I'm sick of the phony reasons some gay people give for opposing Barack Obama. I am not talking about my friends in Log Cabin Republicans, who prefer John McCain for broader ideological reasons. I am talking about angry Hillary Clinton supporters.
For example, Sirius OutQ talk-radio host Larry Flick, still upset that Clinton had not won the Democratic nomination, slammed Obama on Aug. 28 for opposing same-sex marriage. Yet Clinton holds the same position on marriage - except that she would only repeal Article 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, whereas Obama favors total repeal.
Flick challenged Sirius Left host Mark Thompson, an African American minister and activist with whom I've worked for years, on his support for Obama. Flick expressed outrage that Obama accepted help from "blatant, aggressive homophobes" Donnie McClurkin and Illinois state Sen. James Meeks. Yet Clinton enjoyed support from homophobic Bishop Eddie Long of Lithonia, Ga., and from former D.C. City Council member Vincent Orange, who as a mayoral candidate in 2006 called his opponents morally unfit for supporting marriage equality.
Flick said Obama "has not voted in favor of these issues on gay rights in any fashion." In fact, the Human Rights Campaign's Congressional Scorecard for the 109th Congress shows that Clinton and Obama had identical LGBT voting records and earned an HRC score of 89. This included, among other things, voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. I have not yet seen the scorecard for the 110th, but the Congressional Record shows that in 2007, Clinton and Obama were co-introducers of the transgender-inclusive Hate Crimes Prevention Act - later incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act - and voted "aye" in a key cloture vote.
Flick acknowledged that he would probably vote for Obama given the alternatives, but "I won't allow any of his people to come on my show." He even claimed that Democratic Party leaders decided a year ago to back Obama for the nomination because they never thought Hillary could win. This conspiracy mongering ignores the fact that the Clintons were a dominant force in the party while Obama was given little chance. During the primaries, Clinton landed her share of blows, as shown by McCain's use of them in his commercials. Clinton and Obama have reconciled, and she has hit the campaign trail for him. As Thompson suggested, her supporters should consider the larger stakes and not let the election be reduced to a clash of personalities.
Flick repeatedly said to Thompson, "You're not a gay man, you don't understand." Thompson was admirably restrained. He stated that blacks and gays share a "mutual struggle," and that comparing oppressions was a mistake. He noted that he himself has differences with Obama, "but we would be better off holding a President Obama accountable than a President McCain." Thompson also sang the praises of Clinton, describing the exhilarating moment during the roll call when she moved to nominate Obama by acclamation. He said it was time to move forward together: "Today is bigger than him."
We should heed Thompson's advice. McCain's eagerness to distract voters from the issues is evident in his vice-presidential choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who opposes Clinton on nearly every issue. Former Hewlett-Packard Chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina, in response to journalistic scrutiny of Palin, stated, "The Republican Party will not stand by while Sarah Palin is subjected to sexist attacks."
Oh, really? Ten years ago, McCain joked, "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." How does a man who could say such a thing about a political opponent's teenage daughter dare have his surrogates cry sexism over press examination of his running mate's qualifications - or declare family matters off-limits, even as he parades the family in question before the cameras? How is an out-of-wedlock pregnancy nobody's business, while it's okay to accuse gay people of undermining families? How in the world does this show McCain putting his country ahead of his political ambition?
Our intelligence is repeatedly insulted as GOP wordmeisters put just about anything on the telerompter that will get a roar from the crowd. Given the recent tone of McCain's campaign, his promise to bring the country together is as credible as President Bush's old line, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."
As Obama said on Sept. 6, "They must think you're stupid." Prove them wrong.
43 Comments for “Obamaphobia”
posted by MMMM on
Great couple of pieces on distortion in the media and irrational responses to opposition. Great job.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RichardJ, we can smell the fear in your sweat. We can feel the angst in your words and unprecendented attacks of McCain, even though, by your own admission, this article was about your beef with “angry Hillary Clinton supporters”.
You should be crying into your hands… the gambit to con gay voters that BarryO’Biden was better for gays than Sen Clinton has failed. He isn’t. He isn’t more electable. He doesn’t support gay marriage. He can’t even seal the deal with American voters after 19 months of pleading, begging, and whispers of promises.
Go ahead; a good cry is in order because the tide turned exactly when you and your Party took to smearing Sarah Palin -who instantly connected to over 40 million likely-voters and moved well past Obama’s favorable ratings in the polls.
Well, I give you credit. You solidly put the gay community’s long term interests in electing a maverick, proven reformer, anti-establishment team –and, maybe assistng the legions of true independent voters who helped moderates and liberals inside the GOP move McCain into position to secure the nomination– disabuse the Party of the commanding influence by the farRight religious types.
Maybe gay GOPers can still do that once President McCain and Veep Palin take office… but that will only be after all the Democrat litigators get quashed in their efforts to pull another AlGore2000 stunt.
HowieDean has your 40 pieces of silver waiting at the back door of the DNC. You’ve been a good lapdog; there’s always 2012.
posted by Priya Lynn on
The latest poll shows Obama is leading in the key battleground states that will decide the election:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778796&page=1
The Palin/Mccain flash in the pan is sizzling out as quickly as it started.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PrincessPriyaLynn, you need to get your prescription for those glasses check, sweetie.
According to local, on-the-ground polling in the respective states: McCain-Palin is pulling ahead in Michigan by 1, is ahead in Ohio by 2, is ahead in Florida by 4 and Virginia by 3.
Or did you mean the “battleground states” as Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont?
Princess, the last time you were squawking this loudly, it was about your proof that Palin wasn’t capturing the women’s vote… and you were roundly discredited when it turned out the poll was done by a democrat-hatchet group, EMILY’S List, by a democrat-hatchet pollster from PetieHart’s nefarious democrat party polling organization.
You have zero credibility here on prompting anyone to look at polling.
By the way, my gayDemocrat, today John McCain spent the day with survivors of the 9/11 horror and spoke directly about one of the stellar gay heroes of the day –Mark Bingham.
McCain, speaking at the Shanksville memorial site said:
“No American living then should ever forget the heroism that occurred in the skies above this field on September 11, 2001. It is believed that the terrorists on United Flight 93 may have intended to crash the airplane into the United States Capitol. Hundreds if not thousands of people would have been at work in that building when that fateful moment occurred, and been destroyed along with a beautiful symbol of our freedom. They and, very possibly I, owe our lives to the passengers who summoned the courage and love necessary to deny our depraved and hateful enemies their terrible triumph.
I have witnessed great courage and sacrifice for America?s sake, but none greater than the sacrifice of those good people who grasped the gravity of the moment, understood the threat, and decided to fight back at the cost of their lives.
I spoke at the memorial service for one of them, Mark Bingham. I acknowledged that few of us could say we loved our country as well as he and all the heroes of September 11 had. The only means we possess to thank them is to try to be as good an American as they were. We might fall well short of their standard, but there is honor in the effort.
In the Gospel of John it is written, ?Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends.? Such was their love; a love so sublime that only God?s love surpasses it. I am in awe of it as much as I am in debt to it. May God bless their souls.”
Of course, BarryO’Biden were missing in action and instead, BarryO was crawling back to the clutches of SlickWilly and begging him to “get involved or I’m dead meat”.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Of course, BarryO’Biden couldn’t have done anything like that because, if they did, their primary base of NetRootNuts over at the Daily-Kos or MoveOn.Org would scream bloody murder because they know the tragedy of 9/11 was done by BushCo and the CIA.
Gosh, could there be a day when the choice seemed more clear? Whispers of promises from BarryO’Biden after he runs the ObamaBus over gays and McCain standing proudly as a patriot in the sun talking about the most famous gay hero of 9/11?
I guess not. Will it change any rabid gayDemocrats here? Heck no… they’ll be back on “Sarah Palin’s church is anti-gay” even if the facts disprove it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Did somebody fart? There seems to be a lot of hot air in this forum
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Princess PriyaLynn makes a funny. Move over Patrick, we have a new court jester and she’s wearing a rainbow skirt.
posted by Patrick on
The secret, Priya Lynn, is to just walk OVER the garbage and ignore it. If you happen to get some on your shoe it’s just best to throw it away ’cause stink like that never comes out.
posted by Patrick on
McCain recently spoke at the Shanksville memorial site, is that near his wife Cindy?s
estate in Skanksville? You know one of the ones he forgot about!?!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Patrick, is that ALL you got, dude? Wow, you are so out of your element… head back to the kiddie’s wading pool and put back on your floaties. You’re going to hurt yourself.
posted by Drew on
Hillary supporters have very good reasons to be upset with Obama’s nomination. Take a look at the PDF file at link below. Caucuses boosted Obama by voter suppression. PUMA is out there folks!
http://www.talkleft.com/media/2008caucusreport.pdf
posted by Jorge on
I happen to trust Hillary more than Obama on gay rights. She just seems to mix with the community more easily and more often. But I think Obama’s likable enough.
posted by Patrick on
Here is some footage of Sara and Cindy shot just after that wonderful photo op of all the lovely current and potential future first and second ladies sitting together . OOPS?. hahaha?.. my bad, Sara was tapped for VP, it only LOOKS like she is considered just one of the ?gals?.
posted by Patrick on
Try it again, here they are
sitting together
posted by Patrick on
Blah-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/02/sarah-palin-laura-bush-cindy-mccain-meet-in-minneapolis/
posted by Jorge on
Sheesh! Do you think you could possibly post a more pointless comment?
posted by Patrick on
I guess the link for Cindy is broken too. Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPUDjpIjR7M
posted by Patrick on
Ah but Jorge, Just because you missed the point doesn?t mean there isn?t one.
How can I take Sara seriously when it appears the ?Men folk? don?t? Have you ever seen a photo of the Vice Presidential Candidate posing with the First Lady and the Wife of the Candidate for President? Seems very Victorian, women in the parlour sipping tea while the men in study talk serious business and smoke cigars.
posted by Jorge on
Ah but Jorge, Just because you missed the point doesn?t mean there isn?t one.
How can I take Sara seriously when it appears the ?Men folk? don?t? Have you ever seen a photo of the Vice Presidential Candidate posing with the First Lady and the Wife of the Candidate for President? Seems very Victorian, women in the parlour sipping tea while the men in study talk serious business and smoke cigars.
Well since you’re taking the time to say that, I will respond.
First of all your link doesn’t seem to be working. It seems that you are saying that Sarah Palin posed in a group picture with the other Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates, and that she was sitting next to Cindy McCain while John McCain was sitting next to Todd McCain. Did I get that right?
Or is it a photo of Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, and Jill Biden?
Or a photo of all eight of the candidates and their spouses and all the women were sitting together and all the men were sitting together?
I think you are taking a cheap shot that is meaningless. Meaningless for a cheap shot, that is.
posted by Jorge on
Excuse me, I mean Todd Palin.
posted by Patrick on
What i wrote is “Have you ever seen a photo of the Vice Presidential Candidate posing with the First Lady and the Wife of the Candidate for President” I don’t think I mentioned her husdand, who(being the spouse) if this were any other election cycle would be the one sitting with the other spouses not the VP candidate.
Cut and paste Jorge
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/02/sarah-palin-laura-bush-cindy-mccain-meet-in-minneapolis/
and you can see that that is an impression that could EASILY be had. Trading recipies.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, so we have Laura Bush, Cindy McCain, and Sarah Palin posing for a group photo. Because all three of them are women but only two of them are the spouses of candidates for political office, you are saying that this is a very strange and suspicious photo. It should be Laura Bush, Cindy McCain, and the world champion ski-racer (or whatever) Todd Palin. Because this photo is strange to you, you are saying that the explanation for your the outlier (Palin) is that she is lumped in a lesser category (spouse) because of one specific demographic (woman).
Frankly I think the fact that you “EASILY” interpret this as some sort of subliminal message that Sarah Palin is some sort of lesser creature because she’s a woman sitting with other woman says more about your imagination than it does about the Republican party, or whatever you think the boogeyman is.
To answer your question, the answer is: never. I have also never seen a female Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Because this is something historic, almost any action by Sarah Palin is going to be entering uncharted territory, and will be something that is going to be overinterpreted by tonguewagging airheads of questionable integrity and analytic ability. Just because such hyperbolie is spoken out loud does not make it correct, or even sensical.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jorge, Patrick is the essence of meaningless comment… he’s the posterboi for wading in the kiddies pool without floaties. He’s a lightweight who often condemns others, claims to never read their comments (but finds time to respond in detail) and just wants to be loved.
I think he makes PrincessPriyaLynn look intellectual –so maybe there’s some good in letting him post meaningless dribble.
posted by Jorge on
I realize you have a bit of a “history” with some of the other posters here, but you’re not helping your cause by flaming them.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jorge, I appreciate your advice, but here’s the problem.
We’ve got a few sockpuppets here who try mightily to hijack the gay civil rights movement so that Democrats can keep gays in voterSlavery down on the Plantation alongside blacks, Jews, women (until Sarah set ’em free) and other VictimHoodUnited groups.
We have lots of gayDemocrats here on IGF parading the false claim that they are non-partisan or centrist or independents in order to gain some intellectual credibility for their highly partisan arguments. (see Richard II, ETJB, or KingRichard)
Finally, we have gayLefties here who love to smear GOPers with a long list of taunts including the Nazi-Jew, chickens-ColSaunders, ChickenHawk, keyboard army, etc.
Now, we could all be civil, decent and practice the rules of fair, open exchange of ideas. But that’s not what they want when they contend Palin is anti-gay, McCain intends to lock up gays in concentration camps, Palin eats babies, etc.
You’re right, there’s a “bit of a history” here. We’ve had trolls from the gayLeft post under fake names and my name. We’ve had their colleagues piggyback on the troll comments and fan them to engage in personal attacks. And we’ve had IGF writers and commenters here use this site to infect debate with the standard gayDemocrat talking points.
I guess standing up to those kind of folks makes one appear to be flaming… but I gotta tell you, the heat is nothing like it is in a real kitchen of politics.
OK, I take back that Patrick makes PrincessPriya look intellectual. That was flame set on scortch, not toast. My bad.
posted by Jorge on
There is nothing wrong with having “sockpuppets”, deluded Democrats, and overblown lefties around, or even IGF writers who espouse Democratic talking points with incredible stubbornness (some of them ARE Democrats, after all).
Most importantly, the content of the comments on this website is monitored. Therefore there is no reason to sink to the gutter.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Returning to the thread’s topic for a second, King Richard took aim in his article venting hot air at all the Hillary Clinton supporters not singing from the approved hymnal used in the Temple of Barack.
RJR wrote: “I?m sick of the phony reasons some gay people give for opposing Barack Obama.” “I am talking about angry Hillary Clinton supporters.”
Well, they may or may not be gay, but there’s a whole posse of those angry disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters out there… and they have some new websites.
Here’s one that uses a campaign ad from a group of disaffected NativeAmerican Democrats highlighting BarryO’s disingenuous and unpatriotic whispers while in Iraq. Take a second and listen to what BarryO was REALLY up to while in Iraq… it’s almost as traitorous as Kerry’s testimony where he lied about war atrocities he supposedly witnessed.
http://hcsfjm.com/
And if that wasn’t enough to cause even the most fevered gayDemocrat apologists for BarryO to pause… here’s the latest HillaryClinton-we’re-angry-and-weren’t-going-away crowd…
http://www.clintons4mccain.com/
Check out the first video exposing the truth behind the relationship between BarryO and bomb-tossing terrorist Bill Ayers.
Then check out the “Hell No To BHO” video at the bottom of the page.
Warning: some of these Clinton folks take aim at BarryO’s reputed muslim connections and support of/by despots abroad.
Wow.
And some gayDemocrats can wonder aloud why their DNC-approved candidate is floundering, faltering, fluttering in the polls while flailing about in search of support?
Wow, as BobN would say: “that’s priceless”.
posted by Michael J Ahern on
MM,
The clips and images you mentioned linking Senator Obama to muslims are racist. Senator Obama has spoken about his faith as a Christian and some of the images on those Clinton supporter websites are racist. Do you support those insinuations and bigoted fear mongering? Is that the kind of campaign the McCain/Palyn campaign want to be associated with?
ObamaPhobia is real. It is in your linked websites and it is the ugliest, underside of politics I have viewed so far.
posted by PSUdain on
King Richard??? Is he back from the crusades?
Maybe if you actually spoke intelligibly, and ended your use of camelCase as a substitute for fear quotes, then you might be taken more seriously. And it would also help to take you seriously if you stopped using derogatory playground names for those who disagree with you and just called them by name. You know, like one might in a civilized adult conversation that you seem to constantly accuse your “opponents” of not being able to partake of?
Along with that you could take the tone down a few notches, from hysterical screaming queen, maybe to just ruffled feathers.
Also, when somebody disagrees with you on one thing, it does not automatically mean they will do so on everything. Nor does it mean they are insane, childlike, or objectively wrong, period.
The article makes several good points. Just because you think there are other better points against the article’s points, does not make the points in the article wrong. Just inconsequential TO YOU.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Now PSU, I think it’s actually you who have gotten a little bit more than
“just confused”, here. King Richard refers to the gayLeft writer here who loves to pontificate, lecture and instruct gays on how to think, what to think and when to think. Hence (I’m going slow for you PSU), we refer to him as “king” even tho’ he really isn’t royalty.
You advise: “Along with that you could take the tone down a few notches, from hysterical screaming queen, maybe to just ruffled feathers.”
And then, not following your own advice, write: “Also, when somebody disagrees with you on one thing, it does not automatically mean they will do so on everything. Nor does it mean they are insane, childlike, or objectively wrong, period. The article makes several good points. Just because you think there are other better points against the article’s points, does not make the points in the article wrong. Just inconsequential TO YOU.”
What was that about being a “screaming queen”?
I know PSU, you feel like your side of the argument is losing the ball, losing the field advantage, losing the game. It’s an epidemic amongst the gayDemocrats here (is “gayDemocrats” allowed under your new rules?).
It’s ok. Honest. But you don’t need to try to stifle debate with “advice” intended to do nothing more than shout-down your better-thinking, better-prepped, better-advised opponents.
Only a King would try that.
And a handful of sockpuppets.
And a gayLeft troll acting as an imposter.
I’ll tell you what. Here’s a deal, you debate the issues instead of engaging in personalized smears against those who dissent from the OneTrueGayCreed and I’ll gladly participate in your BraveNewWorld of Politics… isn’t that what BarryO started out campaigning and promising.
Back in the days before he ran over Rev Meeks. Ran over Michigan and Florida delegates. Ran over Clinton voters. Ran over Rev Wright; twice. Ran over gay civil rights. Ran over the #1 gayDemocrat issue of gay marriage. Ran over anti-war zealots who wanted us out of Iraq immediately and without reservation… nows it’s his whispered promise to not pull out for at least 16 months.
How’s that for a deal, PSU?
You said the article made a number of good points –rather than continue your personal attack, maybe you’d like to note 1-2-3 of them for all of us? Or are you just here to attack… like PatrickGryph.
That’d be ok too; because at the end of the day, the gayDemocrats must maintain cultural hegemony at all costs.
posted by PSUdain on
And on and on you go, namecalling. Oh, by the way, I’m not a Democrat. Registered Republican, and supporter of Log Cabin.
But on you go, just because I criticize your tone and delivery (as well as your content), I am clearly a “gayDemocrat” or whatever the hell itIsThatYouWantToCallMeOrOtherPeopleWhoDisagreeWithYou. WhyIsItThatYouFeelTheNeedToWriteThingsLikeThisAgain?
I’ll address whatever points you want to make, when you stop the childish namecalling.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
My mistake. My apology for the mistaken characterization.
I thought you’d accept all the namecalling and childish rants because you seem to do it a lot at your own private piece of Nittany-hood at your own blog. Of course, it’s another one of those that no one seems to read, no one seems to care about. Maybe that’s because of your childish antics, namecalling and brutishly insufferable demeanor whilst there?
Like when you wrote: “Dude. You are f—ing insane. Also, the best way to get oxygen: don’t breathe. Also, if you take that line of logic, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you.”
or “A big thank you to Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern (R) for the following kind words. I don’t know how people get this nuts. Maybe she needs to stop taking her teaspoon of mercury before bedtime. I don’t have anything to add to this.”
or “a bunch of supposedly intelligent college students standing around on the steps of Old Main with trash bags over their heads. Apparently they missed some of those basic life lessons most people learn as children. Seriously. This is somehow supposed to make a point?” and then later “The only real point that I see in any of this is that, “We’re a bunch of pricks who can’t follow the rules of common sense or common decency”.
or “How immature can the RNC get? Seriously, these have the poetic intellect of a middle schooler. Plus, can’t you let one holiday go past without trying to politicize it? Geez. A complete lack of any class.”
Seems you do a wee little bit of namecalling and some childish antics, yourself, Nittany-boi. But then, that’s par for the course when you’re a AndieSullivan devotee… whose motto ought be (in latin no less): “It’s my standard for you, and don’t think you privileged to judge me.”
And all this coarseness and insulting antics you display? A few weeks earlier you’re railing against others who do the exact same thing on other blogs… only you have the janus-like character that can tsk-tsk others for actions you engage yourself.
Maybe the best thing, PSU, is for you to first muzzle your own hyperactive and highly selective sense of RighteousIndignation before pumping up your chest feathers and trying to enforce an ideal on others you fail to enlist for yourself?
I think you were criticizing me for my failures and excesses… oh, yeah, point out the spot in the other guy’s eye.
Here’s an idea, whether you’re a GOPer or not, how about living within your own construct of propriety before forcing yours on others.
posted by dalea on
The hesitation I have with Obama is there appear to be no gay people who have been in his life for a long time. When the McClurkin trouble arose, there was no one to stand up and say I am gay, I have known Obama for 25 years etc. Not one then. Nor in the other instances. The only personal anecdote he has given is some long ago professor who amazingly did not come on to him. Very offensive to me at least. Obama talks a good talk on gay issues. He has voted with us most of the time. But appears to have no personal connection to us.
Two sites that do address this issue are:
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/
http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/
There are very serious and complicated issues here, not just a fit of pique.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
dalea, Obama is a bit of a cipher to all those who surround him –someone who seems to be desperate for everyone’s approval and yet emotionally distant and unavailable to gay voters begging to identify with him. The guy won’t even stand up and be a man… he avoids confrontation to the point where it might drive an Obama foreign policy that would tolerate meeting unconditionally with terrorists just to get them to “feel good about America again”.
The PUMAs are making fair assessments of where the Obama campaign is, how it got there and why the farLeft DNC is now fighting for the survival of the ticket… against calls from Democrats to dump Biden and re-select Hillary for Veep.
As your links point out… HarrygReid went a’begging for some of that mucho-payola that Obama is collecting and BarryO told him to take a hike.
The House Democrats are worried that an imploding Obama ticket may help GOP candidates out in tight elections… like the one Alegre notes in WA 8th’s…
“In WA8, Reichert Gains Strength, Possibly Riding McCain Coattails.
“Incumbent Republican Congressman Dave Reichert defeats Democratic challenger Darcy Burner by 10 points in an election in Washington State’s 8th Congressional District today, in a rematch of their 2006 election fight, according to this latest exclusive KING-TV poll conducted by SurveyUSA. Today, 09/10/08, it’s Reichert 54%, Burner 44%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released six weeks ago, Reichert is up 4 points; Burner flat. Reichert’s gain mirrors gains made by top-of-ticket Republican John McCain, over the same time period, as revealed in SurveyUSA polling released one day ago, 09/09/08. The interviewing occurred during a time when Republicans nationwide were rallying around Sarah Palin and Democrats nationally were comparatively flatfooted. Reichert’s gains may or may not be reflected in future polling in this district.
“Darcy Burner is a favorite of the Orange Cheeto, and this may be the first of many races adversely affected by the collapse of the Obama campaign. I wonder if the Obamazoids will notice that their promotion of a presidential candidate without popular support is having an adverse effect on downticket races.”
That’s gotta hurt in a Blue state like Washington that was going 8+ points for BarryO just last week.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ObamaPhobia? Maybe gays being afraid of a candidate who reverses himself on nearly every major pledge, drive his bs over even a family-friend and spiritual mentor isn’t a phobia… it’s good common sense?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html
BarryO’s got a new ad out that gets the proverbial crap beat out of it by fair minded folks –and for good reason. It’s racist and pure political campaign sleaze… what political consultants call p’porn… because the intent isn’t truth, it’s masturbation of emotions by a candidate of a trageted vulnerable voting block… in this case recent immigrants or –more likely– illegal immigrants who BarryO’s ACORN group were able to “register” for the election. Hey, they’ve done it with gays already… why can’t they do it to immigrants and illegal aliens?
McCain, on the other hand, takes a reasonable course and indicts BarryO as having been part of the SenDem’s poison pill that killed meaningful immigration reform that McCain spearheaded and championed with a bipartisan coalition and against his Party leaders’ wishes… and got lambasted by Rush Limbaugh for it for months on end… and now, BarryO’Biden is trying to fraudulently link the two?
And we should listen to gayDemocrats here who promise if we just worship at the Temple of Barack, he’ll reward us after the Election?
Yeow.
http://www.lastreporter.com/?p=589
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ObamaPhobia?
Maybe for gays it isn’t unwarranted.
Here’s an earlier Barack Obama ad for his senate race where he promoted the endorsement of a radical, bigoted, anti-gay black minister preaching the same message of “salvation through hate” that Rev Wright used to greater, lasting effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou1G0BIyu74
And if gays shouldn’t feel a little ObamaPhobia, then BarryO’s embrace of anti-gay bigot and ex-gay minister Donnie McClurkin ought to give every gay –even those ridin’ high on their mighty whitie high horses– pause.
Here’s the real story on McClurkin and Obama’s embrace of an anti-gay bigot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se7fqpIkTCY
ObamaPhobia? Is that like the calls to German Jews in the 1930’s to get out of Germany?
posted by jake on
MMatt, for argument’s sake let us say senator obama is a closet racist and has a long record of hanging around racially bigoted black ministers
for argument’s sake let us say that some of those black ministers are out in the open homophobic bigots as well and not like us
and for argument’s sake let us say that senator obama really doesn’t care what gays think, say or do because we have no where else to go in politics and he knows it
we’re captives, not slaves as you like to term it
captives can choose not to engage with the enemy if that’s what senator obama is to gays
is that what you want? or do you have some fantasy of gays coming over to the republican side of the political scales?
do you think democratic party gays are community activists for gay rights because they are democrats first and gays second? you argue you are a republican first and gay second. is that any different than democratic party gays?
i’m not joking. please answer these and they are not “homework”, i want to understand
and you’re right, ETJB does sound like richard rozendall
posted by Michigan-Matt on
You’re right, gayDemocrats are more like captives than slaves… because even if they thought of themselves as free, my hunch is that they would remain in the party that plays to their sense of VictimHood.
When I and others have used the term slave, we mean that most gays who vote have chosen to be enslaved by the Democrats… the Democrats understand and cynically play to the notion that society has victimized gays and the only answer is special rights, special attention. They did it with the black vote, they did it with the poor, innercity vote, they did it with the potential felon/prison vote and the Democrats are trying hard to do it to the hispanic vote. The whispered promise of the welfare state was that it would end poverty, end homelessness, end suffering. It didn’t; it doesn’t. Today, it’s the whispered promise of gay marriage and -tada- “validation” of our lifestyle by society.
I think most gay activists begin life attached to the Democrat Party because of the sense of entitlement through the recognition of victimhood by the party. The fiction, of course, is that their gay identity defines them, their friends, their dress, their culturalization, their values and then they are Democrats. I think they would have been Democrats first, gay or not.
I don’t have any fantasy of gayDemocrats leaving the Party that caters to their sense of collective victimization –but, because the people who supported McCain’s bid for the presidency, I do think this is a seachange moment for the GOP and it could be for gays in diminishing the influence of what the gayLeft calls the greatest threat to their existence… the farRight religious politico types inside the GOP.
Helping to elect McCain would help diminish the role of farRight types in the GOP. And frankly, with the gayLeft’s friends in the Congress, it would be easier to leverage political pressure on Democrats to finally support gay civil rights instead of just saying they will after the next election.
Thanks for the questions; I didn’t see it as homework but as honest dialogue.
posted by dalea on
My memories of gay people and our struggle go back 35 years. At first, support for gay rights was not a liberal issue. Our friends were all over the political spectrum. I can remember voting for moderate and liberal Republicans over New Deal Democrats because they were better on gay issues and concerns. Beginning with Reagan, the Republicans I liked were squeezed out of the party. During the same period, the Democrats woke up and began appealing to us directly. Urban Democrats and their machines made the first overtures when they undid all the petty harrassing practices of the police. It used to be that men dancing with men were hauled off, jailed and fined. Our first experiences were with Democrats at the municipal level. And these people responded to our concerns with concrete action and help. I suspect that this is the point where the gay/dem alliance began. Keep in mind the Democrats were running a real risk of offending their AA and RC supporters. But they helped us anyway. Many of the local officials moved up to state and federal office, like Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer. They took the wise step off keeping all their old supporters on board. We happened to be among that group.
At the local level, Democrats did do a lot for us in the 70’s and 80’s, frequently at real risk to their political carreers. This is where the tie between the two groups began. What we see now is a maturation of the earlier ties. For the Democrats, we are an investment that has paid off very well. Matt, I doubt you are old enough to remember the bar raids and general harrassment of gays. The Democrats were the ones who put a stop to it. It has nothing to do with this ‘victomhood’ babble.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
dalea, with all due respect to your age, I think the roots of gay-empathy and shared political courage on gay civil rights you’d like to find in your Democrat friends is wishful thinking –whether that’s Feinstein or Schumer.
The “babble” about the Democrats selling victimhood in heavy doses to gays, blacks, women, etc isn’t fiction or fantasy, it’s fact. And it isn’t a concept present only on IGF… it’s a legend-like theme in nearly every honest, balanced or fair discussion of what animates the constituencies of the DNC. Have you ever heard the Democrats being called “A Coalition of the Willing Victims”?
Try remembering which party has pushed affirmative action as a govt imposed regulatory scheme to assist those victimized by society’s past… try remembering which party embraced slave reparations… embraced WWII internment reparations to American citizens… try remembering which party thinks adding sexual orientation to federal HateCrimes legislation will make gays safe from crime and bullies –when the stats show we need be more concerned about our live-in lover being a domestic abuser than a victim of random hate crime.
I can appreciate you remember political allies that have stood beside gays lo’ these many years… but I just gotta ask, if they’ve been such great allies and also in control of the levers of Congress now for 2 full years… why hasn’t the gay civil rights movement had any forward momentum or progress?
In fact, in several key states this Fall, the gay civil rights movement will likely endure yet more setbacks as the “gay marriage or nothing, damn it” crowd continues to shoot all gays in the ass.
You remember the Democrats being the ones who put a stop to the bar raids… I’ve read that local Democrat leaders in New York City and San Francisco were the ones who protected the police first, defended the “interests” of society first and were forced by litigation and press pressure to finally, grudgingly act.
You see them as heroes. I see them as calculating politicians. Heroes, to me, are guys like Mark Bingham, who earnestly and purposefully sacrafice their lives in order that others may live… not calculating politicians like Diane Feinstein –who’s early career was been about unsuccessful runs for office and capitalizing on voids or openings on the political landscape.
I don’t mind memories… just make them accurate and realistic, not vague, misty watercolors. We aren’t on the set of “The Way We Were”.
posted by DaleA on
‘Selling victimhood’ is not a fact. It is an interpretation or opinion. I see it as listening to the problems of voters and proposing solutions. All of the problems you list do speak to the histories and concerns of the involved communities. You may not like the programs. You may not regard them as workable. But they do represent a response to problems. I have never encountered any of the analysis you speak of. It sounds sort of ‘dittohead’.
I am old enough to view politicians cynically. But that said, on average Democrats are more sympathetic to us than Republicans. What I keep coming back to is urban politics. The Dems helped us in the setting of urban politics. Cities are where we are most visible. I think what we have is a strong marriage of convenience between urban Dem machines and gay people. The alliance over time has grown to extend to the top of the ticket. I suspect you will find the reason gay people are overwhelmingly Dem is that locally most have good experiences of Dem governance. This became particularly clear during the 80’s when all that kept many of us alive and out of pain was the intervention of local Dem officials with hospitals and other medical facilities. At a time when many, many Repub officials were calling for us to be sent to concentration campsd. That is also a factor I suspect.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DaleA, let’s just say that you have a highly compromised memory of the role of Democrat politicians on gay civil rights… especially Schumer or Feinstein. When pollsters ask gays why they self-identify as Democrats, gay respondents say it’s because govt will protect their rights.
Democrats used the welfare state to enslave blacks and poor non-urban white females… they used programs and promises of relief that appealed to the victimization vulnerability in gays… just like they’ve done with countless other minority groups over the years.
With all due respect, it can’t be reduced to “dittohead” silliness.
If you haven’t read about the politics of victimization and the literal VictimHood Industry in our contemporary society, I’d advise you put down the applesauce, cancel your next senior craft lesson, skip the afternoon nap and read.
Alyson M. Cole.
The Cult of True Victimhood: From the War on Welfare to the War on Terror.
Stanford University Press, 2006, 256 pp
There’s a lot of solid, progressive thought in Cole’s work. If that doesn’t float your boat, I’ll get you the series of recent lectures from Joseph A. Califano Jr, Carter’s HEW Secy and no friend of conservative dittoheads.
posted by Caitlyn on
I completely agree with this article. Anyone who supported Clinton and then switched to McCain obviously didn’t care about where Clinton stood on the issues, they just wanted a woman – that’s not feminism.