Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Obama is a DISASTER for our communities.

   Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 3:42:55 PM

   
   

2. "disaster?"

   Look, the second incident was repudiated by the minister himself, he was _embarrassed_ and said he doesn't support it. Are we going to attack every presidential candidate because of a link on a website of a supporter, how about links to those links?

   Not only does Obama _consistently_ speak out directly and forcebly to the clergy and religious communities, black and white and other, for our rights, he does so often when they don't want to hear it. He speaks truth to power.

   Additionally, his legislative record both in the Ill State senate and US Senate is _very_ pro-gay rights.

   AND his positions on gay rights issues, though not a whole lot different, are better than those of both Clinton and Edwards. For example, when it comes to marriage equality, it's a subtle but huge difference. Clinton and Edwards both support repealing half of DOMA, Obama supports repealing ALL of DOMA. That will make a HUGE difference to my family: http://www.lathefamily.org/2008/01/democratic_candidates_glbt_rig.shtml

   He won't be a disaster, he'll be a great BOON to our community. I'm voting for him.

   Posted by: Trey | Jan 25, 2008 3:53:24 PM

   
   

3. Obama has shown his willingness to give in to the religious left as he seeks the middle ground. Our community will not be pushed to the back of the bus by him, it will be thrown under it.

   Posted by: Mike | Jan 25, 2008 4:03:42 PM

   
   

4. So if Hillary went to South Carolina on a campaign tour with a known KKK operative supporter and then made a speech against racism in California, what would all of you brain washed Obama supporters say?

   Posted by: ReasonBased | Jan 25, 2008 4:04:05 PM

   
   

5. While I wouldn't call him a "disaster"—yet—I'm convinced he's a fraud vis-a-vis any real empathy with LGBTs or commitment to proACTIVE change should he be elected. He'd be better than any Republican in countless areas, most of all in relation to whom they versus whom he would nominate to the Supreme Court—which is my number one issue so HE MUST BE VOTED FOR if he gets the nomination.

   With the help of an incredible number of voluntarily deaf, dumb, and blind gay supporters, Obama's pretty poppies have put too many to sleep. LGBTs will wake up on January 20, 2017, more or less where we are now if it is ONLY left up to a President Obama [which, of course, it's not—Congress is where most of our hopes for full equality begin and end].

   But he hasn't even got the nomination yet, and only a gun to my head would get me to vote for him in the primary.

   Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 25, 2008 4:04:41 PM

   
   

6. wow, against all evidence to the contrary in both legislative record, speaking out and positions,

   people still think he's anti-gay and a fraud because of a link on a website of a supporter.

   :/

   Posted by: Trey | Jan 25, 2008 4:09:42 PM

   
   

7. Now David, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

   Christian fundamentalism is a disaster for our communities. As are Republicans, ex-gay groups, crystal meth, and MRSI. Barack Obama, not so much.

   Look, if you want a true progressive Pres candidate who has a 100% rating from the Task Force and will never give a voice to any (naturally anti-gay) Christian organization, you need to build a time machine. Cuz it ain't happenin' now, and probably not for a long while.

   For any candidate to win, they need to still be friendly to Christians, as this is still America. And being friendly to Christians means walking a fine line on glbt issues, and for the time being, that's excusable, imho.

   Donnie McClurkin, for example, is a closeted fool, as we all know, but he's also a multi-platinum Gospel recording artist, and not because of songs about not being gay anymore. If not for Obama having one concert with him, few of us would even know his name (except those of us who were already fans), and even fewer would know he was a self-loathing denial-ridden faker. So, lets all get over ourselves a little bit.

   Obama will work for our equality, as he has promised, despite also wanting the vote of Christians. He never said he agreed with Donnie McClurkin, and in fact made it clear that he disagreed. That's good enough for me.

   If it's not good enough for you, hey, YOU run for President.

   Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 4:12:00 PM

   
   

8. Nice to see that our freedom can be sold for a multi-platinum Grammy!

   Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 4:36:05 PM

   
   

9. I'm sorry to disabuse you of your misunderstandings, Trey, but

   1. RE Obama "consistently_ speak[s] out directly and forcebly to the clergy and religious communities, black and white and other, for our rights, he does so often when they don't want to hear it. He speaks truth to power."

   No, he speaks partial, usually "passive" truths that are more glitter than gold and have blinded too many to their lack of substance for ACTION.

   His convention speech in 2004:

   "we've got some gay friends in the Red States”—that was it. Period. The 2004 version of “Some of my best friends are gay.” And TWENTY YEARS after Jesse Jackson said in his Dem Convention keynote, “"The white, the Hispanic, the black, the Arab, the Jew, the woman, the native American, the small farmer, the businessperson, the environmentalist, the peace activist, the young, the old, the lesbian, the gay and the disabled make up the American quilt. … [O]ur nation is a rainbow - red, yellow, brown, black and white - and we're all precious in God's sight. … The Rainbow includes lesbians and gays. No American citizen ought to be denied equal protection from the law."

   His announcement speech for President:

   "We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants." That was it. Period.

   Other places are usually mere variations, cheap combo plates of what he's said before, e.g, at Hampton University:

   "They want to divide us into Red States and Blue States, and tell us to always point the finger at somebody else—the other party, or gay people, or people of faith, or immigrants." True, but where’s the call to action? Where’s the unequivocal condemnation of homophobia? Where’s the "beef"? That’s not even beef jerky.

   Hopefully before anyone regurgitates YET AGAIN the absurd transformation of his single line at MLK, Jr.'s church into an explicit condemnation of homophobia, repeat, all he said was that people should embrace gays. I don't need hugs, Senator, I need action to dismantle antigay legislation and pass pro gay equality legislation. Congress, the profitable Antigay Industry, and gay demonizing churches aren't Sunday School kindergartens where homohating lions are going to lay down with LGBT lambs!

   "His legislative record" is no better than Edwards and Clinton. In fact, his constant claims of being able to bring opposing sides together make it WORSE than theirs given that he couldn't even get one of this close friends, one of his "spiritual advisors," James Meeks, who is both a minister AND Illinois state senator, to vote for Illinois' LGBT rights bill. He failed his first audition as a "uniter" big time. And his encore was McClurkingate.

   Finally, it might give you little comfort, but you are one of apparently thousands and thousands who don't understand that repealing Section 2 of DOMA will achieve NOTHING because it does NOT actually prohibit anything. Worse still is that Obama is on record as SUPPORTING the related historical principle: a state's right to deny ANY KIND of same gender union if they want regardless of what happens to that toothless section of DOMA. For the record, too, you're wrong about Edwards—his position is the same as Obama's—repeal all of DOMA, including that now meaningless section, but respect "states' rights." Hillary's only difference is that she sees no point in faking being against them by a hat trick with Section 2.

   All three have the same position on repealing Section 3 which DOES ban access to federal rights/benefits to same gender couples.

   Obama has sprinkled the G-word in several speeches while rarely calling for ACTION. He has paid lip service to "supporting" some gay rights while rarely identifying how he will execute them. He is unable to convince even those close to him to vote for gay rights while employing a professional homobasher to attract homophobic black voters, yet disinvite his own pastor from giving a prayer at his Presidential bid announcement because that minister has some views some think to be antiSemitic. While he addresses gay issues in other places, his official 64-page "Blueprint for Change" has not one syllable about us.

   It's sad what we find once we pull back the curtain. Obama is not a bad man; he's just a very bad Wizard.
   

   Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 25, 2008 4:37:59 PM

   
   

10. Obama is just so full of talk and not much action. America is an important country, so I'd rather Americans pick someone competent (unlike Obama) with okay values (unlike Mitt). Hillary is the way to go.

    I am constantly amazed at how Americans like to elect "likable" characters. If you recall, that was used to elect Bush. This is an interview for the most important job in the world, Americans need to pass better judgement than simple "I like Obama because he symbolizes blah blah blah".

    Posted by: Landis | Jan 25, 2008 4:50:27 PM

    
    

11. Obama, like all the other Democratic candidates, is not a disaster for our community. He is also not a particularly exciting choice for our community. All three candidates are disappointingly tepid regarding GLBT advocacy.

    What's more important here is the overall picture. Let's not allow ourselves to get too uptight about sub-optimal GLBT support. All three are lightyears ahead of the Republicans in that arena. What's more important is the overall picture... investigate the candidates' plans regarding ending the war, starting new unprovoked wars, the role of the presidency in a system of checks and balances, management of a troubling economic situation, support for an independent judiciary, and attention to America's crumbling infrastructure.

    We should also be aware of the practicalities of voting for president this year. It is crucially important that we stop and reverse the BushCo legacy. No politician is perfect (especially at this level), but the stupefying and depraved indifference of the Bush administration has seriously damaged Americans' faith in our republic. We must... MUST... rebuild that before anything else can be accomplished.

    Posted by: The Milkman | Jan 25, 2008 4:53:29 PM

    
    

12. Look, none of the candidates are really going to do all that much for the gay community. None of them are really going to stand up for gay marriage, etc. Calling one a savior and another a disaster is just silly and divisive. There is very little difference between Obama and Clinton, except leadership style. I support them both.

    Posted by: Henry | Jan 25, 2008 4:53:45 PM

    
    

13. Well put, Henry. I couldn't agree more. I'm for Obama, but I'll be happy with Hillary as well. Some of my gay friends have been so nasty to me about Obama. Well, if Obama gets the nomination, I sure hope the rabid Hillary fans support him. I just want the Democrats to win. Because a Republican would be the REAL disaster (take that, hyperbolic Ehrenstein!).

    Posted by: Martin | Jan 25, 2008 5:05:09 PM

    
    

14. David- Our "freedom"? Really? Free yourself, brother.

    And Michael- actually, we do need hugs, figuratively speaking. Considering that appealing to Christians is still crucial for a win for either party, and considering that mainstream Christianity is still not even tolerant of homosexuality, let alone accepting, no antigay legislation will be passed in this country until hearts and minds are changed. And getting your average southern, Christian, Donnie McClurkin fan to listen to and vote for a liberal Democrat seems like a few good steps in the right direction to me.

    I am as fired up about fighting and winning this culture war as any good homo. But if we want to be listened to, we need to work on our listening skills. We are entitled to our inalienable rights. We are NOT entitled to the respect, tolerance, and full equality we demand as the gay and lesbian community. We must earn those.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 5:14:23 PM

    
    

15. Sorry- I meant to say:

    "No anti-gay legislation will be dismantled in this country...."

    Or, alternatively:

    "No pro-gay equality legislation will be passed in this country..."

    Either one.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 5:18:10 PM

    
    

16. "Free yourself, brother."

    Blow it out your ass!!!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 5:18:56 PM

    
    

17. "I am as fired up about fighting and winning this culture war as any good homo."

    Really? If that's the case then why do you FUCKING GROVEL LIKE AN ANIMAL WITH --

    "But if we want to be listened to, we need to work on our listening skills."

    How old are you? 14?

    " We are entitled to our inalienable rights. We are NOT entitled to the respect, tolerance, and full equality we demand as the gay and lesbian community. We must earn those."

    If we are entitled to our inalienable rights then we are ALSO entitled to respect and full equality (fuck "tolerance")

    Now crawl back into your Log Cabinette hole and FUCKING DIE!!!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 5:24:27 PM

    
    

18. As the McClurkin scandal was unfolding, Obama's campaign told LGBT activists in SC that the gay vote did not matter.

    Recently, when an LGBT activist greeted Hillary by saying that the SC gay community supported her, she said, "Great, we need your vote."

    I'm voting for a candidate that actually appreciates my vote.

    Posted by: Clint | Jan 25, 2008 5:35:36 PM

    
    

19. David, I'm almost speechless. Almost.

    What's wrong with listening more intently to the debate over our rights? Because you're tired of ignorance and intolerance, you've chosen to hold your hands over your ears and just scream about being accepted?

    You don't think that our understanding of our enemy is key to our overcoming their hatred and fear of us? You think we can just slash-n-burn our way to equality?

    I'll be fighting next to you the whole time, but I'm not sharing any of my animal crackers with you.

    Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 5:52:52 PM

    
    

20. I wholeheartedly agree with Landis. Americans are OBSESSED with LIKABILITY in a candidate, and it will be our downfall. Bush was likable to millions of idiots who voted for him twice, while Gore and Kerry were labelled as "cold and robotic". The same thing is constantly being said about Hillary.

    As far as Obama goes, he is all smoke and mirrors, and could care less about gays or their issues. He is nothing more than a conservative in sheeps clothing.
    

    Posted by: michael | Jan 25, 2008 6:33:46 PM

    
    

21. "Because you're tired of ignorance and intolerance, you've chosen to hold your hands over your ears and just scream about being accepted?"

    I don't "scream about being accepted" at all. I never have. It's simply not becoming in a 61 year-old who has been fighting for gay rights since 1969.
    

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 25, 2008 6:50:51 PM

    
    

22. Eww. Who is this David Ehrenstein annoyance? He needs to be dispatched.

    Posted by: GM | Jan 25, 2008 6:51:47 PM

    
    

23. Jeff, I will give you the benefit of the doubt re your intentions that your rhetoric belies.

    I don't know how old you are, but know that David and I are about the same age. If we're older, I don't mean to suggest that "older is ALWAYS wiser," but it does allow one more time to observe the actions, read and listen to the words of others. In short, I don't need to listen to them—I've heard it ALL before. So much so that I could "play one on TV."

    Further, David's being reared a Roman Catholic in the days when American Catholics tended to be as dogmatic as Pope RATzinger is now, and my being reared in evangelical churches, without speaking for you, I'm confidant we know VISCERALLY a thing or two about how unwilling religious-driven homophobes are to listening, change, whatever.

    Maybe of part of the problem is that Obama doesn't. While he began to do social work among people of color in Chicago as a young adult, he spent most of his childhood outside the US. He's written, "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind." He did not experience the Jim Crow days in the US. I know of no evidence that deep-seated hatred of others by others is something he has seen first hand, as Hillary did in Arkansas and Edwards did in South Carolina. I'm not suggesting the "he's not black enough" silliness, but I'm saying that his lack of direct experience re racial bigotry has not helped him understand, as gay black civil right icon Bayard Rustin wrote 22 years ago, when Obama was only 25, that "the new 'niggers' are gays."

    Not only is that a fact, not only is homophobia among millions felt today as "to the bone" as racism was 50 years ago [and still is among too many] but I am always confused when Obama talks about such dialogue, as if he imagines some compromise between us. What EXACTLY would he—or you—have me surrender? I'm not asking them to stop believing nonsense, just that they stop using that nonsense as justification for denying me my civil liberties. I would respectfully ask them to get their fucking hands off the Constitution! I would add that it would be more Christian or whatever to stop physically and/or emotionally brutalizing, disowning, etc., their LGBT children. I can send you stories about those who've been killed by their parents in the name of fighting gay sin if you'd like.

    The strange contradiction in Obama is that, as I understand it, he never took religion too seriously until he joined the United Church of Christ a few years ago. So I cannot understand, though possibly his books explain, how he continues to tell us that we should let those believers who would legally deny us marriage equality alone and accept second-class citizenship when the official position of the UCC supports marriage equality.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jan 25, 2008 6:56:59 PM

    
    

24. David- I must say, I'm utterly flattered to be told to "FUCKING DIE" by a man as published and accomplished as yourself, but if screaming for acceptance isn't becoming in a man of your stature, why is bashing me?

    Posted by: Jeff | Jan 25, 2008 7:05:13 PM

    
    

25. I had planned to vote for Obama before the Rev McClurkin incident, and it was not 'Obama having one concert with him' he was in charge of a weekend fundraiser.

    When told of his statements, not to mention McClurkin performing at the 2004 GOP convention, 'Obama refused to drop the singer from his three-day "Embrace the Change" gospel tour.'

    Now between him and his wife playing the victim of a nasty political fight I can't even look at him without my stomach turning. What do they think the GOP would do to them in the fall? I hope that in time he wins me over, because I did like his speech at the 2004 convention, but Obama is nothing but a fake as far as I am concerned.

    That and the fact that he has no chance of getting any votes in the south, besides from the black community and a few very liberal whites. He may make it through the 2/5 Super Tuesday vote, but he's pretty much toast after that, and slim chance Hillary will pick him for VP.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Jan 25, 2008 7:10:16 PM

    
    
Next (more comments...) »

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: