"Anything But Straight: Obama's Tightrope Act"

[Bluebear]

Falls Church News-Press
Thursday, 24 January 2008

...Obama has shown himself to be a legitimate contender and, as a result, has secured much of the black vote in a state where they represent nearly half of all Democratic primary voters. At the same time, the rise of Obama has invigorated – and frightened - many gay voters, who write me each day to express confusion over what his candidacy represents.

...The most maddening - and absurd - spin comes from Obama supporters who claim that his flirtation with both gay advocates and anti-gay bigots is evidence that he can bring Americans together. Let's be clear, he has not brought anyone together. The only "cause" that such diverse constituencies have rallied round is Obama's political career. If he were to be elected, I hardly see this translating into any grand coalition to pass pro-gay legislation. Indeed, the homophobic African American leaders are only tolerating his gay-positive positions because their priority is electing America's first African American president.

There are also some politically naïve GLBT people who say it does not matter who Obama's friends are. Of course, we all know that candidates owe elections to their supporters and thus hand out favors while in office. If Obama can put McClurkin on stage in the name of "unity" – then why can't he place the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on the backburner, also in the name of unity? If ENDA gets in the way of a coalition to tackle Social Security or healthcare, might the GLBT community be told to pipe it down and take one for the team? And, if we insist on equality in an Obama administration, will we be made to feel like troublemakers who are putting ourselves above the larger coalition? Such questions must be answered definitively, because if Obama secures the nomination or gets elected, his power increases exponentially, as access decreases at the same rate...

If Obama gets elected, either GLBT people or African American conservatives will be disappointed by the time his reelection bid rolls around. It is crucial that people realize that Obama's force of personality will not sustain this coalition, thus he must continue to announce his true intensions, so there is not great surprise and frustration after his inauguration.

http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2431&Itemid=35

[Levgreee]

1. It will be the African American conservatives who are dissapointed

or not disappointed, if they have not decided to expect certain things from him(policies against gays)... which, I think, is likely the case.

[David__77]

2. He had a pro-gay record... period.

Most importantly, he doesn't have a record of legislative opportunism.

[Bluebear]

4. "Had."

What happened? Why the sudden need to pander to conservative Christians? He has lost trust through these stunts.

[NMMNG]

5. "Had". Until he affixed his lips more or less permanently

to the backsides of "ex-gay" psycho-spiritual terrorists. He made a deal with the devil.

[David__77]

6. Had and has. Yes.

There's no "deal" of any such nature.

[Bluebear]

7. Well, sez you. As to the GLBT community, many of us feel quite otherwise.

[David__77]

8. Yes, and many of us support Obama as well.

You speak for the LGBT community no more than I do.

[Bluebear]

9. I said many, did I say all? Whatever, good luck with your candidate.

[yardwork]

14. I see the evidence to the contrary.

[jackson_dem]

16. What does that have to do with playing the gay hating card in an election?

After all, the guy who invented the southern strategy was a lifelong NAACP member

[NMMNG]

3. Bingo

The only "cause" that such diverse constituencies have rallied round is Obama's political career. If he were to be elected, I hardly see this translating into any grand coalition to pass pro-gay legislation......

If Obama can put McClurkin on stage in the name of "unity" – then why can't he place the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on the backburner, also in the name of unity? If ENDA gets in the way of a coalition to tackle Social Security or healthcare, might the GLBT community be told to pipe it down and take one for the team? And, if we insist on equality in an Obama administration, will we be made to feel like troublemakers who are putting ourselves above the larger coalition?.....

Of course. When we asked Obama to do the right thing and get rid of McClurkin the psycho-spiritual terrorist he refused. Then we find out he had another one working for him the entire time and he only dropped him when the story broke. Mind you he did so without a single word, which indicates he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he didn't have the guts to say so. He just took the cowards route and pretended it never happened. He scrubbed all evidence of their association from his Website, had Caldwell do the same and went on with his business. How many more of those monsters does he have working for him without our knowledge?

There's no way we can trust Obama to do what is right for LGBTs. He has proven over and over again that our needs are secondary to his and of others. He refuses to tolerate racism, but he'll use homophobia as a tool to garner votes and money for his campaign. He is not and never will be a friend to us.

[flordehinojos]

10. force of personality?

what force of personality when the man can't even stand up for what he says; he ducks and hides, and he spits out spit-balls and then denies he did. he excuses his votes by saying he pushed the wrong buttons? no. i see no personality at all in obama. i see a twelve year old's mind inside the body of a tall and slanky man who, when all is said and done, sounds much more like that twelve year old than the adult his body wants you to believe he is.

[donheld]

11. Obama seems to be trying to have it both ways

He wants to cuddle up to the anti-gay crowd and
tell we gays and lesbians he's on our side too.
You cannot be on two sides of a battle like that.

[Duncan Grant]

12. There will be no coalition between conservative African-American Christians and LGBT people.

Conservative Christians of any stripe are not going to align with Obama to support any legislation that would improve the lives of LGBT people. This is a situation where two constituencies can not be aligned -- it ain't gonna happen.

[NMMNG]

13. You are correct

Obama can make all the pretty speeches and Webpages he wants, but ultimately he will kowtow to his evangelical friends. He has shown that they are more important and valuable to him than LGBTs.

[jackson_dem]

17. Yup. He has shown where his priorities lie and it isn't with GLBT folks

[Maven]

15. Exactly.

These two paragraphs say it all:

The most maddening - and absurd - spin comes from Obama supporters who claim that his flirtation with both gay advocates and anti-gay bigots is evidence that he can bring Americans together. Let's be clear, he has not brought anyone together. The only "cause" that such diverse constituencies have rallied round is Obama's political career. If he were to be elected, I hardly see this translating into any grand coalition to pass pro-gay legislation. Indeed, the homophobic African American leaders are only tolerating his gay-positive positions because their priority is electing America's first African American president.

There are also some politically naïve GLBT people who say it does not matter who Obama's friends are. Of course, we all know that candidates owe elections to their supporters and thus hand out favors while in office. If Obama can put McClurkin on stage in the name of "unity" – then why can't he place the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on the backburner, also in the name of unity? If ENDA gets in the way of a coalition to tackle Social Security or healthcare, might the GLBT community be told to pipe it down and take one for the team? And, if we insist on equality in an Obama administration, will we be made to feel like troublemakers who are putting ourselves above the larger coalition? Such questions must be answered definitively, because if Obama secures the nomination or gets elected, his power increases exponentially, as access decreases at the same rate.

The idea that you don't ultimately have to take a side is an expedient lie to win votes, simple as that.