Obama would have allowed Donnie McClurkin to rant about

[cboy4]

how evil same sex marriage is, and what a terrible decision the California Supreme Court made -- at yet another campaign fundraiser -- had many of us not ridiculed him for pandering to homophobes for votes.

Maybe despite the fact he is so stubborn he refuses to apologize, he actually learned a lesson. It's clear he heard the fierce criticism.

It'll be interesting to if Obama ends up in the White House, whether he will throw gay people under the bus simply because it's once again politically advantageous.

Yea, yea I know what he's promising about Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA.

But does he keep his word?

Unfortunately, because he refuses to apologize for McClurkin (which is beyond irritating and odd), I worry he cannot be trusted.

[Colobo]

1. I know you take the McClurkin issue at heart

but rest assured Obama will fight for your rights much more than John McOld will ever do.

[cboy4]

3. Well pretty much any Democrat pretty much would -- with

exception of Bill Richardson -- compared to McCain.

So I'm not sure how excited that's supposed to make me Katz.

I'd rather hear he plans on keeping his word.

After all, I have committed to voting for the Democratic nominee.

[Labors of Hercules]

26. One of my staff has spoken to Obama directly...

with her partner. She was STRONGLY supporting Clinton.

After that discussion, they both started volunteering for Obama and her partner is an intern for his campaign.

She told me Barack was completely engaged when she told him her story. She is not a touchy-feely person in the slightest, and said she was surprised that he empathized with her point of view.

Where it really counts, when actions can be taken that would achieve realistic and practical gains for the LGBT community, Obama is without question the one most likely to take them whether they are politically expedient or not.

[cboy4]

28. Well that's a nice story and good to hear....I'm not at all

being sarcastic like usual when I feel Obama supporters are insulting my intelligence.

But since you apparently are close to Senator Obama's campaign, can you explain to me why he refuses to apologize for the McClurkin incident?

Does he understand how far that would go in mending hurt feelings and beginning to establish (or re-establish, whichever the case may be) trust?

This is what I don't understand. How can it hurt him?

Why can't the guy say, "you know what, it was a bad decision, I don't agree with what McClurkin was saying, and I'm sorry I gave him that platform."

Obama supporters refuse/decline to answer why it's so hard to say "I'm sorry."

[Labors of Hercules]

75. The problem with politics is what the media will do with candidate statements...

that address anything a supporter has said. We've seen it again and again where addressing the issue directly only gives the MSM an opportunity to drown out Obama's statement with replays of the "supporter's" original statements. It was far more effective and prudent to remove McClurkin from the speakers lineup and de-emphasise his comments rather than lend them credence by addressing them directly.

You will notice, you've seen nothing of McClurkin since... Obama made that decision directly.

[roguevalley]

62. would have. ah, alternate reality intrudes again. nice. have a good

time with that image in your mind, where apparently it is the only place it exists.

[hokies4ever]

2. Obama much better for gays than McCain

plain and simple. 2 party system = 2 candidates that can win the presidency. Obama has been for legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation way back since his days in the Illinois Senate. McCain specifically said that he does not support legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation during one of the Republican debates this primary season. The crowd booed McCain's anti-gay stance and he just kind of shrugged his shoulders as if to say, "Oh well, deal with it."

[cboy4]

4. Yea hokies, I would agree Obama is better than McCain

if he intends on keeping his word.

But that's my point -- I worry he will change his mind depending on the political situation.

Will he change part of his stance as a compromise?

[hokies4ever]

8. But this has been his political position since the 90s

and he hasn't flip-flopped on it one bit. It's pretty clear that he won't change his position on gay rights. It will be interesting to see what his campaign says if reporters ask him about the CA decision on gay marriage. I think you should look out for what they say about it to ease your fears and concerns. :patriot:

[cboy4]

10. Let's just hope he does as he says.

That's all I'm saying :patriot:

[goldcanyonaz]

5. He will never apologize. Why? cuz gays do not matter, yet...

women did not even get to vote until 50 years after black men did. So, you at least 25 years behind women, if you are lucky.. we women ain't been that lucky this election, but then again you have been reading these boards in regards to us....

[hokies4ever]

6. Jim Crow does not equal full voting rights

I dispute your logic.

[goldcanyonaz]

7. k, let us go with your logic.... when do gays get rights?

[hokies4ever]

9. I didn't fully understand your first post

you started off comparing women and blacks with respect to voting rights, but I guess you're trying to link gays in there too

Gays can vote, but of course you know that. Please state more clearly the point that you are trying to make. (I'm not trying to be condescending, so don't get mad) :-)

Obama is in favor of repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell' and has voted in favor of gay anti-discrimination bills for many years, even sponsoring some of them himself I think. Not sure why people think he is anti-gay.

[newmajority]

32. Depends on what state you live in, I guess.

And it is a battle that will be won one state at a time. Since you have described yourself as an African American woman, and you happen to be living in the state which has the dubious distinction of being the last to allow the MLK holiday, I know that you can appreciate how hard it can be to fight battles against bigotry.

(And that's not a slam on Arizona, I love the state. But that episode really pissed me off)

[cali]

13. how untrue. Yes AAs got the vote before women. But while white women

were casting their votes with no impediments, AAs were disenfranchised until the 1960s by Jim Crow laws. And you know it.

[Occam Bandage]

40. Obama's gay-rights policies are more progressive than Clinton's.

The only gay-rights position in which they differ is that Obama wants DOMA fully repealed, while Clinton wants to preserve the section that prevents states from recognizing gay marriages that occur in other states.

There is an argument that doing this would prevent individual states from issuing mini-DOMAs that might be worse. I do not buy this argument.

[cboy4]

44. The point is not whether Obama's policies are

purportedly more progressive than Clinton's.

The point is whether he can be trusted to keep his word.

[Occam Bandage]

45. Yes. The point is not what they'll actually do; the point is to spread FUD.

[shadowknows69]

11. Blow it out your ass worrybot

[cboy4]

14. I think they said the same thing to the captain of the Titanic

when he noticed tall chunks of ice floating ahead of him in the Atlantic.

[theHandpuppet]

22. Nice.

Well at least we know where some of you stand.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[theHandpuppet]

25. Maybe you don't know the OP, either

Since when is bringing up a a legitimate issue regarding Mr. Obama's association with McClurkin "troll flamebaiting"? For one thing, it's against the rules to call another DUer a troll; secondly, if you knew anything about the OP you'd know he has spoken out on this issue many times over the past months, one for which he feels very strongly -- and he's not alone. The recent Supreme Court ruling in California has only brought this issue to the forefront once again.

Yes, your dismissive response DOES say a lot about you.

[cboy4]

29. Thanks theHandpuppet for being who you are.

:pals:

[WilliamPitt]

35. Awesome.

:eyes:

Besides, c is a Niners fan. Which means he's been made crazy by season after season of doom, failure and disgrace, mostly due to ownership that couldn't find it's ass with both hands and a team of proctologists to assist.

The Niners gave the Patriots a first round pick this year, thus offsetting the loss of their other pick for Spygate. They got Tully Banta-Cain and a box of old doorknobs in the trade, I think. That team could fuck up the recipe for tap water.

Sorry, c.

;)

...twiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiist that knife...

[cboy4]

43. I would be so much happier if I hated sports instead of loving

them. x(

Now then.

SUPER BOWL STANDINGS

1. San Francisco 49ers (5-0) - 1.000
2. Baltimore Ravens (1-0) - 1.000
3. New York Jets (1-0) - 1.000
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1-0) - 1.000
5. Pittsburgh Steelers (5-1) - .833
6. Green Bay Packers (3-1) - .750
7. Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts (2-1) - .666
8. New York Giants (2-1) - .667
9. Dallas Cowboys (5-3) - .625
10. New England Patriots (3-2)

[WilliamPitt]

48. Arrr, she's a cruel mistress...

Team History
YEAR W L T PF PA
2007 5 11 0 219 364
2006 7 9 0 298 412
2005 4 12 0 239 428
2004 2 14 0 259 452
2003 7 9 0 384 337

The Niners run of losing seasons has lasted longer than the war. I do think your D will be a lot better this year, but the owners will do something to dick it all up. Water is wet, sky is up there, etc.

;)

Have you seen the Pats schedule this year? If the team is hated now, that hatred'll go supernova by November.

[cboy4]

54. The 49ers will be sending special limos to greet your team

at the airport and haul them all away to prison for stealing our draft pick.

[cali]

12. get it all out now.

get the hate spewed while you can. And yeah, you've made it clear you hate. You're running out of time.

[cboy4]

15. Why don't you do less screaming, and more explaining why

what I'm expressing isn't a valid concern in your heavily biased toward Obama mind?

[cali]

16. Why dont' you stop wildly making stuff up? I clearly wasn't "screaming".

Nothing in my post that could be rationally considered such. We've been through this little two step. I've condemned Obama's use of McClurkin, but having said that his strong support for GLBT issuses should ameliorate your concern. He's spoken out repeatedly. He's pledged to repeal DOMA entirely, not just partially lke your girl. He supports federal benefits for those in civil unions and gay marriages. That's huge in my book. So does Hillary. I think your constant focus on this is just as much political as genuine. You seem to be a one issue voter and you misrepresent Obama's positions- and hilly's on the issue to benefit hilly. So, sorry, you don't come off as entirely honest to me.

[cboy4]

17. I had no idea I was the only person making this argument.

Cali, just because you've condemned the McClurkin issue doesn't fix things.

His "strong support" was tarnished to a degree by virtue of his decision to allow a homophobe to appear, due to it being politically advantageous at the time.

Is Obama finished doing things that are politically advantageous?

Or could he potentially compromise with Republics (given his actions vis a vis McClurkin) on DADT and/or DOMA, in order to get something accomplished he believes is more important?

Could he move to Hillary's position of wanting to abolish only half of DOMA because he's a politician and he needs something?

You don't know he won't do that.

So how in the world is what I'm asking or the concerns I'm expressing not valid and in your words, "hate"?

I'd like to know.

[theHandpuppet]

23. You're not alone

Honestly, I am waiting to hear some response from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the recent Supreme Court ruling in California. But if, as many here would testify, Obama is the "presumptive nominee", it is perfectly valid to raise these concerns about his association with men such as Donnie McClurkin.

[xchrom]

21. obama used four anti-gay gospel acts to introduce and campaign for him in sc

four -- not one.

now he has brought sam nunn into his campaign -- the architect of dadt.

and meeks another spiritual adviser who who is a known anti-gay bigot.

and please note -- to many gay people using language in the pulpit that parallels ex-gay ministry propaganda os actively threatening.
it's not passive or pandering.

it is promoting the 19th century medical ideal that essential gay folk are sick and giving it an african american cultural dressing.


more i read your bullshit about 'hate' as being a mealy mouthed version of calling the OP a racist.

[goldcanyonaz]

18. how dare you, and on the Obama underground at that!

[cboy4]

19. Worst fund drive ever!!

Thanks Obama Underground.

[Jamastiene]

20. I certaily do not trust him to ensure my equal rights.

Hillary would be way way better there AND she wouldn't be too ashamed to be seen with us like 0bama is. I don't trust him one bit.

[lojasmo]

27. You're a mind reader now?

[cboy4]

30. Please address the question lojasmo....I don't enjoy

bragging about my capabilities.

[lojasmo]

31. What is the question? EOM

[cboy4]

36. Let me hold your hand lojasmo......Go up to the OP (that

stands for original post lojasmo) and near the bottom of the post, you'll see a sentence that ends with this symbol: "?"

That indicates the sentence is a question lojasmo.

Now then, do you think you can go up to the very first post and find the sentence with the "?" at the end?

If you can, that would be the question I"m asking you to answer.

You can do it lojasmo!! :hug:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[Bluenorthwest]

34. My question at this point is

Why is Obama not man enough to apologize? Why is he such an immature and reckless speader of divisiveness? Even now, when a few million extra votes clearly would have put him over the top already?
What sort of upbringing did he have, that allows him to sick his bigot pals onto a minority and just let that hang without apology or promise of no future bashings. Why would he not have the common decency to apologzie for his rude, sectarian, cultist mouthpiece?
And I would also like to note yet again that Donnie McClurkin caused an uproar when the GOP used him to headline the 2004 Convention. Even some Republicans were offended at an openly bigoted preacher weeping for GW on TV.
If the Senator is too much of a ego prig to apologize for atavistic insults delivered in his name, he should certainly come down from his religious high horse to at least say he will not be doing such divisive attacks on any minority ever again. But even that is too much. The Senator refuses to reject future minority bashings, if they assist the Senator's goals. He's sort of pitiful, on a man to man basis.

[Occam Bandage]

37. Why? Obama let him come to one gospel-music concert fundraiser.

McClurkin then gave a possibly-off-the-cuff sermon. Obama denounced his message, and explained that reconciliation is not achieved by demonizing either gays or those who are afraid of them.

What makes you think he'd have brought McClurkin back for a second concert? To the best of my knowledge, Obama hasn't held any more gospel-concert fundraisers in the Carolinas.

[Jamastiene]

41. But the gospel concert fundraisers aren't the issue.

It's the homophobia that permeates his entire campaign. It's not limited to McClurkin. McClurkin is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Occam Bandage]

42. Homophobia? That's a laugh. Obama has the most progressive gay-rights platform of any candidate.

You can play Six-Degrees-Of-Separation with various individual homophobes. I'll look at their actual policies.

[cboy4]

46. We encouraged him, to put in gently, not to pull

that shit again....which is my point.

Had we not raised hell about it, I'm saying Donnie would have been allowed back if it were politically advantageous again.

And Obama's explanation is hollow without an apology.

[Occam Bandage]

49. And every day, I ask God not to send tigers to attack me. Had I not raised hell about it,

I'm saying tigers would have mauled my face off.

[WilliamPitt]

50. I just peed.

:rofl:

[yardwork]

52. Don't you realize that you are taunting God?

I'm staying clear of you today. Tigers are coming for you.

[Occam Bandage]

53. I shall pray to St. Obama to intervene.

[yardwork]

56. Worse and worse.

[cboy4]

58. See, you people think it's all a joke.

Remind me to mock a cause that's important to you Occam Bandage.

[Occam Bandage]

60. Gay rights are deadly serious. Your cynical FUD-slathering is a joke.

[cboy4]

64. And once again, you come at me .. trivializing something

I care about by calling it a joke.

Unreal.

[Occam Bandage]

70. There I go again, trivializing the trivial. You want to talk about gay rights? Let's talk policies.

Why does Hillary only want to partially repeal DOMA? She wants to leave in the bit preventing states from recognizing gay marriages in other states. Do you actually believe her flimsy explanation--that is to say, do you believe that gay rights can best be achieved by enshrining discrimination in law, for fear that individual states might take lack of discrimination as an excuse to pass worse discrimination into law?

[cboy4]

71. No, I don't believe a damn bit of her explanation. Now then,

what does that have to do with my problem with Obama and my concern he will change his mind and also only partially repeal DOMA if he needs to compromise about something else he thinks is important.

And why do I think he would do that? Because he proved he will do the wrong thing (McClurkin) in order to do something he thinks is more important.

You tell me how that's cynical or how that's a joke.

That's reality.

[Occam Bandage]

72. Your concern is applicable to literally any politician. "Oh, but what if

they decide that they want to make compromises on one issue I consider important, in order to advance another issue?" There's always that possibility, yeah. Obama ain't a saint; I expect that there will be as many disappointments as triumphs under his Presidency. However, I think that, in general, is a bigger issue with Clinton, given the facts that:

A. The first Clinton WH made their goddamn reputation on their skill at compromising liberalism for short-term gain.
B. Hillary's DOMA stance shows that she has already compromised gay rights on a policy level (complete with bizarre excuse) for political gain.

Obama's invitation to McClurkin was tone-deaf at least, and utterly reprehensible at worst. He simply ignored one half of the man--the gay-bashing half--to take the advantages of the other half of him. However, McClurkin is (I believe) an ultimately trivial issue. While it's right to attack Obama for his invitation (and I do agree that raising hell about it lets him know that we won't turn the same blind eyes he will), I think it's exaggerated to claim it's indicative of a tendency to betray a particular group. Every politician makes short-term deals with devils; every politician calculates that people will look past unsavory parts of acquaintances, fundraisers, guests and allies, and every politician experiences blowback from time to time when their arithmetic is off. HRC, BHO, and JMcC have all run afoul from time to time--Obama worst of all, given McClurkin, Rezko, and Wright.

But "I bet nobody will mind the dark side of this fundraiser" is a totally different animal from "Well, I suppose I'm going to have to fuck over this supporting group if I want to pass legislation favorable to this other one." And I have yet to see anything suggesting that Obama is more prone to that than Clinton is, whether on gay rights or on any other liberal issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. That is not at all accurate

Obama 'let him come'? According to Donnie in the press, the Senator called him and asked him to be the Master of Ceremonies at several dates. The Senator himself called and asked.
There were several such concerts during the tour. There were also several vocal anti-gay activists on the bill, not just McClurkin.
'Possibly off the cuff'? If so, Obama should say so. How easy would that be?
Demonizing those who are 'afraid of gays' is not the same as standing against divisive sectarian religious bigotry targeted at any minority at any time within our Party. Donnie does the demonizing, and has for years, for profit and Republican power. A man who goes on televison to declare war on a minority should not be hosting Democratic events, period. He is proactive in his attacks. Obama allowed him to attack again.
Common courtsey says you apologize for things said in your name by those you hired to speak for you.
If you disagree, let's get some metrics going now. How much anti-minority speech is acceptable in the Democratic Party, and against which minorities? Do we each get to pick one minority to use as a wedge, or is it assigned by the National Party? Are we limited to prejudices we can back up using 'scripture' or can it be secular based hatered that we exploit at well?
Or is it just that Obama gets to bash gays this once? A special rule? Or what?

[Kitsune]

38. I totally see where you're coming from.

I still have some reservations too, but honestly, I trust him more than I trust Hillary to not veto something that a Dem supermajority sends up. That's more important for equality anyway- the composition of the House and Senate. Obama will have coattails, Clinton'd be lucky to win a squeaker.

[redqueen]

39. We'll have to wait and see.

We've already been betrayed by one Clinton on this stuff... better we try our luck with a non-DLC candidate who includes "gays and straights" in his speeches even when he's NOT in front of the "right" audience.

As for me, I'm somewhat optimistic that he'll actually do what he says he'll do. If he starts that committee bullshit like Clinton did though... then I'd start worrying.

[IndianaJones]

47. it was a calculated campaign strategy targeting a large block of voters...and it worked. nt.

[yardwork]

51. Obama's campaign website contains strongly supportive language for LGBTQ

I was furious with Obama and his campaign for promoting Donnie McClurkin. I was even more furious with people who downplayed its importance.

However, Obama did listen. He didn't use McClurkin again - even in states, such as Texas and Ohio, where pandering to homophobes would have helped him. I noticed that.

I have forgiven Obama for McClurkin, as long as he doesn't do it again. I don't expect an apology. We're dealing with politicians.

Obama is the Democratic nominee for president. I support him wholeheartedly. When he is elected president, I expect him to stand up for human rights for all, and I'll hold his feet to the fire, too.

Obama website on LGBTQ: http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

[cboy4]

61. I'm familiar with his positions yardwork....obviously I don't

have a problem with those positions, per se....with the exception of equal marriage.

The problem I have is with trusting he will uphold his commitments.

I've already said I plan on voting for the Democratic Nominee.

But I feel I still have the right and the responsibility on behalf of many in my community, to continue asking tough questions about the incident.

And while I respect your opinion, unlike you, I absolutely expect an apology.

Politicians apologize -- albeit rarely.

[yardwork]

65. I respect your point of view and fully support your discussing this issue.

Also, I agree with you that all Democratic candidates should be supporting nothing less than equal marriage and equal rights for all people, nationwide. I deplore the wimpy positions taken by most Democrats.

It's a constant battle to ensure that human rights be protected and respected. We've seen how this single administration has rolled back the right of habeus corpus - a right established nearly a thousand years ago.

Yes, it's important to talk about these things, and keep talking.

Best to you, cboy4!

[cliffordu]

55. It must really suck to have just one non-issue to keep hammering away at.

You should go to California and get married..... That'll keep you busy.

I'll bet the "honey-do" list is just as irritating in same-sex marriages as it is in mine.

[cboy4]

69. At least you're honest and are on record as saying you

don't care about gay people and their "non-issues."

I strangely respect that in some ways more than some of your phony Obama fans who pretend they give a crap about whether Obama embraces homophobes.

Know what I'm sayin cliffordu?

[cliffordu]

74. Sorry - I won't play.

You could be celebrating a major human rights victory today - one that will impact the lives of some of my best friends directly. I've been chatting with them over what this will mean in the long term for adoption, wills, all that family stuff....we're all thrilled.

I point out the immature and hair-splitting nature of you whole "He won't apologize..." and now I don't care about gay people.

What would possibly make you think he needs to apologize to you? Does he have to apologize for funding the war? I'm a veteran....He should apologize for embracing Bush's fuck up in Iraq by your metric, right? Has Hillary ever apologized??

He won't. He's a politician in a race for the Presidency. To apologize to anyone at this stage makes him appear "weak" and then, well, you have Hillary and McCain.

And I'm thinking that the Hillary part is why you complain about Obama.

Don't worry - she'll throw you under the bus just like she has everyone else if it's politically expedient.

Now be sure to call me a homophobe, and a hater, because it SURE couldn't just be that I just got tired of your chronic complaining about ONE SLIVER of what has happened on this campaign trail.

Really. Because I disagree with you I HAVE to be a hater.

That's really fucking weak.

[cboy4]

76. Apologizing last fall when this all happened would have made

Obama look weak?

That's what he was afraid his opponents were going to jump on? A simple, "Listen, I don't agree with the guy's remarks and I'm sorry if anyone was offended."??

That was going to be some big scandal in your mind? Are you kidding me?

He would have said it and it would have been forgotten in two days. And he would have gained the support and respect of people like myself who didn't even vote for Hillary Clinton.

While it's a major issue to me, it's a minor issue on the campaign trail, and thus it would not have caused any big problems for Obama. Like what?

If you think a candidate should apologize about a cause/issue that's important to you, then I would respect that view.

But keep in mind, there's a huge difference between apologizing about policy versus a campaign booking mistake.

Fine, you be tired of my "chronic complaining."

And I'll be tired of people like you feeling you get to determine what's important to me...and what's apology-worthy.

And by the way, the apology I wish for is more of a footnote to my OP. The main point has to do with Obama's trustworthiness in light of dismissing the pleas of gay people who asked him not to allow McClurkin to appear.

And finally, if you truly do care about whether gay people can simply live happy lives, enjoying the same human rights as everyone else in society, then I'm sorry for saying you don't care about gay people.

I would be wrong to draw that conclusion, despite the unfriendly tone of your OP.

[cliffordu]

79. Look -

In the scheme of things on a national level, neither of us mean a whole lot to any of them as individuals...we can't by the nature of the scale of national politics.

I dunno, maybe he really doesn't care about gay rights, maybe he's a closeted homophobe...

I'd like to think he is NOT as per his comments on the campaign trail about intolerance towards gay and lesbian people in the black church.

I also think Mass. and Ca. show us something very important - that Gay marriage is going to be an issue that will be primarily a state-level issue first, nationally later. Gay and lesbian rights is one of the third rails of American politics - I know this is completely unacceptable but it is the fucking ugly truth.

America is a nation of haters. You've seen this in your own experience I would imagine and it's even more graphic lately in the stories about the open aggressive racism of W.Virginia voters exposed in some of the MSM lately.

McClurkin was a complete fuck up on Obama's part. I'd be willing to bet that it won't happen again. I don't know if that makes any difference to you, I hope that it would.

And, finally....
It would be easy to draw the conclusion that I am hateful, but it's really not that. I am an unpleasant person by nature and although I try to limit my aggressive nature and nastier commentary, sometimes it breaks through in inappropriate places.

You have my apology if I hurt your feelings.

[cloudythescribbler]

57. I can't see the benefit in bringing up the McClurkin thing yet AGAIN at THIS time

The real question is who will be Obama's running mate, and will HRC have enough leverage to force herself on the ticket as his running mate (something I strongly consider a bad idea, "dream ticket" notwithstanding)

I think at this point it is virtually a no-brainer that Obama should have a woman running mate. It's about time we had a woman on a WINNING national ticket. I also would like to see a woman who at least never SUPPORTED the Iraq War Resolution, as well as someone strong on fundamental issues of principle such as gay rights.

In my opinion, Barbara Boxer has it all -- she is a VERY popular, as far as I know free of any serious baggage, VERY UNIFYING FOR DEMOCRATS, strong on the Greenhouse Effect, strong on gay rights, LONG resume in foreign policy Senator who VOTED NO ON THE IWR.

Stabenow did also, and many people say that Sebelius and Napolitano are good candidates. Now a comparison between the most likely contenders as VP on the issue of gay rights and other key issues -- THAT would be VERY timely

[ElsewheresDaughter]

59. with roe v wade either

[BlooInBloo]

66. Your concern is noted.

[Lerkfish]

68. and immediately filed for future reference

[Lerkfish]

67. stay classy!

[Bluenorthwest]

73. I just want to say

That I agree with the OP that the pressure and instruction given to the Obama campaign in regard to McClurkin most likely saved the Senator from doing more of the same. I will also say that over the course of his campaign, he has learned to use better words when he talks about GLBT people, although when he tries to talk to us, he's still not taking the prize.
I'd also like to say that those who take issue with those of us who take Obama to task are missing what the Seantor himself says about the role of we, the voters, the people, in what he says he wants to do. He calls for activism and demands from the people that make change possible. He says that. So such threads as this one actually fulfill what Obama's highest campaign language calls for. He says, and has said to the GLBT community specifically that it is up to us to get what we want done.
This is what activism looks like.

And for me, I have a ballot on my desk that I will mark and deliver by the 20th. So for me, there is not a nomiee as yet. Wed there will be. And I bet most people on both sides would be suprised if they could see how my ballot is being marked. So assumptions are probably not accurate.

[mkultra]

77. not odd to me. Your nit picking.

[Seabiscuit]

78. Maybe Edwards should have worried about whether BO can be trusted before he endorsed him.