Barack Obama | Election 2008 | News

BigGayDeal.com

Gay Limo-Riding YouTube Loser Posts Slanderous Obama Smear

Dear Larry Sinclair, if you're going to launch a smear campaign, it's probably best to research your script (Obama was a member of the Illinois State Senate in 1999, not a representative), practice your cue card reading, shave, and brush your teeth, if you have any.

(via gawker, good as you)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Oh dear lord...that is just kind of bizarre.

    Posted by: Nick | Jan 22, 2008 10:33:28 AM


  2. Hilarious. I wonder how far this will go. Obama is clearly out of this guy's league. He might as well claim to giving head to Erik Rhodes. Well, then again...

    Posted by: gwyneth cornrow | Jan 22, 2008 10:34:16 AM


  3. And take off that stupid cap, while you're at it.

    I guess he's hoping to be a Monica Lewinsky for the 21st century. How pathetic.

    Posted by: sam | Jan 22, 2008 10:35:07 AM


  4. He better get ready for the attacks. First the personal ones about his being out of Obama's league ( although when smoking crack you don't make good decisions). Anti-gay politician turning out to be a pole smoker but that's only republicans.
    The hypocrisy will be astounding by those on the left and right that went after Craig and the others as they bend over backwards defending Obama. I guess because he's not a prostitute or somewhat hot he's not believable.

    Posted by: hephaestion | Jan 22, 2008 10:45:09 AM


  5. Oh please Hephaestion; he's not even remotely credible. Stop acting like this is some kind of hypocrisy.

    Posted by: Dan E | Jan 22, 2008 11:13:18 AM


  6. hephaestion,

    Are you kidding? This is just some weirdo looking for his 15 minutes of fame. This like the woman who claimed to be Michael Jackson's secret wife or the guy who broke into Steven Spielberg's house hoping to rape him, or the woman who went after Colin Farrel on the Tonight Show.

    Frankly, it's probably best to just ignore these kinds of people who are desperate for attention.

    Given the attention that Obama has been under since his campaign for the U.S. Senate, wouldn't the gay rumors have been out and about like wildfire for a long time (especially with the Donnie McClurkin debacle!)?

    Also, it's also hard to believe that Obama could have been functional if he were an addict. Moreover, why would a politician with aspirations write a biography that details teenage drug use still be doing drugs? Somehow, I think the Clintons would be slinging that stuff up left and right instead of going back 30 years for childhood dirt.

    Really, why do we have to pay these kinds of people any interest?

    Posted by: noah | Jan 22, 2008 11:17:16 AM


  7. I believe him. It will all come out.

    Posted by: Mike | Jan 22, 2008 11:34:15 AM


  8. This is why I could never run for office, cause all the random sex ive had, id be screwed!!

    Posted by: sammy | Jan 22, 2008 11:41:59 AM


  9. andy, thanks for posting this. this is the pathetic video that "johnny lane" and "chris(?)" were trying to link to yesterday. when i saw it, i practically fell out of my chair laughing. what a loser this guy is.

    Posted by: nic | Jan 22, 2008 12:07:11 PM


  10. The comparison to Larry Craig and alleging a hypocritical non-response from left and right (Hephaestion) is really nonsensical.

    First, as to the right, why would the right stay quiet about anything that denigrates either of the Democrats' two front runners? And don't claim it's because they'd rather run against Barack than Hillary because that's simply not true; they're desperate to run against Hillary so they'd have every reason to bring Barack down now if they could.

    And second, as to the left, there's no way in this media environment that the entire Democratic party and other left-leaning sources could be counted on to stay mum on this story if there were a shred of credibility to it.

    There have not been, to my knowledge, ANY suggestions in the past that Obama is gay or that his drug use continued into adulthood. As far as the alleged hypocricy goes, that contrasts significantly with Larry Craig who's been rumored to be gay and a frequent patron of DC's busiest public restrooms since pratically the day he arrived in DC more than 20 years ago.

    For all its manifest benefits, this guy is one example of the problematic downside of the internet. Give any knucklehead like this one a video camera and broadband access, and all of a sudden, with no filtering, editorial control or fact checking, he's a *potential* factor in a presidential nominating contest. That said, he so lacks credibility that he'll probably go nowhere, thank God.

    It will be interesting to see when and how libel and slander laws make their way to the internet.

    Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jan 22, 2008 12:07:53 PM


  11. There's Nothing like starting my day, with a hearty chuckle...it's better than oatmeal.

    Thank You, Larry

    Posted by: candipearl | Jan 22, 2008 12:09:25 PM


  12. I'm with Sammy; although I haven't done anything I'm ashamed of (that I can think of right this minute), others might not be so non-judgmental.

    I can't imagine how one could run for president having done something like this - how could one expect to keep such a thing hidden unless one had eliminated the source? True, politicians are a special breed and often quite full of themselves, but it is just too hard to believe that in an age where every nuance is judged and scrutinized that a crack head could expect to run for president without being found out. It doesn't make sense. I don't say never; I do say it strains credibility more than my ass strained the old trousers I valiantly but vainly attempted to wear the other day.

    I saw this yesterday, and was thoroughly disgusted. I'm sorry that this video was posted here, because now it will get even more viewing. I find it sad that this video was posted on Youtube just before MLK day. Just in time for those who still resent his being honored to affirm their hatred for anyone who is not white, straight, and male, as the following comment I cut and pasted from the Youtube comment section for this video will vividly illustrate (and I apologize for the content, but I think it's important to see):

    >Sucking a stoned ni**ers dick, thats low even for a f*g.
    I hope its true, then America is truly fucked, before they had a choice between a ni**er and a bitch for president, now they have a choice between a crackhead homo ni**er and a bitch, things are certainly not looking up for ya guys :D <

    Posted by: JT | Jan 22, 2008 12:17:09 PM


  13. JT,

    That's the point of videos like this, they help to inspire hatred and play on stereotypes. Racism, sexism and homophobia are deeply ingrained in American society. People pretend that racism and sexism have very little play in the world.

    Overt racism and sexism like that comment from Youtube just put a redneck face on bigotry, deterring realization that it's the covert and subtle racism and sexism that have just as much if not more ability to harm others. It's hard to defend against a knife that comes from behind oneself.

    Look at how the Clintons and their proxies have tossed coded or direct racist attacks at Obama. Or, look at the very direct and indirect sexism Hillary Clinton received after her loss in Iowa. Chris Matthews was forced to issue an apology because he said that Clinton got elected to the Senate in New York because people felt sorry for her because Bill Clinton cheated on her. Then there are the relentless attacks on her being cold or gay.

    Posted by: noah | Jan 22, 2008 12:42:52 PM


  14. This fool has Obama confused with Leroy Johnson who had a thing for inflicting welcomed pain on pitiful, masohistic rednecks. That "They all look alike" crap will cause mistaken identity shit like this everytime.

    Please, as if Obama would even speak to some low-life creature.... But let me tell y'all about the Evangelical sex party I went to with 10" Huckabee, or the House of Guiliani Drag Ball of 2000--it was fierce, Miss Thang.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jan 22, 2008 1:10:12 PM


  15. i know i'm bordering on the picayune, but i believe this horrid creature is committing libel rather than slander.

    Posted by: nic | Jan 22, 2008 1:14:26 PM


  16. Here are all of the sordid details of Larry's story:

    http://anndavis.blogspot.com/2008/01/exclusive-statement-from-obama-accuser.html

    Posted by: Rossie | Jan 22, 2008 1:23:24 PM


  17. i'm with sammy too, the only thing i could run for was maybe president of girth and mirth where believe me sleeping around is an absolute requirement for holding office...

    Posted by: the queen | Jan 22, 2008 1:31:29 PM


  18. libel is written...slander can be both written and verbal defamation.

    Posted by: CLIFF | Jan 22, 2008 1:34:24 PM


  19. That is just wrong, sad, and outright pitiful, first off Chicago is one of the most segregated cities in the world, and, I doubt if there is much "race mixing" of any kind there, but, if, this nitwit does do oral sex, he must be good at it since he should have put his teeth back in before this insipid story came out.

    Youtube, the bane of the Internet, anyone can lie about you and, many of the dimwits will believe it as fact.

    Posted by: Sebastian | Jan 22, 2008 1:40:25 PM


  20. "i met senator Obama at a berlin discotheque in 1989, before his life in politics. i was working for exxon-mobil, then just exxon. afterwords, we went behind the discotheque, where he turned into a werewolf. he slashed my chest and stole my cocaine, then fled into the black forest, which is home to many of his kind i am told

    if obama is not a werewolf, why hasn't he addressed this issue? why has he not appeared before the senate on any full moons, and why does he refuse to wear or use silver."


    Best Youtube comment ever

    Posted by: DW | Jan 22, 2008 2:27:12 PM


  21. from HARPER DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY USAGE:

    "libel" is technically the defamation of a person... by means of written statements or by pictorial expression. "slander" means similar statements made orally. given the nature of the interwebs, i used the term "picayune" for a reason. my comment was not meant to pick a fight with anyone; rather, it was meant to elicit clarification. any lawyers out there?

    Posted by: nic | Jan 22, 2008 2:44:44 PM


  22. DW,

    high-larious. thanks for the laugh.

    Posted by: nic | Jan 22, 2008 2:49:12 PM


  23. NIC and CLIFF (and anyone else who cares):

    To NIC's question, it's actually not clear whether a falsehood communicated over the internet is necessarily a libel or a slander because the laws obviously weren't written witht his medium in mind, and the case law has not caught up with the issue yet.

    CLIFF's distinction between libel ("written") and slander ("can be both written and verbal defamation") is inaccurate in two ways for the same reason.

    The difference between libel and slander does not in fact relate to the exact form the communication takes but rather the longevity or durability of the means of communication.

    The real distinction then is between transitory or fleeting means, the epitome of which is unrecorded speech, which is a slander, and more enduring or permanent means, the epitome of which is the printed word in a publicly-distributed medium like a newspaper, which is a libel.

    The significance of the distinction is the question of whether and how dramatically the alleged defamation may be repeated in the future-after the original communication is long past. In practice, libel has come to be associated with formally-distributed public media, e.g., the press, and slander with personal communication.

    In all likelihood, a knowingly false internet post on a publicly-trafficked site like YouTube is *probably* a libel, but that's not been ordained as such by any court in the US.

    Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jan 22, 2008 2:56:12 PM


  24. The right-wing has yet to figure out how to use the Internets to their advantage. This will circulate within the wingnutosphere only. Let them have their false conspiracies -- they're never going to vote for him in the first place.

    Also, since it's spoken and not written, it would be slander, not libel.

    That is all!

    Posted by: davitydave | Jan 22, 2008 3:00:05 PM


  25. NO FIGHT HERE...JUST REFERRED TO GOOD 'OL NOAH WEBSTER FOR MY REMARK.

    Posted by: CLIFF | Jan 22, 2008 3:10:24 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «80th Annual Academy Award Nominations Announced« «