You wouldn't know it on DU but significant claims out there that HRC has a "gay problem"

[cloudythescribbler]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/americablog-hillary-unlik_n_98292.html

http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/hillarys-gay-problem.html
(for full article)

My friend Phil Attey asks why Obama keeps mentioning gays and lesbians in his speeches - speeches he makes to the public at large, not just gay audiences - and Hillary never does. Phil writes:

Last month, a gay Philadelphian LGBT publisher raised the issue that Senator Obama, though often addressing LGBT issues and including us in his major speeches, was not granting his publication an exclusive interview. Senator Obama quickly addressed the issue and granted an exclusive interview to the national LGBT publication, The Advocate.

Tonight, following the Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Obama once again showed his commitment to our community by including us in his address to the nation. Senator Clinton, speech, once again, did not include us, and it brings up the issue that hers never do.

[DarkTirade]

1. I'm one of those who thinks that Hillary is the worst of the candidates we've had so far...

and even I think this article is just a bit silly. "Well, okay, Hillary says these things too... but did you notice, she kinda stumbled on the word 'Gay' there!"

[JoFerret]

2. "Accused "of being a dyke -

(including by a small minority of Obama supporters here on DU)
she probably gets the undercurrents.

I have no confidence in Obama. He talks a good inclusive game but...

[guyanakoolaid]

8. I haven't heard that one. Who is she accused of being a "dyke" with?

:hide:

[madrchsod]

9. you really don`t want to know

it`s a right wing story. i read several articles and found that it could be true if one believed it could be true.

[N4457S]

17. My Uncle...

...was in the Air Force in the early nineties, and he says there have been stories about Hillary and Barbara Mikulski off and on for years.

[madrchsod]

25. it`s not her...i never heard of that woman...

clearly it`s stupid

[southerncrone]

3. During the Clinton Administration

even before Bill was elected, there was a rumor that Hill was a closet lesbian. I have no idea if there is any fact to this, or if it was just part of the "Repub Dirty Tricks Committee" trick of the day.

But, this might be why she doesn't go near the topic. She doesn't want to resurrect that rumor during HER bid for the Presidency.

Just sayin'.....

[Aloha Spirit]

5. Agreed, I think in general, she is also trying to come off as a moderate...seems calculating to me.

[southerncrone]

6. Well, it IS Hillary after all.

[DarkTirade]

10. She's a woman in the public eye who doesn't feel the need to slather layers of makeup on

until she looks like a mummified newscaster.

In small minds, that equates to lesbian, perhaps? :shrug:

Seriously though, to many of the small-minded types that Republicans tend to court, strong woman = unamerican = lesbian. There are still people out there who cling to ideas that men and women have their 'places' and any who step outside those boundaries must be gay, because that's the only concept they have of existing outside their ridiculous gender boundaries. A guy who doesn't like sports? Must be one o' them homos. A woman who's willing to do more than sit in the back seat and look pretty while her husband is running for office? Must be a closet lesbo. :\

[southerncrone]

13. As a strong woman, myself, I can completely relate to what you say.

And ever notice, they are FREQUENTLY the church-affiliated, because the preachers preach women should "submit" to their husbands. Whatever the fuck that means?!

I submit to my husband.....I submit to him that he had better not expect me to take everything he does & says as "law"! So far, we're good. And he has never beat me yet!

I love men who are secure in themselves! :loveya: No matter what their sexual-orientation may be.

[DarkTirade]

46. I tend to prefer strong women myself. :)

I also prefer women who don't slather on layer after layer of makeup... you may have gathered that from my previous comments... :P

[Aloha Spirit]

4. question--

Caught this under "Latest"...
This has been a real curiosity for me.
I know Obama at one point brought up homophobia in front of an audience in Texas... and he seems responsive to the LGBT community. But both candidates are presently opposed of same sex marriage... do people see that as a political necessity or just being lame?
Obama has demonstrated wiggle room on the issue, not really sure about Clinton.
Sorry if this is out of context... just caught the thread on the main page.

[Creideiki]

18. I've got several issues with Obama

One is that while he says he's for repealing the federal DOMA, he didn't so much as lift a finger to try to repeal Illinois' DOMA. Surely if one is bad, the other is bad, too.

Two is he's got no "softening" figure. Spouses can fill that role. Elizabeth filled that role for Edwards and Hillary herself used to fill that role for Bill during his presidential campaign.

Three is endorsements from "Gay is a choice" Richardson, "DADT" Nunn, and Boren. The McClurkin event--which "he got what he needed from".

Fourth is being afraid of the appearance of being friendly to the LGBT community. Hillary is affable. Chelsea does pub crawls. Barack couldn't be photographed with Gavin Newsome because he's too friendly to gay people.

Mitigating that is that he was the first candidate to accept Logo's invitation to the debate last summer. However, he appeared rather uncomfortable and didn't manage to score any positive points.

So that brings things to whether or not he would be inclined to "veto from the Right" progressive civil rights legislation that included equality for the LGBT community. I honestly think he would. It would be his "triangulation" to prove to the social conservatives and centrists that he's not "too liberal". This might be the strongest concern.

A big clue on this is who he chooses as a running mate. If he chooses another social conservative, that would be problematic. If he chooses a running mate that in 8 years will be able to run for the presidency and they're social conservative, that means at least 16 years until "we can" "hope" for any "change" in the federal mistreatment of a significant minority of the citizenry. I'm fairly certain I don't want to wait 16 more years.

[cloudythescribbler]

49. Wow -- I like the way this post REALLY delves into the issues --

As for me, I don't trust Hillary. She's a Democrat, so I'd vote for and donate to her and everything if she were nominated. Good heavens, it is appalling that the country seems to teeter on the brink of electing someone who is STILL gung-ho about the Iraq War.

Now Obama might turn out to be another triangulator just like the Clintons are. The Democratic Party is a little like Lucy with the football in that way. But with Obama, there's a chance he WON'T just be another Clinton type, whereas with Clinton, you KNOW you aren't going to get what you vote for.

What really shocks me is that, in contrast to the balanced and thoughtful post by Dinkeldog, there are SWARMS of posters on DU who, IN THE NAME OF GLBT rights savage Obama. Yet if the two are about the same or Obama is better on the issue, the whole bashfest (not at ALL parralleled in this area especially by anything from Obama supporters here) about McClurkin, which was not exactly Obama's finest moment, is revealed as the agenda-mongering that it is.

Therein lies my main point in this post.

[Zuiderelle]

51. I haven't seen swarms of GLBT posters savaging Obama. I've seen most object to his stance on gay

marriage, which he steadfastly maintains that he is against. Most GLBT posters see the two candidates as very similar but with one VERY big distinction. With Hillary there is hope for civil equality driven from the federal government, with Obama there is no hope as he shirks that responsibility to states. What other country in the world has different civil rights state to state, none of which are federally recognized, when the same civil rights state to state for heterosexuals are recognized federally in the form of federal tax benefits, social security and the 1,500 other straight-only benefits? Just this one.

Also, most GLBT posters here have said that they will vote for Obama if he is the nominee. I've seen myriad Obama supporters claim that they would sit out the election if Hillary is the nominee. Where is the savaging?

[cloudythescribbler]

71. Check out any one of the gazillion McClurking threads, some w/over FIFTY recs, & floods of posts nt

[Zuiderelle]

Since I've read most threads in this forum, and haven't seen anyone "savaging" Obama

You'll have to point out the specific posts your referring to. Simply criticizing his involvement with McClurkin is not savaging him. It's criticizing him.

[MNBrewer]

99. Civil "Equality"

More like a second rate equality under Hillary's vision of gay rights. Why? Separate, therefore unequal.

[Beregond2]

7. Well

THIS gay has a big problem with her!

[GOPNotForMe]

16. This one, too! Glad to know it's not just me.

If she wants credit for the positive accomplishments of her husband's administration, then she gets credit for DOMA and DADT, too.

[mitchtv]

11. his committment is to getting elected

as is hers. Our rights mean nothing to either one of them. Only difference is Sen Clinton seems less uncomfortable around Gays. That isn't saying much.

[canis_lupus]

12. I'm frustrated with both our choices so far

Neither is where I'd like them to be on our issues and it's next to impossible to tell if the promises they do make to the LGBT community will be kept. Basically I've resigned myself to holding my nose and voting for whoever the candidate will be.

[ccharles000]

14. I don't think Hillary has a gay problem.

[Sapphocrat]

15. You wouldn't know it on DU...

...if you stayed out of GDP, but...

FLASH! This just in! Obama Worshippers Are Infiltrating DU-GLBT!

But, wait! There's more!

FLASH! This just in! Chances of brainwashing those who refuse to drink Kool-Aid much the same as those who refuse to attend Ex-Gay Camps!

That is all.

- 30 -

[kdpeters]

19. We're here, we're queer, we don't genuflect and kiss the ring of Queen Hillary

Get used to it.

[Sapphocrat]

20. Get used to this, kd.

Some of us don't drink the Kool-Aid of either camp.

If you think we all view this in polar opposites, you're gravely mistaken.

[kdpeters]

21. Much better!

With that second post, you actually sound like someone who might be interesting. The first one, not so much.

Any chance I could persuade you into dropping the "kool-aid" references? At least for your fellow GLBT posters if for no one else. Aren't we due some benefit of the doubt to also have arrived at our own opinions honestly?

[Sapphocrat]

22. I'd drop the Kool-Aid references...

...if my fellow LGBT DUers could keep the primary wars out of DU-GLBT.

Seriously.

I recognize that we (LGBTs) cannot afford to turn on one another, as our grip as a "community" is so shaky, so tenuous. But that's exactly why I want to kick some... eh... shake the shoulders of some of my fellow LGBT DUers here: I want to scream in some faces: Is there NOWHERE we can meet in the middle? Do we have to destroy ourselves from within?

I thought DU-GLBT was one of the last bastions of LGBT peace & harmony, a place where we could rise above the GDP wars -- but, honestly, the infighting I've seen here over the past 24 hours alone makes me think: "Forget it. It's every man, woman, Log Cabinite, whatever, for him/herself."

The primary wars creep into GLBT like kudzu, kd. I'm not optimistic that that can be transcended.

I've lost people I thought were "friends" over this primary shit, and they never even stopped to say "Fuck you, fuck off." It was all about my refusal to Stop Worrying and Love Obama.

How can I believe we have any common ground? I want to believe we do, but I no longer do.

Meh, I'm getting maudlin. How sickening.

Oh, and goddamnit, I'm one of the most interesting fucking people you could ever hope to meet. For fuck's sake. I write, and I've been making movies since I was 12, and I used to be rich, and I just got back from protesting a gathering of those "ex-gay" assholes who descended upon my backyard, and with any luck, you're going to see my ugly mug in Gus Van Sant's (Harvey) "Milk" movie due out in late summer, and when the hell was the last time you stood out in the middle of Market Street in the bitter cold playing a pissed-off queer punching your fist in the air and trying not to stumble over Emile Hirsch? :)

[kdpeters]

23. I hear you loud and clear.

I recognize that we (LGBTs) cannot afford to turn on one another, as our grip as a "community" is so shaky, so tenuous. But that's exactly why I want to kick some... eh... shake the shoulders of some of my fellow LGBT DUers here: I want to scream in some faces: Is there NOWHERE we can meet in the middle? Do we have to destroy ourselves from within?

I thought DU-GLBT was one of the last bastions of LGBT peace & harmony, a place where we could rise above the GDP wars --

It's like you're reading my mind, friend. I understand in my gut everything you say here because it sums up well what I feel but in the reverse (or would that be converse? I can never remember). I wish I had some words to make it better, but the best I can manage is to tell you that I understand where you're coming from. Seeing posts, even knowing it's a joke, intimating something wrong with dating an Obama supporter is one example among many how I see those primary wars creeping in here in a way I find hostile. I think I get that part of what you're saying. I really do.

The primary wars creep into GLBT like kudzu, kd. I'm not optimistic that that can be transcended.

In general, I think you might be right, but on an individual basis, it can be done-- like this, maybe. I participate in another forum that has a much smaller group of very long term, close-knit regular GLBT contributors and the primary discussions have not been anywhere near as divisive there as they are here on DU. I don't delude myself into thinking DU-GLBT can have that kind of atmosphere because it's just a wholly different dynamic, but it's a good place for perspective outside of DU.

Oh, and goddamnit, I'm one of the most interesting fucking people you could ever hope to meet. For fuck's sake. I write, and I've been making movies since I was 12, and I used to be rich, and I just got back from protesting a gathering of those "ex-gay" assholes who descended upon my backyard, and with any luck, you're going to see my ugly mug in Gus Van Sant's (Harvey) "Milk" movie due out in late summer, and when the hell was the last time you stood out in the middle of Market Street in the bitter cold playing a pissed-off queer punching your fist in the air and trying not to stumble over Emile Hirsch?

Now you're making me homesick. I'm a Georgia boy through and through, but I did live in San Francisco for ten years and I miss her terribly now that I'm back here. It's only because I did so that I can come back home. I have this story I like to tell about the day I realized I no longer thought consciously about being gay all the time anymore. I'd been living there about four years and was running some errands in the vicinity of Church and 18th. I realized it had been several days that I had gone to work and back, to the store, ridden the train, and just basically lived my life without even considering my sexuality even once. I had totally let my guard down and had "forgotten" that I was gay. I stopped in my tracks and thought to myself, "So this is what it's like to be straight!!!" It really was a watershed moment in my own self-acceptance. I'm no longer in San Francisco, but I'll always have that.

I've been really excited about the Harvey Milk movie as I tend to get really excited about queer culture and queer history type stuff. I'll definitely be looking for you. The last time this pissed off queer punched his fist down market street was the late September 2005 anti-war march -- and then we went to Folsom Street Fair. :)

[MNBrewer]

96. Ooooooooooooo! You used the "Q word"

Get scolded?

[Zuiderelle]

24. Indeed. And it's getting tiresome.

[Chovexani]

69. Hell, they're infiltrating the damn ASTROLOGY group

There's a reason I don't hang around here anymore.

I will admit that while I adore Hillary I'm under no illusion that she will be a radical fighter for equal rights. However, I trust her on this far more than Mr. "Basic Rights".

The difference is that I can express the former attitude among fellow Hillary supporters and we can talk about it without getting crazy. Any criticism of Obama here paints you with a scarlet H and gets you run out of town on a rail. Hell, look at how they eat their own, let alone anyone else.

DU is a scary place these days.

[cloudythescribbler]

73. Check out some of those McClurkin threads -- there are PLENTY of Obama-bashers on DU nt

[Zuiderelle]

74. McClurkin McClurkin McClurkin McClurkin McClurkin McClurkin McClurkin McClurkin McClurkin

McClurkin is old news. It was discussed here and criticized here, but there was no bashing. Where's this bashing you keep harping on?

[Chovexani]

94. I know that, I was on many of those threads from the beginning

McClurkin threads are about the only time His Holiness is ever questioned here.

You'll also note if you've been here longer than five minutes that while a few Hillary partisans were shit-stirring just to bash Obama for something, the majority of the people who had issues with Obama on McClurkin when the controversy first went down were NOT Hillary supporters, yet they were being dismissed as such by Obama supporters. I know, because I was hardcore for DK at the time. There were DKers and Edwards people as well as a few Obama supporters (as well as people who would later go on to support Obama) who were criticizing him on it.

Every last one of these people was tarred and feathered with the "faux outrage" brush and called a Hillbot. Ironically it was that which pushed me to really take a second look at Hillary (if I was going to be slammed as just being a Hillbot, I may as well see what I'm supposedly supporting, natch). Honestly we should have seen it as an omen of things to come: express any kind of dissent, any kind of criticism of Obama no matter how mild and you are automatically run off the board as a Hillbot. This kind of with us or against us shit is what gets called Obama supporters cultists. Granted not all are like this but there is a tyranny of the batshit Lord of the Flies thing going on here, and if you can't see it then you are likely part of the problem.

[closeupready]

26. I have never received a satisfactory answer as to why GLBT Dems should support Hillary before Obama

Obama admittedly has problems, but so does Hillary.

Any Hillary supporters care to offer reasons why they believe she is a better candidate?

[Zuiderelle]

27. Here's a link to a forum full of posts with valid reasons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=221

I guess you haven't received the answer you're looking for, because you didn't look.

[closeupready]

28. Perhaps. But when I look at www.democraticunderground.com, I see

lots more reasons to support Obama over Hillary.

[blayne]

32. That's because it seems as though everyone at DU supports Obama.

Not so much in this forum, but in general. And if you wander over to the Huffington Post, as I do when I get done here, it's more of the same.

[Zuiderelle]

33. Interesting. What I see is a whole lot of people who don't understand why a lot of us GLBTers

do not support him. They should come here to find out.

[closeupready]

34. But rather than indicating why you don't support Obama, and I've already indicated he has issues,

can you tell me why you SUPPORT Hillary?

Because what I surmise is that you believe she is less evil than Obama - does that capture it?

[Zuiderelle]

35. No, I can't be bothered right now.

But BuffyTheFundieSlayer and mitchtv summed it up for you below.

[closeupready]

36. ok. fair enough.

if you have time at some point later, I would appreciate if you could do so. Cheers. :hi:

[Zuiderelle]

38. I suppose I could run around and cut and paste everything I've posted on the subject.

Or you could just search my posts. Or you could just refer to Buffy and mitch's posts below as I pointed out already.

Ciao! :hi:

[closeupready]

39. The possibilities are endless. lol

This is like a Ronco commercial. ;) :rofl:

[Zuiderelle]

87. Here you go. A summary of why some of us don't support Obama and do support Hillary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=72164&mesg_id=72501

[NMMNG]

29. I can give you dozens

You'll be reading for a while but since you asked....

[closeupready]

30. But if she's running on Bill's legacy, why does she get a pass on DOMA and DADT?

Additionally, she appeared on Ellen earlier this year and in response to Ellen's VERY FIRST QUESTION, she indicated affirmatively that she does not support a federal marriage law, she supports civil unions instead, and would leave the question of "marriage" up to the states.

How is this NOT effectively homophobic? What if you are gay and live someplace like Arkansas or Alabama? What reason do gays there have to look at Hillary's candidacy and say to themselves, well, she's going to work for me? Because she indicated that she will NOT, that whatever the state legislature wants, she can live with that. But I argue, gays who HAVE to actually live with it CAN'T live with it and shouldn't HAVE to live with being denied their civil rights.

Honestly, I don't know that Obama is any different, but if people are going to suggest that one Democratic contender is better for GLBT voters than the other one, I sure want to know why.

No offense, but that's I'm just saying, that's unresolved for me.

[Zuiderelle]

37. She supports civil unions that afford all the same benefits as marriage. Obama doesn't .

[davidinalameda]

42. no she doesn't

go back and do some research on her position on DOMA, which was signed into law by her husband

[Zuiderelle]

48. Oh, yes she does. go back and do some research yourself.

[davidinalameda]

92. here you go

http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17268

Former President Bill Clinton last week suggested his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, would support repealing the full Defense of Marriage Act, an apparent change in position from Hillary Clinton’s previous position calling for repeal of just one part of the law.

But a Hillary Clinton campaign spokesperson told the Blade that President Clinton “misspoke” in the interview. “Hillary Clinton supports only the repeal of section 3 of DOMA,” campaign spokesperson Jin Chon said.

[Creideiki]

43. If DADT is such an issue

Why is Nunn's endorsement by Obama not a Big Thing(TM)?

[mitchtv]

31. the differences are few

one is important to me Obama's rejection of gays on religious grounds and his general discomfort about the subject , which is easy to read as dislike. Another thing, is the religious fervor of his adherants, It stinks like a fart in church. That's Gay issues. Besides them, there was his first(of the big three) debate response on nuclear power, it fell short of both Hillary and Edwards, and also his statement on Geo Staphylococcus' show that raising the age on SS was "on the table, everything was" Well buddy, not for me it isn't.These are the subjects where I think he will "Give away the store" to those GOPs that he so wants to work with. The nuclear issue: he has never made that mistake again, but beware of lawyers obfuscating. I feel that he is better than the best repub.


on edit: you've just got to read his comment in Berks Co, PA, it is simply unbelievable

>>"I'm not in favor of gay marriage but I certainly don't want to see a court suggesting that somehow we can't pass laws that say gays and lesbians aren't being discriminated against," Obama said.
>>a real head scratcher What Are you saying, Barack?

[cloudythescribbler]

50. Y, it's garbled but he's saying he isn't FOR gay marriage but IS for ANTI-Discrimination legislation

And remember that being on the campaign trail and under a media microscope 24/7 ain't easy. Wouldn't you be garbled too, sometimes?

The context though, here, contrasting his NONsupport for gay marriage w/ his support for the anti-discrimination language is clear. And he's worried that Courts might challenge such legislation on some grounds or another, especially if McCain gets a few appointments on the court.

[Zuiderelle]

53. Anti-discrimination legislation is not gay marriage, and it's not equality.

In fact, anti-discrimination legislation has NOTHING to do with civil equality related to what we are denied by not being able to marry.

[closeupready]

56. Looking at New Jersey, neither are civil unions equal to marriage, no matter

how "equal" authorities say they are. So again, I see no reason to see Hillary as a GLBT savior on the basis of the fact that she allegedly supports civil unions which she claims would be equal to marriages. Don't flame me for disagreeing with you, either, but I'm still not seeing how she's better on GLBT rights, and if I don't get it, I guarantee you many others don't get it, either.

[Zuiderelle]

58. That's my point. She supports FEDERAL benefits for civil unions. Obama does not.

[closeupready]

59. According to his statements in early March, he also supports federal benefits for civil unions.

>>"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," Obama said in the letter. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them," said Obama on Sunday. "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view."<<

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080303b.html

Obama offers GLBT voters nothing to get excited about (with maybe an exception in terms of he actually uses the Christian Bible to defend non-discrimination against GLBT people), but how is this substantively worse than Hillary's position?

[Zuiderelle]

61. I don't think you read it correctly. He specifically says that it should be up to STATES.

And I quote: "But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

He consistently shirks any real answer on this subject. But he most certainly has not said that he thinks gay Americans should have the same federal benefits of marriage for civil unions. He specifically lays the responsibility on each state. And NO state can ever have civil equality until its "civil unions" carry with them federal equal treatment.


Edit to add this:

"I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state."

By the state.

and "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment."

Yeah, eventually.

And "I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them"

I mean, seriously, how on earth could someone interpret that as meaning that he supports FEDERAL equality?

[cloudythescribbler]

75. Yes, one could fairly draw a distinction here in favor of HRC, but nothing that warrants the ...

kind of savaging Obama gets, as on the McClurkin threads galore, many with like 50 recs and over 100 posts. The point of these articles is that there are significant points in Obama's favor on these issues too.

I think that the point about federal benefits is well-taken though, and it is something specific that gay organizations should prod the Obama campaign on. (BtW, in case you were wondering LOL, I am a VERY strong supporter of Obama in this primary campaign, and have donated to him at least 3x and will probably do one more at least before the primary season is over. He is in my view by FAR the stronger overall CANDIDATE and prospective PRESIDENT, even though I don't specifically see him as all that much better on GLBT issues; I just don't think there's enough difference in their platforms/politics either way to justify the incredibly massive swarms of attackers in the name of GLBT concerns there has been, mysteriously, on DU. Yes, he could have handled the McClurkin affair better, but stumbles happen in huge campaigns.

I would add that after Bill Clinton ("Bill the Welsher" Larry Kramer dubbed him in early 93) pushed pretty much his whole progressive agenda and progressive consituencies (including me) under a bus (figuratively speaking) during his presidency, there's no way I'm gonna trust a Clinton ever again, especially on a purely 'on paper' proclaimed difference like this. Yes, I know that there are people out there who say that trusting ANY Democrat is the problem, but I don't see any alternative, even while I work outside the electoral spectrum, as in groups like the reborn sds/mds)

[Zuiderelle]

80. You've used "savaging Obama" in numerous posts now and never provided any evidence of it.

There's been no SAVAGING of Obama regarding his own ANTI-gay-marriage stance, or his association with McClurkin. Criticism is not savaging.

[mitchtv]

64. Your interpetation, thanks, but that's not what he said is it?

Others may have another. Point certain, it lacks leadership. That's one of my biggest problems with him. That and the behavior of his devotees. I am a Dem and have been since'68. Bill Clinton was not perfect, but he was not all that bad , and unless you lived through Reagan and GHWB, you have no right to judge him , considering the times, He was a vast improvement. As for DADT, he was ambushed , but at least he tried, and it was considered an improvement at the time, DOMA was I might remind everyone, a veto proof majority. I did not chose Sen Clinton, but I will not stand by and watch a decent Democrat trashed by rival and sounding just like the Pukes did for 8 years.

[Zuiderelle]

65. !!

:applause:

[cloudythescribbler]

72. No, I don't think my interpretation *arbitrary*. What I described is what he CLEARLY meant nt

[mitchtv]

88. Nothing "Clearly" about it

He meant "I am not about to take any leadership on this subject". I am sure, also. The man is a fucking Harvard lawyer for God's sake, if he wanted to say something, he could have just spit it out, not mouth the obamanation he presented.

[Jella]

97. I agree with this

one is important to me Obama's rejection of gays on religious grounds and his general discomfort about the subject , which is easy to read as dislike. Another thing, is the religious fervor of his adherants, It stinks like a fart in church.

That is huge barrier for me, in that deep conviction to conventional, conservative religious teaching that keeps me out of his court. I have read most of the threads both here and at HuffPost, and when I see him speak, it just tells me no to him. Granted, I agree that push very well be shoved at me when I have to pencil in my vote. Then my worry will be more about will the democratic/independent straight white male vote for McCain.

[Toasterlad]

40. I Thought This Shit Belonged to GD:Primaries?

Can we please leave the blatant fucking campaigning OUT of GLBT? I am not at all interested in discussing which of these assholes is the bigger homophobe.

Edited because my non-faux disgust prompted terrible spelling.

[closeupready]

45. Good points toasterlad.

I agree with you on all points. :D

[cloudythescribbler]

52. Is there the SAME all-around non-faux disgust when there are posts about McClurkin?

It is hardly uncommon in politics for people to be quiet as a mouse when something (eg incivility) is committed by those on THEIR side, but to get all hot and bothered, often numerously, when the same something (presidential politics on GLBT) is raised by the OTHER side.

Personally, it seems to me that the elections are VERY relevant to GLBT rights, but that YES, it shouldn't get overly partisan here OR elsewhere on DU, and that can be really disturbing.

It seems odd that with the whole gamut of GLBT issues at stake at least to some degree in the national elections of 08, that people should feel it is an issue to be avoided. Given the tone of GD:P, that issue is understandable, but what ARE the consequences of, say, McCain getting elected v Obama or HRC? Progress may be slow under the Democrats, but the alternative is, for me, something that URGENTLY needs to be avoided.

[Toasterlad]

67. I Responded to the McClurkin Thing at the Time.

My opinion of that event - and Obama - has not changed. But just because Hillary hasn't provided us with a galvanizing "McClurkin" incident* doesn't mean I think there's any reason to be pro-Clinton. More importantly, I agree with you that McCain must be avoided at ALL COSTS, and if these two losers are the best we can put up against him, it would behoove us ALL to stop trashing them both and make selecting a nominee as smooth a process as possible. However, since the combination of trolls and impassioned choose-a-siders has made that unrealistic on DU, I'm just asking people to respect the guidelines that have been laid out, and keep the shit confined to GD: Primaries where it belongs.

*apparently, I was the ONLY one outraged by her patronizing performance at the Logo debate, especially her completely callous, clueless suggestion that civil rights are a matter for state government.

Fuck! Now you've got ME doing it! :evilfrown:

[cloudythescribbler]

76. I was not aware that guidelines kept primary-relevant issues ONLY in GD:P, just out of GD.

It used to be that there was GD:Politics, but now they made it GD:Primaries, with NON Primary politics now over in General, but that does NOT necessarily mean no Primary issues in the energy section, or GLBT, or Labor, etc. The point is that the General area was getting flooded.

I have at least seen quite a few primary related posts in GLBT since GD:Primaries was started

If I am wrong, don't hesitate to provide the quote and link, as I am not meticulous at all in reading every fine point of the 'guidelines'. Both posting the specific AND sending me a personal message would be helpful, and I'd be sure not to make the same mistake again.

[mitchtv]

90. the only problem with that is the GLBT folks

won't go over to the primarily strate forums to be insulted and told to get to the back of the bus, which happens by the third post generally. I for sure won't.

[NashVegas]

98. I've Been Lurking

This is the only forum where I see rational debate about the candidates. If only the rest of DU could emulate this...

[davidinalameda]

41. McClurkin McClurkin McClurkin

whenever anyone posts anything positive about Obama and the GLBT community, all you hear is

MCCLURKIN

[Creideiki]

44. Aw, come on. My new poster child of Obama's homophobic tendencies is Nunn.

[davidinalameda]

47. just four words

Bill Clinton

DOMA

DADT

[Creideiki]

57. Come on.

I know you're pretty bright.

One of Clinton's first acts was announcing that he wanted to allow gay men and women to serve openly in the military. Sam Nunn is the one who stepped forward and said, "No, Mr. President. We're in charge and can stop you." DADT is not a Clinton legacy. It's a Nunn legacy. If Nunn had the slightest bit of humanity, he could have stepped aside, but he didn't.

And DOMA is dangerous ground, since Illinois still has its DOMA legislation on the books--Barack couldn't be bothered to try to urge for its repeal.

[closeupready]

60. Did Bill Clinton have to sign DOMA?

???

[Creideiki]

62. Possibly

DOMA was in many ways a defense against a Protection of Marriage Amendment.

But that still doesn't say why Barack, who is somehow now all for equal rights, wasn't for equal rights 5 years ago in the Illinois Senate.

Here's a hypothetical for you: Barack is president and a DOMA comes to him--does he sign it or veto it?

Here's another hypothetical for you: Barack is president and legislation comes to him that not only repeals DOMA, but includes same-sex marriage recognition at the federal level--does he sign it or veto it?

[closeupready]

63. Don't even try it. The answer is no. He did it to court voters for his

re-election.

I don't know what Barack would do.

However, with Hillary and Bill as her adviser, Bill may advise Hillary to sign, using the same triangulation logic he used in convincing himself that signing DOMA was correct. We know Bill had no problem as recently as 2004 in advising John Kerry to support the Federal Marriage Amendment as a means of increasing his appeal to xtian fundies.

[Creideiki]

66. Against Bob Dole? Really?

Do you remember that campaign?

I understand that Bill is pretty much the poster child for triangulation--basically taking Rightwing stances to mitigate other Leftwing stances, so that the average is centrist. I don't think that the argument works so well unless you go with some bizarre weighted averaging type thing. Pro-choice is left, anti-gay marriage is right, the average is 0 or center.

Now look at Barack. Let's assume that he actually does like gay people. He's already showing, through the uncomfortableness at the Logo debate, the McClurkin mess, Rev. Meeks as spiritual advisor (above the advice of his own church, no less), Sam Nunn as an advisor, refusing to even be photographed with Newsome because he's too gay-positive, not challenging Illinois' DOMA (DOMA never came up during the clown-campaign against Keyes--I was living in the Chicago metro area at the time).

He's got one issue--and it's not difficult to argue that he and Hillary would both work to a quick extrication from Iraq. At the very least neither would fight a Congress that cuts funding for the occupation.

Hillary's got a lot of negatives herself. She's got a negative image that seems to be completely contrary to her actual personality (as opposed to McCain who seems to be maintaining a positive image completely contrary to his actual personality). She's allied with the DLC--and I'm far from a fan of the people attempting to take the Democratic Party away from the liberal wing of the party (then again, Barack isn't particularly liberal, despite what Fixed Noise might say). She's got to overcome the negatives of having been barraged for 8 years by the Republicans while Bill was president. She's got to get away from the idea that this sets up a 2-family dynasty stretching (effectively) from 1984. She's far more wonky than charismatic. She's far from my first choice.

Somehow we've come up with 2 Democratic Senators from Illinois neither of whom I can wholeheartedly support. That's pretty freaking difficult to do.

[cloudythescribbler]

78. Realistically -- how "wholeheartedly" could you support ANY candidate capable of WINNING? ...

I don't ask this question to be snarky at all -- I myself face the same problem, as a socialist for over 30 years. I can't imagine someone I support "wholeheartedly" on their platform getting the nomination let alone the presidency. But Obama seems to me to be, overall, about as good and as trustworthy as any candidate (with a serious potential of winning) is apt to be at this point in history. Not that I disagree with all those criticisms (eg the Illinois DOMA).

I just think that there are swarms of people on DU savaging Obama, engaging in Obama-bashing fiestas over McClurkin in particular, when in fact his case overall on GLBT issues and concerns is really as good as Hillary Clinton's, and arguably better (as in the OP).

[Zuiderelle]

82. Again with the "swarms of people savaqing Obama" it's becoming quite hilarious.

:rofl:

[Creideiki]

83. I see you're from Massachusetts

I grew up in Illinois. Mostly, I'm an Illinois social liberal, fiscal moderate. Dick Durbin is really the same way. Paul Simon was a little more fiscally liberal than me, but I could appreciate his liberalness. Even Peter Fitzgerald, who, lets be honest here, gave Obama his seat by quitting out of disgust at the social conservatives that were ruling the Republican Senate and refused any moderate voice, was socially moderate and fiscally conservative.

Coming from Illinois, it's usually easy to consider the merits of both Republicans and Democrats, as the state until the second half of Ryan's term had managed to avoid the religious rightwing takeover of the party. George Ryan (the last Republican governor) and Corinne Wood (his Lieutenant Governor) were both socially moderate and fiscally moderate and both tried to let the Republicans know that if they allowed the religious/social conservatives to take over the party, they would lose the whole damn state, and that in fact happened. The only Republican who can win a statewide contest is Judy Barr-Topinka, the Treasurer, who is socially liberal, fiscally conservative. She's also a stronger proponent of gay rights (such as a Treasurer can be) than the Governor or Lt. Governor. Only the Attorney General, Amy Madigan--somewhat politically tainted by her father, who has been very powerful in the state government--is as strong. When Rod steps down and Amy and Judy step up, it's going to be a really interesting governor's race (although Judy's getting a bit long in the tooth and may choose to retire). Barr-Topinka has been trying to convince the Republicans in Illinois that pursuing social conservativism will prevent them from gaining ground in the state, both by exhortation and by proof that she's the only one that can survive a statewide election.

Understanding that, and that both Hillary and Barack are from Illinois--Hillary by birth and Barack by living there and going into politics there--it's almost insane that both of them are pandering to the religious types. Of the two, Hillary is slightly (and only slightly) more palatable. Illinois Senators from both parties have traditionally been "live and let live" style social moderates to liberals. The difference between the parties is more the fiscal side--Democrats tending toward the argument that there is a certain necessary set of things that the government can provide with some other things being nice add-ons provided 1) you can prove they're working and 2) they're fiscally feasible.

It's absolutely nuts that two Democratic Senators should both be pandering to the religious right. The only real difference I can see is that while Hillary is saying she's glad that New York will be giving marriage rights to the gay community, Barack refused to attempt to remove the ban while he was active in the state government and could put that forward--especially if, as he said, the legislation that was given to him to "sponsor" was given to him because only he could unify the dissenters. Basically, he's been an ass to the gay community. His advisors are disgusting--Meeks, Boren, and Nunn. And I'm getting tired of the argument that I should constantly be supporting other groups that won't support me. The key with Barack will be his VP nominee.

Meanwhile, Hillary at least, in 1992 was seen as the one that was insisting to Bill that he integrate the armed forces. When the social conservatives (like Barack and his advisors) rebelled, then we were saddled with DADT. It's the only difference on the civil rights side.

I also have serious issues with Barack on his healthcare proposal and his education proposals--"Merit pay" makes me vomit in my mouth.

So which one would be more likely to veto legislation from the Right? Hillary is showing through her, "I prefer civil unions, but I'm glad New York is going full marriage," that she wouldn't. Barack isn't giving those same signals. I could see Barack vetoing from the right anything that was slightly socially progressive. He irritates the crap out of me.

Even with that, I can't say I'm thrilled with Hillary. I liked her better when she spoke her mind. I think now she's trying to appear "tough" and "moderate"--moving to the center already, even before she has the nomination.

So it's absolutely nuts that two Democratic Senators from Illinois can't earn my wholehearted support. At least two other candidates were capable of that.

[Zuiderelle]

85. Fantastic post! EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS.

:applause:

I'm bookmarking this post to reference the next time some ass asks me why I don't support Obama.

:thumbsup:

[Zuiderelle]

86. You should re-post this as a thread here.

Truly, everyone should read this. You've expressed what a lot of us feel so eloquently and with such insight. This is a perfect synopsis of why we aren't all overjoyed with Obama, and why Hillary at least represents some modicum of progress, or at least a shred of hope for progress.

[cloudythescribbler]

77. A Clinton is simply not to be trusted on progressive issues or for progressive constitutencies ...

But still to be voted for against someone even HALF as warmongering as McCain, on the Iraq War alone, plus a zillion other reasons.

[Zuiderelle]

81. And you say others "savage" Obama? What's this you're doing towards Clinton?

[MNBrewer]

100. I imagine he would sign it

But there I go being hopeful.

[davidinalameda]

91. he could have easily stepped up and said no

but he didn't; he signed a bad bill just like he signed DOMA, which he played up in his re-election campaign in 1996

Obama is the only candidate running right now who has called for the repeal of the federal DOMA law in its entirety

Obama is hardly perfect on GLBT issues but he's head and shoulders above the Clintons

[Toasterlad]

68. Technically, That's Two Words and Two Acronyms.

I'm just sayin'.

[davidinalameda]

93. thank you

isn't an acronym considered a word though?

[cloudythescribbler]

54. You mean if Nunn endorses Obama, then Obama stinks?

Surely anyone familiar w/national politics wouldn't seriously think that way. What if Obama is also endorsed by a slew of gay leaders, including ... Sister Boom-Boom? (I happen to find the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to be particularly uplifting to my spirits, for which some might consider me anti-religious.)

[Creideiki]

55. Nah. Just endorsement not so much

When the candidate decides to take him on as an advisor--well, that's a bit more.

The real key will be who Barack chooses as his VP nominee. But it's not looking so good for the home team right now. We're likely to have two presidential candidates that would veto civil rights legislation from the Right in order to triangulate and solidify their positions with social conservatives. If Barack picks someone of the same mind as his VP nominee and that person is likely to be runnable as a presidential candidate in 8 years, then that means 16 years with no progress. That's flat out disgusting.

[cloudythescribbler]

79. On his VEEP pick, I say Obama should DEFINITELY go with a woman, possibly Barbara Boxer

That is an interesting topic we're likely to hear more about, especially come mid-May

[Creideiki]

84. Not another senator

Specifically not a senator from a state with a Republican governor.

It's going to be hard enough getting to 60 votes for cloture without giving up a seat.

Kathleen Sibelius from Kansas would seem a more likely choice. That doesn't give him a great multi-regional pull, but Kansas isn't likely to go for him based on his heritage without a little more pull.

[mitchtv]

89. No senators from states with Puke Governors please

self defeating

[Chovexani]

70. Rightfully.

As far as I'm concerned, until he apologizes for that incident, anything he says is pure pandering.

[Tektonik]

95. McClurkin was enough for me to be turned off completely from his campaign

I don't like Hillary that much and believe she has run a terrible campaign, but at least she is not Obama.