I'm not asking for it. You KNOW that I support gay

civil rights. And not once have I given Obama a pass on neglecting the issue. No one here could ever prove that I have. And for the record, I didn't make the issue about glbt, the OP did.

[Forkboy]

64. Don't give them shit then, Kahuna.

And not once have I given Obama a pass on neglecting the issue.

Your first reply did just that. Instead of trying to understand why gay people just might be upset you pissed on them for their concerns, which sure as shit IS giving Obama a pass.

And for the record, I didn't make the issue about glbt, the OP did.

Yes, the OP is gay. Imagine a gay person talking about gay rights as it pertains to our President on a political message board. No one made you respond, and no one made you respond the way you did. If you wonder why I'm no longer sure where you stand on gay rights go back and reread it.

[ruggerson]

100. Read what Forkboy said, Kahuna.

[Clintonista2]

76. Sorry, but a simple google search reveals less than support for gay civil rights

For instance, one thread in which you agree that those pesky gays should drop the whole "marriage" thing and be content with civil unions.

[racaulk]

82. Not. Surprised. One. Bit.

She also has a penchant for using transphobic language when it suits her.

[donco6]

93. Wow. With support like that, we could really get somewhere.

Like, for instance, right smack dab where we are now.

[pecwae]

42. No you can't.

If you're not Gay you can't any more than a white person can walk in the same shoes as a black person. Sympathize perhaps, but it doesn't sound like that's exactly right either.

[Kahuna]

55. Ok. I don't then.

:shrug:

[Sapphocrat]

83. Whoa, back that truck up a minute.

We LGBTs have gotten our asses kicked -- no, make that reamed, mercilessly, with a pile driver until it hit the backs of our eyeballs -- for "daring" to draw any parallels whatsoever between (let alone compare) the gay civil rights movement with the black civil rights movement. As the standard argument goes, being gay and being black are two completely different experiences (never mind black PoC -- their existence is never acknowledged in this discussion) -- so how dare we expect African-Americans to automatically be on our side?

(Don't tell me you've never heard this before. You have.)

Now you're saying that you can relate to or empathize with our experience, just because you're black?

But we can't possibly have the first clue about the black experience -- because, as I'm so often reminded, all gay people are white, and we're all racists, and we just make up shit about Obama under the guise of faux victimization?

Maybe you don't subscribe to that school of thought. Maybe you don't mind -- in fact, maybe you're even proud -- that LGBTs hold the AA civil rights movement in such high regard that we do draw so many parallels... which isn't difficult to do, as the similarities are glaringly obvious, but that's beside the point: we're not supposed to draw those parallels, because it pisses off some black people who then scold us for "riding the coattails" of MLK, etc., the hem of whose garment we are not allowed to touch.

So, is this a one-way street? Is it OK for you to say you can relate to our persecution in some way, because you're black, but not OK for us to think we can relate to yours?

It's a serious question, because your comment just flew in the face of everything that's been drilled into my skull by the "Don't you dare compare!" crowd.

OTOH, if you're saying you're a lesbian, then this entire post is moot -- except for the part about black LGBTs being dismissed as if they didn't exist, which you would then already know, far too well. If that's the case, I apologize for assuming you were straight.

[Bluebear]

94. Well, thank you.

That's what my tongue is now cut in half, I was biting it so hard not to remind our friend that we are not supposed to draw any parallel between our movements.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[racaulk]

126. Where on DU did you read that a black woman from NJ was responsible for passing Prop 8?

Links, please.

[CTLawGuy]

134. look up the multitude of posts blaming

CA blacks for the passage of prop 8 in the wake of the election. You can't be serious believing that I thought that poster was personally responsible for the passage of prop 8.

[racaulk]

138. Oh, I'm sure I know exactly what you were saying.

I just wish you had the courage to say it instead of masking it in a passive-aggressive attack.

Prop 8 (and its unfortunate aftermath) is not even germane to this discussion.

[CTLawGuy]

146. it is germane

to the blatant double standard to which the OP, obviously, and to a large extent others in the LGBT community, held Obama vs. Clinton.

[racaulk]

148. No, it's not.

This OP wasn't about President Clinton, Secretary Clinton, or Proposition 8. At all.

It was about Obama and his marked lack or leadership on gay rights issues, the sordid anti-gay characters with whom he chooses to keep company and that he allows to speak on his behalf, and the decidedly anti-gay actions of his Department of Justice, all of which run contrary to the rhetoric of his campaign platform.

That is what the OP was discussing.

In response, you bring up points about both Clintons and Proposition 8, points that I don't see anyone in this thread arguing against. Yes, President Clinton signed DOMA and DADT and used homophobia in his 1996 re-election campaign. Yes, Secretary Clinton (in my opinion) isn't much better than Obama when it comes to gay rights and cozies up to homophobes when it suits her. Yes, the aftermath of Prop 8 was unfortunate and there is plenty of blame to go around, faulty exit poll information was leaked (intentionally, I believe) that overstated the margins by which African Americans and Hispanics in California supported Prop 8, and some people were a little to quick to believe that information at face value and said some terrible things in response. Yes, that's all true.

But none of that is the point and is totally ancillary to this OP. You seem to be interested in changing the subject and talking about anything but the criticisms of Obama that were presented here. This, I think, reveals a double standard of your own.

Are you interested in discussing Obama in the context of this OP, or would you like to grind that axe a little more?

[Bluebear]

19. I'm biting my tongue so hard it's bleeding.

So i have to leave this thread :)

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Kahuna]

57. You're so full of it. You just can't stand someone who won't be pushed around

by you. You think I'm rancid. What you really think is rancid is how I remind you of how you and yours brought us bushco for 8 long years. I will never let you forget.

[racaulk]

68. And your proof of that is what?

Where is your proof that jonnyblitz, and those like him, "brought us bushco for 8 long years?" Do you have proof of the voting records of anyone here, other than your own? Do you have any proof that any active DUers actively campaigned on Bush's behalf?

That's just meaningless conjecture and speculation, and you know it. Though I must give you snaps for editing your post to remove that personal attack.

[pecwae]

96. I didn't see the pre edit

and suspect it was a doozy. Bad enough the "you and yours' which is the same as 'you people'.

[jonnyblitz]

157. wow I missed all this fallout from my post. i am not surprised

considering who it is. :puke:

[NMMNG]

70. LGBT people are responsible for bushco?

Wow. Just....wow.

[racaulk]

77. Some days the vitriol of this place knows no bounds.

So we're responsible for Bush now. Amazing, isn't it?

:banghead:

[NMMNG]

79. Amazing, but not surprising

At this point I don't think anything could surprise me any more.

[jonnyblitz]

160. and she wonders why I called her rancid. behold the reason. nt

[noamnety]

80. Gosh you really ARE a gay supporter!

Never let those gay folks forget how they screwed you over.

:sarcasm:

[Sapphocrat]

88. Are you suggesting jonnyblitz is a repuke troll?

FWIW, I'll vouch for his lefty cred.

And another thing: What's with this "you and yours" stuff? If you didn't mean to suggest he's a repuke, then are you suggesting all LGBTs... what? voted for Bush?

[jonnyblitz]

158. and then she called me a Naderite leftist in another thread.

she seems confused. :crazy:

[Starry Messenger]

91. Wow, that's some conspiracy theory there.

Why don't you tell the class why you think this?

[racaulk]

151. Kick, because it appears Kahuna is not done with this conversation after all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7305474&mesg_id=7306314

[Clintonista2]

164. I don't recall who used the word rancid

But it totally fits.

[donco6]

173. What?

We did what?

[Tailormyst]

176. If you are blaming Bush on the GBLT community then I will call you rancid also.

[Bluebear]

8. Oh, were you? Wow.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

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

[tbyg52]

17. And even if it is (not that I agree) SO WHAT? nt

[kenny blankenship]

22. You got anything else you want to blame on "the gays" now that you're baring your feelings?

[Smashcut]

27. Yes we gays are behind all the discontent on HCR and Afghanistan.

And on collusion with Wall Street. And warrantless wiretapping. And the lack of transparency.

And also Bo getting a tummyache last week.

:eyes:

[racaulk]

41. Hatred? Yeah, that must be it!

:eyes:

[QC]

43. The Busheviks used to do the same thing when people disagreed with their man:

they would drag out the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" talking point to assert that anyone who did not see the brilliance of the Connecticut Cowboy's every move was just so filled with hatred that he had become unhinged.

(The Soviets used to do this same thing to dissidents: declare them insane, since, obviously, anyone who didn't like Papa Joe had to be crazy. What other explanation could there be?)

[racaulk]

47. Absolutely right!

It just gets so tiresome seeing members of this forum (willingly, I think) espouse the false equivalency that disappointment with Obama's actions is the same as having hatred for him and/or his office, hoping that he fails, wanting Republicans back in power, etc. These are bullshit "arguments" that only serve to stifle dissent, mock the very valid concerns that are being expressed, and add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

These people are part of the problem, yet they will never recognize it.

[ima_sinnic]

121. "admit" to "hatred" of Obama? GLBT civil rights is just one in a list of phony "promises"

the bullshit about restoring habeas corpus is right up there for me.
"fierce neglect" of a public option in health care is another.

you can call it "hatred" if it makes your day, I call it wising up to a con artist.

[Laelth]

6. Absolutely true, much to the Party's shame. n/t

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MuseRider]

11. Too bad they could not

find the empathy or see the stark inequality before. What that says about them is very unsettling.

[Armstead]

15. You may be right -- but I'd take out the phrase "democrat party"

[Clintonista2]

16. Where do you see that phrase?

As we say on WoW, L2Read.

[Armstead]

24. Niot there now -- but I'm sure I saw it. Maybe my glasses need cleaning

In any case, I was not disparaging your OP. Just pointing it out before others did.

[HughMoran]

21. false equivalency

1) the two issues are unrelated

2) we live in a country of fucking homophobes - lots of blame to go around.

[VMI Dem]

37. Sucks when the top guy is one too.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[gaspee]

39. ...

OK, I'm an idiot - this is not posted in GLBT - but the same sentiment applies - these are supposed to be our allies - democrats - and they don't give a shit about GLBT. Just like their hero.

[VMI Dem]

36. He turned out to be a fierce advocate for HCR as well.

[ClarkUSA]

38. You've obviously forgiven the man responsible. Pres. Clinton signed DOMA and DADT into law.

Why are you not "disillusioned" at the President who was at the helm when DOMA and DADT went down?
Why didn't he show more leadership? Bubba was the one who sold GLBT rights activists out, but you're
whining about Pres. Obama on the eve of his passing landmark HCR legislation after being in office only
11 months? Your bias is showing.

[VMI Dem]

40. Wes Clark: Clinton sycophant.

Heh.

[mitchtv]

52. whining huh?

I got your whining right here in my second class compartment. You've seen nothing yet.

The Clenis is still out there committing atrocities !

[ClarkUSA]

63. Thanks for warning me about the hypocrisy to come.

As the OP has admitted to her "Obama hatred" already, I suspected as much:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=82122&mesg_id=82219

Biased birds of a feather and all that.

[mitchtv]

86. don't expect cheering from the second class section

more like sneering. yup, we ARE " birds of a feather" just like the movie. your nastiness doesn't buy useless Dems any grace either

[ClarkUSA]

87. I expect fairness from any "section" but I won't find it from an OP that confesses to "Obama Hatred"

... and the posters who share her "Obama Hatred".

Sad.

[mitchtv]

89. keep dreamin

[Jamastiene]

66. Day of the Clenis!!! It returns, starring Gregory Peck.

In this exciting sequel to Night of the Clenis, our protagonist is finally brought out into broad daylight and gets into things you've never seen before.

Wowoooooooo, the CLEEEENIS.

I'm not so sure that whole deflection bit impresses any of us any more, to be honest. Been there, done that. Next!

[racaulk]

73. OK, now that was funny.

Thanks for the laugh! :thumbsup:

:rofl:

[Clintonista2]

78. LOL!

[NMMNG]

90. Look, up in the sky....

[MNBrewer]

102. I haven't forgiven Clinton for that, nor have I forgiven Paul Wellstone

for voting for DOMA. Never will, either. Fucker took his vote for inequality to the grave with him.

[Lilyeye]

142. Thanks for saying what I was thinking. Nice how Clinton was left out.

[Aramchek]

46. you certainly are vindictive. I'll give you that.

[Warpy]

48. Welcome to my world

I don't know if you noticed, but women were already under the bus when you got there.

There are always bigger battles, aren't there?

Republicans are always worse for all of us, but sometimes the difference is incremental.

[dmallind]

49. Obama has certainly not stepped up on GLBT issues, but I'm not sure

I would extrapolate that to assuming that any "criticism of criticism" is equal.

To be honest there isn't that much criticism of criticism, when criticism is warranted and of a level equivalent to the act being criticized.

For example I am certainly more likely to defend Obama than call him a sell out DINO waste of space, but I will definitely agree I am disappointed there was no support of equal marriage initiatives, and that DADT remains unchallenged. I will slightly OT also agree that the public option was compromised a bit too readily and that single payer should at least have been held up as a potential negotiating position. But I'm not going to pretend he's as bad as Bush, or any such drivel either. I'm not saying that because there are bigger battles to fight, or because I think those who feel more aggrieved than I are helping the right (although if they fail to vote for the better viable option, it's tough to say how they would not be in that case - but their criticism on DU is not helping the right. They can come up with their own vitriol just fine without poimters from detractors on the left). I'm saying that because hyperbolic bridge-burning is counterprodutive in any case.

Forget the right for a moment. Since we're talking about this from a GLBT persepctive - which is most likely to garner support from GLBT rights movements?

1) I'm done with supporting GLBT groups forever because you don't do enough to support other minority groups even though they support you. Atheists for example routinely march in pride parades as a group, and worked on joint protests when the Boy Scouts started enforcing their bigotry, but GLBT groups with their better organization and better funding never return the favor - so screw you!

2) We share many of the same goals, and in plenty of cases face overlapping bigotries. What can be done to cooperate more effectively in areas where we have mutual interests and can together maximize our effect?

[gaspee]

61. I think you're forgetting

Us gaytheists - and there is a huge overlap - not a one person in my GLBT circle of friends is a believer.

[dmallind]

67. Not intentionally - my bad if so. I agree too

Since I am much more involved on the atheist side rather than the GLBT side, while technically qualifying for both, I can affirm there is a reasonable overlap in that direction also. Certainly not a majority, but greater than the overall population by all accounts.

[Ildem09]

98. It's because

they take us gays for granted. cause who else are we going to vote for the party that wants a US version of the ugandan bill?

[closeupready]

53. yup. I was going to post the exact same thing last week.

Thought better of it, but it is true.

[Vidar]

62. Tue enough. Recommended.

[Phx_Dem]

72. Many on DU are dissappointed no matter what happens.

:puke:

[QC]

75. So which legal rights are you denied? n/t

[Jamastiene]

81. You seem to have indigestion or something there.

Something you ate?

[racaulk]

85. And many on DU apologize and spin no matter what happens.

:puke:

[Odin2005]

74. I agree with you. I fee betrayed.

:cry:

[treestar]

101. this is politics

You can't allow emotions to take over.

You have to be able to get along with people even if everything they do is not perfect. Otherwise every relationship ends. No one is perfect.

There are three years left at least - about a year for Congress. Many other issues.

[KrR]

97. Please tell me your username is ironic n/t

[Unvanguard]

99. You don't speak for all LGBT people any more than DU speaks for all progressives.

Speaking for myself, who belongs to both categories, I still support Obama. His achievements on LGBT rights and on health care reform have gone more or less as I've expected: perhaps a little on the low side, but not out of the ballpark, and as far as disappointments go by far the greatest has been the American public, not Obama, which I expected to be so tired of Republicanism that it would stay with him for at least his first year. In the political context we've gotten, which seems to have surprised most observers and the Obama Administration alike, if I don't get quite what I wanted I'm inclined to be understanding. I certainly don't particularly feel betrayed--again, perhaps because I came into this with fairly low expectations.

You are quite right, however, that the frustration that does exist among both groups is parallel. The problem in both cases is the same: people who quite rightly are convinced that they are in the right, that they deserve better from government policy, make the false inference that because they are right, other people must agree with them, and failure to achieve policy results must be from a lack of will rather than from the reality of political obstacles. This human tendency to see the world as it would be nice if it were, rather than as it is, is combined with a political inclination to centralize responsibility in the President, regardless of the fact that he represents merely one branch of government, and cannot do all that much without the accession of Congress, and ultimately of public opinion (which is usually more complicated than poll results indicate, especially on gay rights issues, as recent referendum results should remind us). Obama has also had some really bad political luck in these respects--being elected on the same day as Prop. 8, for instance, and the administrative tussle over personnel management that has been turned into a gay rights issue when it isn't, and having a self-serving egotistical wretch like Joe Lieberman serving as the sixtieth Senate vote.

Unfortunately, we are drawing the wrong lesson from Obama's failures: the real lesson is that the obstacles are formidable and the path long, that we should fight harder alongside him against the political enemies who are seeking to destroy him (and obstructing the progress we seek), not that Democratic presidents can never be our allies. Failure is not always a matter of failure of will: sometimes it is a matter of political circumstances. And sometimes in politics not fighting battles you will probably lose is wise caution, not unprincipled cowardice.

[MNBrewer]

103. so you had really low expectations, then, I gather.

[AspenRose]

132. You should consider making that its own OP

You clearly put a lot of thought, heart and soul into that. And did it diplomatically.

Something sorely lacking around here.

[IndianaGreen]

137. What are Obama's achievements on LGBT rights?

I can't hardly wait to hear!

:popcorn:

[TexasObserver]

104. Recommend

[QC]

106. You can always recognize an LGBT-related thread on DU

by the enormous number of deleted posts. Interesting, isn't it?

[LooseWilly]

107. An interesting point indeed...

telling I would say.

[goldcanyonaz]

117. It's very sad. Not surprising, just sad.

[racaulk]

125. Yep, you're so right.

It's also amazing how often both Clintons are mentioned whenever Obama's shortcomings on gay rights are pointed out.

Then again, it's been that way here for at least two years, so what else is new?

[QC]

128. George W. Bush's apologists are still squawking about Clinton, too.

Interesting, but surely the purest coincidence.

[Lilyeye]

143. When the OP is bashing Obama about gay rights with a pro-Clinton name

its a bit hard NOT to point it out.

[racaulk]

150. Criticisms do not equal "bashing."

Scrap the hyperbole and try again.

[Jamastiene]

177. It's the Return of the Cleeeeeeniss!!

The Clenis is coming to get you. Muahahahaaha. :P

[stevenleser]

108. If I could wave a magic wand and get Obama to take action on any one issue, it would be LGBT

- Replace DADT with full integration

- Remove DOMA

- Submit bill to congress for national civil unions if not marriage outright

- Prohibition against denying adoptions based on orientation

[ruggerson]

141. Where were yoiu in the '08 campaign when we were getting beat up at DU?

Oh. Yeah.

[boppers]

109. Clinton totally screwed over GLBTQ. We've been living with it since.

Don't forget history when looking to the future, or at the present.

Maybe one day we'll get a candidate who is in favor of equal rights. Hopefully in my lifetime.

[jonnyblitz]

110. he also ran an ad on christian radio bragging how he was

upholding family values by passing DOMA . people started raising a stink and he immediately pulled the ad. I guess he was fishing for wingnut votes by bragging about denying gays the right to marry. this was when he was running against BoB Dole. He also tried to be sneaky and signed the DOMA bill at midnight. what a slimeball. :puke:

[LittleBlue]

112. As a straight person, I can feel your pain after this one.

Not that I didn't empathize with the GLBT community before, but conceptualizing the sting and feeling the sting are two different things.

[CTLawGuy]

113. how about Slick Willie's signing

of DADT (and DOMA, which Hillary only wanted to "fix" for that matter) into law? Though I suppose Donnie McClurkin signed worse things into law when he was president...

[Tailormyst]

115. Your defense of a bigot by saying " well so and so was a BIGGER bigot" is really lame

You belittling of the topic and your condescending attitude are pretty darned ugly.

[CTLawGuy]

116. bull

I'm calling out the utter hypocrisy of slamming someone for not repealing fast enough two laws that the OPs namesake SIGNED INTO LAW.

I'm not "defending" Donnie McClurkin's shameful views on homosexuality, nor would I ever do so.

[ima_sinnic]

122. he sure was quick enough to fiercely challenge a court ruling giving

same-sex federal employees equal benefits.

like that didn't "take time," and just allowing the ruling to stand would have taken a reeeeal "long time."

and Clinton was equally a smooth-talking INSINCERE politician, just that, nothing less and certainly nothing more.

[CTLawGuy]

147. you do realize that the DOJ is not Obama's personal law firm

they are the GOVERNMENT'S law firm. They represent the position of the GOVERNMENT, which is that ALL of its laws are valid and constitutional. This has nothing to do with Obama's personal views.

I'm not familiar with this same sex benefits ruling you speak of, though. do you have a link?

[Tailormyst]

123. Yeah- he's working really hard to right the wrongs.

:eyes:

[QC]

127. Stupid and hateful, even for you. n/t

[racaulk]

129. You must not have seen his not-so-thinly veiled charge of racism upthread.

Because, you know, Kahuna only received objections to her posts because she's black.

:eyes:

[QC]

131. I saw it. Like this other post, stupid and hateful

even by the abysmally low standards of this poster.

[CTLawGuy]

135. if you think that pointing out hypocrisy is "hateful"

we will have to agree to disagree....

[QC]

140. The mods must agree with me, as that post was quickly deleted. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

145. it was sarcasm

I forgot to put the "Sarcasm" icon in there, because I thought the multitude of rolling eye icons would convey the message. I wonder how many posts blaming Obama and an entire race of people for the passage of prop 8 got deleted. I was shocked that such posts were tolerated on this board.

[racaulk]

149. And what does any of that have to do with President Obama?

You know, the subject of this OP.

[CTLawGuy]

136. is the OP "hateful"?

NT

[dkf]

124. If you are talking about Obama it's been less than a year

If youre talking about Clinton hell he couldn't even keep a promise to his wife much less you or I.

[racaulk]

130. Less than a year apparently has been enough time for Obama's DOJ to repeatedly defend DOMA in court.

I fully admit that Presidents Clinton and Obama have both been failures in terms of gay rights.

It's interesting that you choose to criticize one while giving a pass to the other.

[EFerrari]

139. That's right.

[girl_interrupted]

144. True and perhaps it's what we deserve

Maybe people need to be thrown under the bus, so they can feel the pain. And they have been.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

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

[racaulk]

153. Yep, gays are still nursing Hillary's loss and want Palin to be President.

:eyes:

Get a new talking point, honey. That's tired.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[racaulk]

155. So tell us, what does NAFTA have to do with Obama's response to gay rights?

You know, the subject of this OP.

You may be late on the unrec, but the kick is appreciated. Thanks in advance for the kick coming from your next reply.

:toast:

[Romulox]

167. No, the thread is about "same sense of betrayal/frustration us GLBT have felt for years"

Something with which a Clintonista should be intimately familiar--betrayal of a loyal constituency, that is.

(If you need to be hit over the head, the OP is a variant of "but it's MY ox that's been gored!" argument. I would unrec not in opposition to gay rights, but for its lack of self-awareness inasmuch as many others (e.g. manufacturing workers) have been betrayed by the Democrats over the years--not the least by the OP's very namesakes! :hi:

[racaulk]

169. You should complete that quote.

"With this administration and the democratic party in general." (Emphasis mine)

I don't believe that statement was made from a "lack of self-awareness inasmuch as many others (e.g. manufacturing workers) have been betrayed by the Democrats over the years."

I think the OP is well aware of the Clintons' failures, both in gay rights and in other areas. However, the remainder of the post had to do with Obama, his lack of leadership on gay rights issues, how he is fond of cozying up to homophobes and having them work on his behalf, and the rabid support of his most hardcore supporters to put down and demean anyone who dared to point out any of this until it was their "issue" that was affected.

I still fail to see what NAFTA is relevant to that discussion, unless you're intentionally looking to turn the conversation away from Obama.

[Romulox]

171. President Clinton signed NAFTA.

"With this administration and the democratic party in general...I still fail to see what NAFTA is relevant to that discussion"

I just explained the relevance in explicit terms. You're confused because you've made no effort to see. :hi:

[racaulk]

172. You're intentionally juxtaposing my words, and those of the OP, to suit your needs.

I said:

"...However, the remainder of the post had to do with Obama, his lack of leadership on gay rights issues, how he is fond of cozying up to homophobes and having them work on his behalf, and the rabid support of his most hardcore supporters to put down and demean anyone who dared to point out any of this until it was their "issue" that was affected.

I still fail to see what NAFTA is relevant to that discussion..."

I'm not confused at all. I see very well what you're doing.

Still, nothing to say about Obama and the points raised about his administration?

[Romulox]

174. Now the beginning of your posts are "irrelevant" to the end...of the same post?

Truly, I have met a dizzying intellect this day. :silly:

[racaulk]

178. You can make fun of me all you want.

I'm a big boy, I can take it.

But still, nothing to say about Obama and the points raised about his administration?

[Romulox]

181. LOL. You just don't want my point discussed, do you?

Don't you understand that you are the one keeping it alive? :silly:

[racaulk]

183. On the contrary, I talked all about the Clintons and their failures in this thread.

Check reply #148, for example.

You just don't want to discuss the points raised about Obama and his administration, and are only looking to turn the conversation back on me.

I have no problems continuing to kick this thread, and I truly appreciate your help in doing so. :hi:

Anything to say about Obama and the points raised about his lack of leadership on gay rights and the homophobes with whom he chooses to associate himself?

[Romulox]

185. Your first response to me: "So tell us, what does NAFTA have to do with Obama's response to gay..."

"So tell us, what does NAFTA have to do with Obama's response to gay rights?"

I've explained it to you three times. You aren't trying very hard to understand.

You aren't worthy of any more of my energy.

[Romulox]

175. So now the mods are deleting posts that point out the irony of a

"Clintonista" complaining about betraying a loyal constituency? :eyes:

[racaulk]

179. Not all posts.

See post #159, for example.

Just your post was deleted.

Hmmm...

:think:

[Romulox]

180. We get it. You ran out of arguments so you complained to the mods.

Complain about this post and the one above it, Mr. Not-Very-Good-At-Debate. :hi:

[racaulk]

182. I didn't complain to the mods and I didn't alert.

I'd like to see you try to prove that I did.

If I'm so horrible at debating, why is it that you are the one responding with personal insults?

[Romulox]

184. This is the most pointless "discussion" I've ever engaged in.

"If I'm so horrible at debating, why is it that you are the one responding with personal insults?"

Because you've pretended (I hope) not to understand the meaning of simple words in order to invalidate a point with which you've shown no comprehension, let alone any substantive disagreement. Namely, that the betrayal of a loyal constituency cited in the OP is in no way unique, and moreover, that it takes a special lack of self-awareness for a poster named "Clintonista" to complain of same.

Your response to all of this has been--to complain that my posts, commonly known facts, and even direct quotations from your own responses to me are "irrelevant". How many times do I need to explain the above before giving up on you as a troll? You tell me. :shrug:

[uponit7771]

156. I don't feel betrade by Obama

[Cali_Democrat]

159. LOL @ The OP's name

Clinton gave us NAFTA, DADT, Telecommunications Act of 1996 and much much more.

:rofl:

[racaulk]

162. I understand it can be fun to attack the messenger.

It's the low hanging fruit. It's easy.

It's also convenient when one doesn't want to address the message trying to be conveyed.

Any thoughts on the subject of the OP?

[ieoeja]

166. The message being conveyed appears to be "I am trying to exploit divisions in your ranks".

But lets pretend the OP is serious.

No politician has ever accomplished every goal they promised to attempt. Not even that last dumbfuck. I won't even use the "only 11 months" argument. If Obama serves two full terms and fails to accomplish his GLBT goals of repealing the federal anti-Gay laws, I won't hate Obama for trying.

Anybody who gives repeal of DADT and DOMA a better than 50% chance would appear to have trouble counting Senators. I expect Democrats to try in 2011 (the Senate won't touch this in an election year). And I expect them to fail.





As to attacking the poster, right now, on this very thread, I know for a fact that there is a poster who spent most of 2007 referring to Hillary as "evil", "corporatist", "Queen of Darkness", who will unleash a "murderous rampage" in Latin America. And so on.

Then in Dec 07, Obama became the front-runner. She suddenly started declaring Hillary the most wonderful person ever. Obviously, she didn't really want Hillary to be president, and would have pretended to be a rabid Obama supporter if it looked like Hillary was going to win. She just wanted to exploit a division within in our ranks.

Shouldn't that sort of thing be exposed?

Now, given that Bill Clinton did more damage to GLBT rights at the federal level than any other politician in modern history -- are there *any* federal anti-GLBT laws on the books signed by a president other than Bill Clinton? -- doesn't it seem odd to you that the GLBT forum is full of folks sporting Clinton colors? I know that every time I see that the words "liar" and "troll" pop immediately to mind.


There is also the fact that the OP accused Obama of hypocrisy on the subject of GLBT rights. The OP brought hypocrisy into the conversation. Pointing out the OPs hypocrisy would seem a valid retort.

[racaulk]

168. You do bring up some good points, and thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Here are some thoughts I have...

As far as President Clinton signing anti-GLBT laws onto the books, I think this may have resulted in a timing issue. Clinton was the first President ever to include gay people in the conversation while campaigning, and I think his election scared many in the religious right (who had been organizing and mobilizing for at least a decade before Clinton's election). This caused them to ramp up the anti-gay fervor in their ranks and put pressure on Congress, who in turn kept the supposedly gay-friendly Clinton in check. I still believe that the pro-gay rhetoric in Clinton's campaigning was one of the reasons for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

Did Clinton fuck up with DADT and DOMA? Absolutely. I really wish every anti-gay measure passed by Congress had been met by his veto pin, and I still hold him in very low esteem based on this (among other things). I don't think it's wrong to bring this up.

There has only been one prior President since Clinton, and the lack of anti-gay laws bearing his signature isn't for his lack of trying. I remember his cavalier attitude during his 2004 campaign that a Federal marriage amendment was to be a legislative priority of his in his second term. And honestly, most of the Federal anti-gay legislation that the religious right wanted signed was already completed by the time he took office.

Regarding the poster that you mentioned, I'm sorry, but I don't recall that poster and her posting history during the primaries. Not saying it didn't happen, I'm just not aware.

What I do recall, however, were the very harsh and ugly things that were said by Obama supporters during the McClurkin and Warren debacles, both mentioned by the OP. I won't repeat any of those things now, but I think that's what the OP was getting at -- the same people that were dismissing us back then are the ones that feel screwed over by the HCR debacle now. That it took Obama to fail them on their "pet issue" for them to wake up from their blind support of him. In fact, a number of people recently have spoken up and apologized for that prior behavior.

But I still contend that there is no reason, based on the identity of the writer of the OP, to dismiss what the OP has to say.

There are many people in this thread taking cheap shots at the writer of the OP, at President Clinton, at Secretary Clinton, and bringing up President Bush and Proposition 8. All the while refusing to own up to or even discuss President Obama's failures in leadership on gay rights issues.

I agree with you on your point about hypocrisy, to a degree. However, consider this:

The OP mentioned Obama's track record on gay rights without addressing those of the Clintons. Others, in response, mentioned the Clintons' track record on gay rights without addressing that of Obama.

I don't see how to logically conclude that there is only one hypocrite in that scenario.

And that was my point. All of this chatter about the OP, the Clintons, etc. is irrelevant. What do any of these people have to say about Obama?

From what I've seen so far, not so much.

[Skittles]

186. just so you know Clinonista

those of us who always empathized with our gay brothers and sisters feel EXTRA betrayed