Hillary Clinton‘s getting all sorts of gay love in The Keystone State:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the endorsement Monday of the Liberty City Democratic Club, Philadelphia’s largest gay political group.
That boosts her support among gay voters at a time when polls show her ahead of rival presidential contender Barack Obama in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary set for April 22.
…
The Clinton endorsement by the Liberty City gay Democratic group came a few weeks after a gay Pittsburgh group, the Steel City Democrats, also gave its endorsement to Clinton.
Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal said the Clinton’s campaign’s taking the gays “very seriously”. We should hope so!
CitizenGeek
Why do the gays love Hillary so much? Surely Obama is the better candidate, if only because he wasn’t part of an administration that enacted two anti-gay laws … ?
Amber LeMay
So much for “brother”ly love!
Jason
We don’t really know Obama and what we do know is not really the greatest. My vote in N.C. goes to the Clinton camp!!!
Nate
@CitizenGeek: because gays (in general) are crazy people and are often ill-informed.
That’s the only reason I can think of…
faghag
Obama has no substance or policy, his words are empty and his followers are very short sighted.
Not forgetting that Obama has zero chance against a republican candidate, not now, not after the average Ameucan found out about his preacher.
Nate
@Jason: Unfortunately, you are exactly what I am talking about. (Even though I entirely respect your opinion and vote). The media isn’t going to tell you everything you need to know to make an informed decision. Research and pay attention to what is happening in the world.
Such as recent some events: Obama releases his past 7 years of tax returns, and Hillary lies about Bosnia.
Lee
I completely agree with you, Nate. In reference to Faghag, please do provide some support for Obama’s lack of policy, his empty words, and his short-sighted followers. I believe you are 100% wrong on all accounts there.
Which means you must support Clinton. You are free to support whomever you wish, but please remember that while Obama can’t control the words of everyone around him, Clinton should be able to keep herself from lying–oops, I mean “misspeaking.”
Eric
DOMA? DODT? Both Clinton laws, and since she is claiming that she was basically the President as first lady, she has to take the good with the bad. Obama is the only candidate who will repeal DOMA.
And empty words? Have you looked at his EXTENSIVE policy outlines on his website, including his very EXTENSIVE discussion on LGBT issues? Have you heard any of his policy speeches?
Shortsighted? Well, only in the sense that we believe Obama is a better candidate to win against Grandpa Bomb-Bomb Iran, yeah I guess we are shortsighted. But after the election, I think a lot of us see a potential for an FDR like president who will change the face of this country for a generation or four.
And the “pastor problem” is over, yes it will be brought up again in the general, but I believe it is non-issue. Sean Insanity will whine about it like he did about the buses in NOLA, “but what about the buses?” (in reference to Mayor Ray Nagin not using 8 school buses or something during Hurricane Katrina). In the end, no one cares or listened to him then nor will they on this.
faghag
Keep on dreaming…
If you want another republican in the White House, by all means, go ahead and vote for Obama.
Eric
I plan on it. I plan on doing it proudly. I plan on coming back here to say I told you so when Obama wins in Nov.
faghag
He will never ever win. Trust me I’m not saying this because I hate him, because I honestly don’t.
He won’t win because of all the crap the right wing media has on him, you just wait and see.
America will lose its bottle at the last minute and would rather vote for a white man they hate than a black man they don’t trust.#
Mark my words.
l
Hillary is Bob Dole. Obama is Howard Dean. McCain is Ronald Reagan. Who do the CIA and the Pentagon want to win?
I'm So Sure, Helen
Maybe Hillary obtained those endorsements by dangling Bill’s shriveled, lipstick-stained caucus in front of them.
I'm So Sure, Helen
Dear Faghag,
Are you sure you haven’t already lost your bottle?
Dan
It’s always sad when a faghag overstays her welcome…
faghag
Thanks Dan , I didn’t realise that this was a totalitarian website.
So ppl are allowed to say what they want as long as they agree with you.
Wow that’s really mature.
Just so you know, I have done more work for gay right in the last 15 years than most ppl here.
I won’t bore you with the details, maybe next time.
Amber LeMay
I’ll lose my bottle when Faghag pries it from vodka stained press-on nails.
Dawgson
FagHag=TrollMole?
I think we should ignore him/her. Her tone seems suspicious. I think s/he’s just trying to smear Obama and/or start a fight.
Eric
FH: If you believe that, then Obama was right in his speech. We do have a choice to make this election. And it looks like the choice that you claim people will make is, the same old politics and the same old divisive wedge issues. If our country is going to allow that to happen again, after all we have been through over the past 7 years, then I truly believe our democracy is lost, and there is no future for this country. I for one, cannot believe that is true.
audiored
Hasn’t Clinton dropped out yet?
rickroberts
Go, Hillary! I adore her. She’s laughing all the way to the White House.
Bitch Republic
I don’t understand why anyone supports Obama. I guess he’s such a blank slate, people project their ideals on him.
Hillary, YES SHE CAN!
Go Hillz!
Mr C
Well being from the PA area. I’m not surprised that Mark Segal and the crew are endorsing her. As most WHITE Gay organizations are.
That’s good. She is going to lose. If the super delegates give it to her she will lose in the general. Just like her supporters will not vote for Obama. We will make sure her ass is DEAD ON ARRIVAL!
But I will say this. In a sense FAGHAG makes since because they are looking at the reality of it all. In the end some WHITES will choose to go with McCain simply over skin color and or gender. Then you have the ones such as on here who tries to assassinate Obama over his issues and let their girl Hillary slide what’s in common she’s WHITE like me and he isn’t.
I never knew in my life the Dem Party would be like this. But once again the ugly face of RACE is in our face again. Republicans don’t care because they never cared for Blacks they’d rather court the Hispanics and make them the minority of their party. Oh I can’t forget they do have high minded blacks who think they have risen above their own race and choose not to deal with the issues they face with the exception of Colin Powell and bless him for his stance.
Blacks have sure been taken for granted by Dems, And the Clintons.
But Hillary has a BIG GIFT coming to her if she gets this nod.
TRUST she will see WE DO MATTER AND NO SHE WON’T WIN!
CitizenGeek
I think the gays are probably voting for Hillary because she seems more (superficially!) in tune with gay rights. She’s a woman (women are generally much more sympathetic and understanding when it comes to homosexuality) and she marched in New York’s gay pride parade. Well, that really doesn’t cut it for me. Barack Obama, unlike Clinton, is not afraid to bring up the word “gay” in front of an non-gay audience. He’s clearly not uncomfortable with the word or, indeed, the concept. I actually believe that he’ll repeal DADT, I doubt whether Hillary would or not. Obama has addressed the issue of black discrimination against gays in a predominately black CHURCH on Luther King day. Obama is really the only choice for gays, IMO.
Hillaryhater
Hillary can’t win without the votes of the super delegates, which means that she can only win by ripping the party into shreds. If she actually cared about the party, rather than solely her own proven craven ambitions, she would bow out now with whatever teensy bits of grace she can muster. She is a liar, a war hawk and the wife of a man who talked the gay talk but did NOT walk the walk. There is nothing I would like to see more than HIllary running across some airport tarmac, unsuccessfully attempting to dodge a fusillade. She’s a loser every way you cut it. And that makes those of you who support her losers too.
beefy
I think your opinion is highly ignorant and offensive Mr C. While I will agree that some voters will vote based on race, I don’t think it’s a majority. I’m sick of being called a racist because I support Clinton. I will vote for Obama if he’s the candidate… In the mean time, stop calling me racist.
rickroberts
CitizenGeek, do you really believe the President repeals laws? Did you even take American Government when you were a child? Twit. Utter twit, you are.
rickroberts
HillaryHater, nor can BO win without superdelegate votes. The rules of the convention are what they are. We have a convention to select a nominee. If you don’t like the rules, then work to change them.
rickroberts
Beefy, you’re wasting your time trying to appeal to reason in MrC. He is blinded by hate.
Hillaryhater
Work to change them the way that Hillary worked to “re-enfranchise” the voters of Florida and Michigan??? Nothing can be changed re superdelegates for this election, but I certainly hope that the s.d.’s would vote in line with their constituencies, pace Nancy Pelosi, which would result in the nomination going to Obama. That’s indisputable. But team Clinton will be arm twisting and phone calling deep into the night, and if they’re successful, she’ll get the nomination as she disillusions half of the party. Frankly, I really think she doesn’t care. It’s her way or no way.
rickroberts
Hater, you are truly an idiot. The rules allow for the credentials and rules committees at the convention to vote on whether and how to seat all of the delegations, including Florida and Michigan. If Barack has enough votes on those committees, you have nothing to worry about. Superdelegates are not there to simply rubberstamp the voters. That is one consideration but not the only one. Again, if you don’t like the procedure, get active and work to change it.
As for the SDs voting in line with their constituencies, which constituency would that be? Their congressional district? Their state? Their race? Their region? What of the SDs who are not members of Congress? Should Kerry, Kennedy, and Patrick Kennedy vote for Hillary because Mass. and Rhode Island went for Hillary? Should Bill Richardson vote for Hillary because New Mexico went for Hillary? Tough questions, huh?
Arm twisting is good. Along with money, it is the mother’s milk of politics. If you don’t know how to arm twist–and Barack’s people are pretty good at it–you shouldn’t enter politics. It is a rough sport because the stakes are very high. Hillary said at the beginning that she’s “in it to win it.” So I am with her and proud of her for that tenacity. I want someone like that fighting for me.
I’m certain Barack is grateful that most of the people working for him are smarter than a good many of his supporters.
porsha
C’mon you guys…If you think the Democratic party is so unstable that it will crash and burn if Hillary doesn’t throw in the towel and get out of the way of Obama, you should become a Republican or an Independent. Democrats ALWAYS squabble among themselves. It’s a way of fleshing out issues and people for the good of the party, not its destruction. Let the process run its course, and stop screaming about the convention…don’t you know that that’s what the convention is for? Also all those ‘talking heads’ on the tube simply have to have something to talk about in their own bias. Educate yourself and stop whinning.
Dawgson
Hey Porsha–
Democrats do always squabble among themselves — It’s why they/we tend to lose and not get anything done.
Peter Pan
@ audiored who said ‘Hasn’t Clinton dropped out yet?’
No. To know when ones’ time is up one needs integrity. She doesn’t have any.
HillaryHater
I was wrong, perhaps idiotic as you would have it, to say that the superdelegates should vote in line with their constituencies. The sd’s should vote for the candidate who has the most pledged delegates, period. Do you not, O Wise Rick Roberts, believe this? Is it really your position that arm twisting the s.d.’s into voting for HRC, when BO has more pledged delegates, is acceptable and good politics? It’s a good thing? Do you not think this will create rancor, dismay and distrust among BO supporters (most importantly blacks) similar to that felt by Democrats when Bush win/was awarded Florida? If BO has more pledged delegates (which he will) and HRC gets the nomination via the s.d.’s, the result will be disastrous, not only in this election, but for the future of the Democratic party. Perhaps this isn’t such a bad thing. But I don’t want someone of HRC’s tenacity fighting for me, because that tenacity is rooted in nothing so much as her own self-interest. It’s that tenacity that led to her authorizing vote for the use of force in Iraq. I honestly don’t know what she believes, but if it’s in line with her husband, and I intuit that it is (and she’s given me no reason to disabuse me of that), then she’s not a real liberal and ultimately she’ll have more in common with the neocons than she will with me. I’m sure she’ll be happy to fight for you, as long as it’s in line what’s best for her.
rickroberts
HillaryHater, I repeat. You’re an idiot. And I repeat again. You’re a fucking stupid idiot. Here is your quote: “The sd’s should vote for the candidate who has the most pledged delegates, period. ”
Then why for fuck’s sake even have super-delegates? This is the last of my time I will waste with you, but let me ask. Do you know anything about the history of super-delegates? Why we have them? Look it up. Google is your friend. Now how about getting your uninformed shallow ass out of the party. See? Now you’ve pissed me off. Yeah, I’m prejudiced. You’ve pegged me. I’m prejudiced against stupid fucks like you. The rest of us are in danger of contamination.
Dan
What is the point of superdelegates, indeed? Guarantee you they won’t exist by the next presidential election. Dumbest fucking idea this party’s ever had.
Eric
The purpose of the SD was basically to overturn the will of the people, if those hapless rubes voted the wrong way. To make sure that the candidate is not some populist radical, but rather someone who will go along to get along. Or as the Democratic Party puts it, someone who will win (perhaps at any cost), someone good for the party. These omniscient omnipotent party elders who know the way to salvation.
Rick: Chill! You are going to have an aneurysm or something. But you are correct in saying “Then why for fuck’s sake even have super-delegates?” Answer, we should not. They need to go away. Those people should have to be nominated just like the rest of us who want to be a delegate. I think voters do just fine in nominating a candidate. We don’t need some back room blowhards deciding for us (see previous paragraph).
I think there needs to a major election overhaul in this country. Caucuses need to stop, paperless ballots need to go away, and we need to have regional primaries, 10 or so states at a time (including no more than 2 big states per week) for 5 weeks during the months of Feb and March. Just to name a few…
rickroberts
Eric, I nominate you to lead a reform effort of our party’s nomination process for the next election. I agree we need some big time changes, including saying goodbye to caucuses. I’d prefer having a single national primary day so that no single state, especially a state like NH that is not demographically representative of the rest of the country, has outsized influence. I’m ambivalent about getting rid of super-delegates. If there were some way to require and ensure voter education and participation, then I may be convinced to get rid of SDs, but as long as we have hapless mouthbreathers like HillaryHater and MrC running loose, we need to have a check on the process.
Dawgson
Eric’s right. So many of these things are vestiges of a time when we wanted to keep voting rights to the privileged few.
Steve
Wow, I can’t believe that once again we are having this discussion and once again the same misinformation is being spewed, particularly from the Obama supporters. Obama and Clinton have the exact same view on DOMA. Obama can claim he wants a repeal, however, he does not, he wants what Clinton wants which is the power to go to the states, and if a state recognizes gay marriage so will the federal government. This is already in DOMA and the only part of DOMA that Clinton wants to keep.
Both candidates have stated they want to repeal DADT, they both see it as broken and want it gone.
Both candidates most certainly have publicly stated their views about equality for gays, in front of groups that were not just comprised of gay people.
Also, you can all hate Bill for enacting DOMA and DADT, but it was a first step to make sure that we didn’t lose everything. I firmly believe that without these two laws there would have been several attempts, and probably successful ones under Bush, to outright ban gay marriage and gays serving in the military.
Now quite frankly, I have no desire to see Clinton step out of the campaign at this point. Call me what you like, however, she is who I would like to see have the nod. She is still doing well in this race, and although she is trailing, I think she is still a viable candidate for the general election. And like RickRoberts said, the super delegates were created to be independent, they were to absolutely have no ties with primary and caucus results. It would be moronic to create them if they were to just side with primary and caucus results. So no, they do not need to all go to Obama because he has more pledged delegates, and if Clinton can prove she is electable then she most certainly can still be considered in the running.
After this election process I have no doubt the democratic party will be reexaming the ideas of super delegates, but to decide mid way through a campaign that they serve no purpose anymore and that they should just side with popular vote is not right.
Steve
No Eric and Dawson are not entirely correct.
The creation of the SD’s had nothing to do with wanting to keep voting rights to a priviledged few. The superdelegates were from a time when less than 50% of the democratic voters were showing up to primary elections and less than 20% showing up to caucuses. The SD were in place so that a few radical voters couldn’t elect someone not in line with the democratic party. So in a sense they were overturning the will of the people, but mainly because the true will of the people was not being seen in these elections.
I agree with Rick, get rid of caucuses, and have one nationwide primary on one date. But if after this election we once again go back to a time when no one is really involved in elections then the SD once again could actually have a purpose.
rickroberts
Steve, you explain it well. This is my understanding of super-delegates. Perhaps reform could include getting rid of SDs, but if voter participation drops below an agreed upon percentage in any given election, then they kick back in just for that cycle. Reading your well-written explanation helps me to understand why so many are upset now at the prospect of SDs “overturning” the will of regular voters. We have two exciting, pioneering candidates drawing an extraordinary number of people into the process.
HillaryHater
Rick, If and when you pull your head out of Hillary’s ass would you consider answering my question? You know Rick, the question you avoided by repeating what an uninformed stupid fucking idiot I am? Again, do you think it’s a good thing for the super delegates to select HRC over BO, if BO has more pledged delegates? Good or bad?
Be good enough to give my shallow ass an answer, won’t you?
I’ll answer your question. Yes, I actually do know quite a bit about the history of super delegates, and that still doesn’t change my opinion that they should vote for the candidate who has the majority of pledged delegates, PERIOD.
Dawgson
Steve: It’s still a variation on “We don’t trust the will of the people.” Wrap it up how you want, it’s still not democracy.
rickroberts
Dawgson, y’know just as a thought exercise, whoever said a political party must use a democratic process to choose its candidate anyway? Political parties are not arms of the government. My saying this doesn’t imply that I buy your premise that the present process is not democratic. I’m just sayin’.
rickroberts
Okay, HillaryHater, I’ll stoop again and answer your question. You asked me whether I think “it’s a good thing for the super delegates to select HRC over BO if BO has more pledged delegates.” Here’s what I think. It’s not good OR bad. I expect them to use seasoned judgment. I want the superdelegates to weigh the pledged delegate count as one of the factors as they decide whom to back. Other factors should be popular vote count, states won, which states one, demographics of votes cast, current polling against John McCain, the effect their decision will have on the party, experience, ideas, their conscience, how their own state voted, and more. I’m certain I have left out something. I also want the SDs to have the flexibility to back whomever they wish in case one candidate or the other goes into a freefall because of an unforeseen political or personal scandal, unrecoverable gaffe, or deadly association with a [perceived] thug (like the Rev. Wright, for example). What I am trying to say here is that a lot can happen between now and August. Let’s just all settle in, enjoy the summer, and see where it goes. Hillary and Barack are separated by a fraction. Yes, he has more this or that, but in the grand sum of all that has been cast, it is miniscule. Nobody should be dropping out at this point. You expect Barack to fight, and Hillary’s supporters expect her to fight.
HillaryHater
Points taken and well said.
Steve
Dawson, I’m not saying that I think the system is perfect as is with the SD’s however, I disagree with your statement that the intent was to keep people from voting, and in fact SD’s stem from a lack of voters.
And for once I will agree with hillaryhater, your response was great rick.
rickroberts
I refer you all here for a good read on the super delegate conundrum:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/changing_the_minds_of_superdel.html
Try reading with a fresh, open mind. Pour some soda water in your ears, shake it all around, sit down and take a deep breath, and just read.
Mr C
First of all to RickRoberts. I’m not full of hate and I nevered said All WHITE gays were prejudice. So get that shit straight.
The bottom line is this there is a small minority of WHITE gays that are supporting Obama and most of you on here that are Clinton supporters you will forgive Hillary of her sins and not him.
WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW HIM.
YOU DONT HER NEITHER. And now all of a sudden Jeremiah Wright is a Black racist preacher. for 4 clips put together in a youtube video. WOW RICK NOW YOU SEE HOW THE FUCK WE FELT WHEN FOR YEARS While your people made negative comments about us through out the history of this country.
Once again I don’t spew hate. I speak the truth. for when it comes to racism in the gay community. All these fucking GAY CIVIL RIGHTS organizations don’t do shit about it. And it has always been this way. But this campaign has shown some true feelings on both sides.
So you call me what you want. I really don’t care. IT IS WHAT IT IS!
And to Beefy. Once again read what I wrote. I never called you anything. And as far as IGNORANT??? Are you African American?????????
I don’t think so. So you’ll never understand some things as we do. But whatever we wish Hillary all the best.
rickroberts
No, MrC, you said that I have negative prejudice. Evidence, please.
rickroberts
MrC, my responses to some of your words inline below. Your words are quoted.
“The bottom line is this there is a small minority of WHITE gays that are supporting Obama and most of you on here that are Clinton supporters you will forgive Hillary of her sins and not him.
WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW HIM.
YOU DONT HER NEITHER.”
I don’t know either of them personally, but as a rabid news hound, I have about as much information as a person can have about a celebrity/politician in our culture. I was raised in Arkansas for 10 of the 12 years that the Clintons were in power there. Arkansas is a small state, and Little Rock is a small town. Bill Clinton spoke at my Boys’ State convention the summer after my high school junior year, and he and Hillary spent two solid days talking, listening, and arguing with a bunch of precocious young men who thought they knew it all. The Clintons made a huge difference in my life and in the lives of many poor and middle class children and families in Arkansas, especially those of us who depended on public schools for our educations. In one of the poorest states in the union in a school system that was 70% black, I received a world class education that included 4 years of foreign language in high school, four years of advanced math, art, literature, speakers, cultural experiences, and tense, troubled, and negotiated racial tribulations. There is not much that has been printed about the Clintons that I don’t already know, and much I have heard that has never been in the national press. You take the good with the bad and make a judgment. In the end, we are electing a warm-blooded, flesh and blood human being, warts and all — not an automaton.
“And now all of a sudden Jeremiah Wright is a Black racist preacher. for 4 clips put together in a youtube video. WOW RICK NOW YOU SEE HOW THE FUCK WE FELT WHEN FOR YEARS While your people made negative comments about us through out the history of this country.”
I was raised in the South and spent four years in the military. My experience with Black people is life-long and personal and in close proximity. I was in one of those fun, raucous Black churches one Sunday when the talk turned to whitey this or whitey that. Some people around me were clearly embarrassed. They stood up, grabbed my arm, and we left together. That was leadership. That was courage. That was character. That was something Barack could have and should have done and didn’t. Barack is a coward and an opportunist. That is my gut feeling, along with everything I have read about him and by him. Until the Wright affair, I was prepared to vote for Barack if he were our nominee. Now, though, I could never vote for him in good conscience.
Hillary has disappointed me in some ways as well, and there have been times when I bristled that her political calculation was way too brazen, but again, here we are left with two candidates. We must choose. I weighed it all, and I choose Hillary. Check out this essay:
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
I’m a feminist; maybe this essay will fill you with the same righteous anger and pride that I felt when I read it.
“But this campaign has shown some true feelings on both sides.”
Thanks for acknowledging that it is on both sides.
“But whatever we wish Hillary all the best.”
Pardon me for not believing you.
rickroberts
Those of you following this discussion, please read Paul Krugman in the Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ref=opinion
Mr C
Rick you quoted my words and answered.
Very good.
However, I never said of you “negative prejudice” Now to respond to you. I see why your such a Clinton supporter being from Arkansas. That is understandable and all. Let me say something in reference to Blacks in the South as opposed to Blacks in the North. I’m a Northerner who has lived in South (Birmingham Ala, Atlanta GA) the tone between them and us is different. They have a submissive spirit when confrontation comes on as we will not.
In your world class education. And congrats on your achievements. If the schools are 70% Black. How many of them received the same achievements as you? Because I seen many documentaries on the school system there and how Blacks are FAILING at enormous rates! So something isn’t right with that. However in your explaining the Clinton’s like you said. You take the good and the bad and make the decision and you did. However, I don’t dislike the Clinton’s not by a long shot. However I’m sick of Blacks feeling like they must vote for Hillary because they “OWE” The Clinton’s. I don’t owe them anything. I voted for him twice. He owed me and did his job…….THANK YOU BILL done deal!
Now you said: My experience with Black people is life-long and personal and in close proximity. I was in one of those fun, raucous Black churches one Sunday when the talk turned to whitey this or whitey that. Some people around me were clearly embarrassed.
Right there no offense that is what I mean by submissive no need to be embarrassed ust still be supportive of you regardless of the minister. There is something you don’t understand and you will never Rick. That Pastor not sure of what actually the sermon was. But obviously he has been through some serious stuff in the South dealing with racism and in our cries through church and biblical scripture anger comes out and we have every right to be so. Because as many things have become available to us MANY THINGS ARE STILL CLOSED IN OUR FACES. You are one of many people who I believe quoting you as saying negotiated racial tribulations. Most folks in South still have confederate spirits and you can’t deny that. GAY AND STRAIGHT. And I even experienced that in the Atlanta Eagle…..But why, Just because???????
You said: They stood up, grabbed my arm, and we left together. That was leadership. That was courage. That was character. That was something Barack could have and should have done and didn’t.
And those members of that church should have. But What was Barack suppose to do????? Question: Do you honestly know Jeremiah Wright? Do you. NO you don’t. Just listen to all of those sermons IN CONTEXT and seriously ask yourself. What is going on? Why the rage if you at one time: negotiated racial tribulations then with the exception of the statement injecting AIDS in the Black Community which was stupid I will always say. Those other points were up for grabs even when he said “GOD DAMN AMERICA†Now all of a sudden we are all PATRIOTIC. Once again our views of America are different now and forever and that is not a bad thing. And Obama did advise Rev Wright in the kick-off for run to tone down the sermons because it would cause problems. Now because him and his wife attends there. Everyone including you is calling them Anti-Americans?????? That’s nerve she has reason why she said for the first time in my life I’m proud of my country. Have you lived you her struggle? NO And some WHITES today do simply NOT understand the past and that is why some of them feel the way they do towards us today. They feel like get over it. Why? it’s not a matter of getting over it. It’s a matter of NEVER FORGETTING IT. For years I felt I had been treated like a second class citizen and still being productive and struggling needing to be 110% on my game while my Caucasian equivalent only needs to be 90% this is a fact. You will never be treated like this. And let’s not move on the Gay angle. For the community gets grief for being gay it’s who we are. TRY BEING BLACK AND GAY! It’s no walk in the park
You said: Barack is a coward and an opportunist. That is my gut feeling, along with everything I have read about him and by him.
I don’t feel he is neither a coward nor an opportunist he confronted it and at this point so be it. There are some whites holding this against him for whatever reason. But no need to turn back now and I hope he doesn’t none of the republicans have ever been persecuted for taking endorsements and money from the white preachers who spew hate for more than 20 years. They are given a get out of jail free card. But not this Man Crucify him and I’m not just for that. And I will support him until then end. Now if he loses the nomination. I’m for a democrat getting in. But Hillary has a lot mending fences to do before I would ever vote for her because her team has been her pit-bull with statements that have not been kind AT ALL especially snubbed Barack on National TV to give herself and McCain the experience factor then when asked of Obama she said all he has is speeches. GREAT HIL! and also Bill with his stupid statements as well. I guess that’s all LOVE and WAR with POLITICS speaking of that she needs to explain herself with her relationship with “THE FAMILY†a radical Christian group she has been affiliated with for many years.
You said: Until the Wright affair, I was prepared to vote for Barack if he were our nominee. Now, though, I could never vote for him in good conscience.
Well if that be the case. Vote for McCain and be proud of it as it will be a TOUGH Pill to swallow. And I will say this. Southern Politics don’t trust Blacks why? Because they feel we want to get even. NO WE JUST WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE Americans also. Don’t you agree?
So trust me I am not RACIST or evil. I just believe in hitting things at the head and let the cards fall where they may and let the discussion begin. We can all agree to disagree. But Once again I will say our common goal as LGBTQ is simply find a way to UNIFY for in UNITY there is strength. But if we continue to divide each other we FAIL!
rickroberts
MrC, I say this to you with sensitivity and compassion: your writings read like those of a paranoid schizophrenic. The style is disjointed and very difficult to follow. Perhaps you need to see someone.
Steve
“I’m sick of Blacks feeling like they must vote for Hillary because they “OWE†The Clinton’sâ€
Me too, I am sick of anyone who believes they can not vote for who they believe to be the best candidate. And I am sick of listening to people tell Black people that it is not ok for them to vote for Clinton because they could be voting for a Black candidate instead.
“That Pastor not sure of what actually the sermon was. But obviously he has been through some serious stuff in the South dealing with racism and in our cries through church and biblical scripture anger comes out and we have every right to be so.â€
You are correct you have every right to do so, and Americans have every right to question the authenticity of people who will use this anger to spew forth untruths and further cleave the racial divide, as Rev Wright has done. And we most certainly have the right to question the authenticity of people who choose to follow this man for 20 years, especially if that man is running to be the President of the United States of America. And this Rev is not just some random church leader who is endorsing Obama or just giving him money. Obama has called this man his spiritual advisor, the man that brought him to Jesus, that married him and baptized his children. This Rev is someone that Obama has chosen to let into his life in a very deep and personal way, and much like the ties that Clinton has and are questioned, this relationship is also wide open to discussion and questions.
Honestly, no one should forget slavery and the result it has had on Black Americans. You can continue to hold on to your anger and achieve nothing, or you can choose to remember but let the anger go and work with Americans of every color to bring America beyond the racism. I fail to see how constantly condemning all White people for the sins of some White people is going to help bring equality. Both Black and White Americans are angry, and both sides have the right to their anger whether the other side believes it valid or not. However, until the anger subsides we will make no progress.
OhFerCrySake
The reason Bill Clinton enacted those two laws is to prevent the idiotic Republicans from changing the Constitution, and that IS what they wanted to do. Laws can be repealed, easily–it’s harder to change the Constitution once you’ve messed with it. Look at how long it took to get rid of something stupid like Prohibition that everyone hated.
It’s like throwing the chicken wing out the door and having the wolf go after it, instead of letting the wolf bite you, wrestle you to the ground, maim you until you bleed to death, and THEN steal your chicken.
It was a stalling tactic to await a more sympathetic House and Senate–that more sympathetic group of legislators is ALMOST on the Hill. And when change comes, it’ll be Bill Clinton who had a part of that.
Sometimes you have to settle, when you KNOW you can’t win. He knew he couldn’t win, so he settled. Had he not compromised, it would be a Constitutional amendment that was at issue.
Obama won’t repeal DOMA–he has to pander to all those religious right types who just gayhate like crazy. It’s why his pal McClurkin campaigned for him in SC. It’s why that Kirbyjon cretin was there, too.
rickroberts
OhFerCrySake, the DOMA and DADT thing is such a red herring for people who insist on hating the Clintons. Their biggest problem is that they are getting hung up on the very names of the bills (laws). Lawmakers give their pet projects incendiary names like that for a reason. The argument would be very different if we had named the same bills the following:
DOMA: Prevent A Marriage Amendment Act
DADT: Stay Out of My Personal Business Act
bean67
Why is the LGBT community so quick to forget that Obama’s campaign welcomed anti-gay zealot Donnie McClurkin to help win over the religious right in South Carolina?
If Obama’s lackluster performance at the HRC/Logo Forum didn’t leave me cold enough, his embrace of McClurkin froze my blood.
Recently, Obama–Saint of Inspirational Rhetoric–recently referred to gay marriage as a “wedge issue” in political campaigning.
“The planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We’ve got a war that is bankrupting us. And we’re going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn’t make any sense,” Santa Obama told attendees at a rally in Medford, OR.
While he’s not wrong about the planet etc… our savior failed to defend his gay following. That’s a guy I want on my team!
Afroguapo
Bean67, I sort of share your indignation because in an ideal world, Kucinich would be my president and not someone incompetent inauthentic like Bush, but I think being pragmatic is what gets people elected. McCain is playing a role that he will be a moderate conservative and not a replay of Bush in order to get elected whereas I think he will be worse — he’s a true neocon and advocates a 100 year course in Iraq if need be, check out the article in The Nation, it scares me to death. Barack and Hillary are both overplaying being centrists so as to not alienate anyone on potential wedge issues like gay marriage. I think either one of them would also end up being more liberal (and not as centered as they purport to be) if in office but they have to get elected first. There was a great article in the Times about this which I post below. This might get me in hot water with some of you wanting to revoke my gay card but I do put gay marriage to the backburner as I MOST concerned about continuing an ill-conceived and flat out wrong war that we cannot afford, our dismal economy, continued tax cuts for the rich that McCain wants to make permanent thus continuing the yawning gap between the haves and have nots, nominations to the Supreme Court, curtailing environmental problems/our planet’s meltdown and looking at sustainable energy solutions, and better healthcare, education and infrastructure for U.S. Citizens. I love my partner dearly with or without the state putting its imprimatur on our relationship and the attendant benefits that of course accrue with such approval. Eventually gay marriage will come (younger generations care less about who is committed to whom), but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make for the time being.
November 3, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Living Poor, Voting Rich
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
n the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party’s first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland.
I’m writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing the election results. But whether John Kerry’s supporters are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting – utterly against their own interests – for Republican candidates.
One of the Republican Party’s major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values.
“On values, they are really noncompetitive in the heartland,” noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is governor of Nebraska. “This kind of elitist, Eastern approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest and Western states. It’s very difficult for senatorial, Congressional and even local candidates to survive.”
In the summer, I was home – too briefly – in Yamhill, Ore., a rural, working-class area where most people would benefit from Democratic policies on taxes and health care. But many of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize with spotted owls rather than loggers.
One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party. Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the year, “What’s the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” says that Democratic leaders have been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they have lost touch with blue-collar America.
“There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism, and that’s just bound to rub average people the wrong way,” Mr. Frank said. He notes that Republicans have used “culturally powerful but content-free issues” to connect to ordinary voters.
To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G’s: God, guns, gays and grizzlies.
One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their faith. And, frankly, they’re often right. Some evangelicals take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.
Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that Idaho’s Democratic candidate for the Senate two years ago, Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns “and I use them all.” He still lost.
As for gays, that’s a rare wedge issue that Democrats have managed to neutralize in part, along with abortion. Most Americans disapprove of gay marriage but do support some kind of civil unions (just as they oppose “partial birth” abortions but don’t want teenage girls to die from coat-hanger abortions).
Finally, grizzlies – a metaphor for the way environmentalism is often perceived in the West as high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were still enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly bears into the wild. It wasn’t worth antagonizing most of Idaho over 25 bears.
“The Republicans are smarter,” mused Oregon’s governor, Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. “They’ve created … these social issues to get the public to stop looking at what’s happening to them economically.”
“What we once thought – that people would vote in their economic self-interest – is not true, and we Democrats haven’t figured out how to deal with that.”
Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.
To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don’t need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups.
Otherwise, the Democratic Party’s efforts to improve the lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.