So when is Obama gonna court us gays?

[Neshanic]

Gay inquiring minds want to know.

[libnnc]

1. He won't.

[laconicsax]

2. I thought he already tried.

Isn't that why he hired McClurkin?

[donheld]

23. Please tell me your joking

You think that was "courting gays?"

[laconicsax]

42. I always make the mistake

of thinking that I don't need to use :sarcasm:.

[avaistheone1]

3. Don't hold your breath.

[keep_it_real]

4. Are gay's the greatest lobby in America?

[Der Blaue Engel]

8. What does that mean?

gah...edited for total brain-to-keyboard failure

[DRoseDARs]

19. He/she means it's OK to throw those icky homos under the bus if it means votes from conservatives...

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say conservatives? I meant "the center." :eyes:

[Der Blaue Engel]

44. Thanks for not being snarky about my stupid typo :)

Since s/he hasn't refuted your explanation it must be correct.

Color me shocked.

[rodeodance]

167. nicely put--BINGO

[Chovexani]

49. I see you're taking Chris Rock's standup bit to heart

Keepin' it real dumb.

[LostinVA]

83. Whatever

[karlrschneider]

129. No...apostrophe manufacturers are, evidently.

:eyes:

[dolo amber]

You win

:D :thumbsup:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

134. i thought dems cared about the oppressed not the powerful. guess i was wrong.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Probably when Hill or John get the political courage to scrap their seperate but equal stances.

Then Obama will have to move also.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. Yeah well your candidate should get rid of the homophobes in her circle

Especially that one that's getting $10000 a month as a consultant.

[RedCappedBandit]

37. Men are not capable? Um, bs. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

47. Are all women in favor of seperate but equal?

[Downtown Hound]

67. Ignorant, sexist comment award of the night goes to you

I wonder how you would react if a man said that about women?

[amandabeech]

7. At about the same time he starts courting baby boomers.

Old inquiring minds want to know that, too.

[Neshanic]

9. Shit, I'm old and gay. There you have it.

[amandabeech]

25. Forget it. He'd rather you voted for Huckabee.

Just kidding.

[yardwork]

100. Me too. Still waiting for Obama to send some of that charm my way....

[Le Taz Hot]

108. Then you're really fucked.

:evilgrin:

[krabigirl]

29. and don't forget atheists...lol

[amandabeech]

45. Nope. No atheists.

Nobody wants you. Sorry.

[SammyWinstonJack]

79. ...

:thumbsup:

[shraby]

10. How about us left-handers??

[Neshanic]

13. Please leave your personal hand preference out of this.

[Maven]

11. Court us? He's probably dreaming up reasons not to disturb DOMA/DADT once he's in office

"It will destroy our unity"
"Good and moral people would be offended"
"Let's leave identity politics in the past..."

[Neshanic]

14. "Let's leave identity politics in the past..."

You should work for him. That's good.

[Maven]

16. No can do

I only work for authentic progressives.

[Neshanic]

18. I love your screen name. He's one of my favorites.

[Tyler Durden]

150. Two word responses to that:

Blow me.
Fuck you.
Get Stuffed.
Fuck off.

[Lex]

12. One word: McClurkin.

Pandering to the homophobes = more votes.

[DU9598]

15. He courted us in Iowa

looks like it paid off for him.

[Neshanic]

17. Really? How? Please be specific.

[Hekate]

20. Judging by the vitriol of the posts here,I doubt there's anything he can say that will sway the LGBT

...community -- or at least those who post at DU.

And by "here" I don't mean this thread specifically, but DU generally. I have not seen any willingness among those who now hate Barack Obama to listen to anything he has to say.

If he indeed did try to "court the gays" it would likely be a very one-sided courtship. I'm a supporter of our Democratic candidates, and also of the LGBT community, but after reading the aforementioned vitriolic posts over the past several months, I have to ask: What would be the point?

Hekate

[DRoseDARs]

30. If Obama is so LGBT-friendly and he was familiar enough with McClurkin to give him a stage...

...it stands to reason Obama should have known better than to let this guy open his mouth at an Obama campaign rally/concert. McClurkin's history of airing his unwelcome opinions is not some well-kept secret within the Gay community, so the senator should have known McClurkin may pose a problem with at least part of his supposed base. And it's not like McClurkin is the only Black pastor gospel singer in town either; someone who wasn't objectionable could have easily been found to please the Black and Christian communities. He handled this situation poorly and in such a way that reminds me at least of Hillary's underlining unrepentance for her vote on the IWR. Sure she's given the non-apology apologies for it, but then she goes on to act and talk like she was just going through the motions and would prefer (and intends) to continue as if it were a good vote. The two situations are not exactly the same, but regardless Obama really needs to more strongly denounce what McClurkin said at the concert and has said in the past. For Obama to sweep the mess under the rug and hope no one notices the lingering dust bunnies as Hillary has done with her little mess rings hollow to those who have been offended.

[hulklogan]

33. This is one of the most hurtful things I have read on DU in quite a while.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Hekate]

51. Sorry you took it that way. It's my estimation of his ability to win any of the DU-LGBTers, period.

And no, I'm not ashamed of myself for seeing it that way. I think he's lost you. I don't see how my observation hurts you, especially since so many here have hammered away at that point over and over and over again. I think what you all have been saying is: Barack Obama has lost you. Did I misunderstand something?

Peace

Hekate

[Laurier]

53. So, you haven't read much here,, it seems.

A thick skin is required around here.

Don't get your knickers in a twist.

(a) read,
(b) comprehend, and
(c) only post once you've done (a) and (b) and all will be fine.



Edited to fix formatting.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[SammyWinstonJack]

81. ...

:spray: :thumbsup:

[Occulus]

95. I have very good reasons for taking the McClurkin incident as a deeply personal insult

read down if you want to know a little more

[Chovexani]

39. I can't speak for anyone else, but all he has to do is apologize.

I honestly liked him before this McChickenhead nonsense. If he actually apologizes, he'll be cool with me. And not one of those bullshit politician non-apologies. I mean really take responsibility for what he did.

Then he could have a forum with LGBT people of color. That'd be a great start.

Why should we listen to anything he has to say before he admits he fucked up and tries to make amends for it?

And how about, instead of deigning to speak for every GLBT person on DU, I dunno, trying to engage in a conversation with us and ask us why we were so hurt by what Obama did.

That's the part that fucking kills me in all this. Not ONCE in all the dozens of McClurkin threads have I seen one single fucking Obama supporter ask an offended GLBT person why we were upset by it. Not. One.

Instead we get post after post like this pathetic one, with them either throwing their hands up in the air wondering why we're still standing there clutching our stomachs when you continually kick us in them, or outright bashing "we gays" for being too angry and sensitive.

[libnnc]

43. that's all it would take for me too..

Just own up to the fuck up and stand up to the conservative religious element in the African American community. If he did that, I'd be sold. And it would be a huge change for us, wouldn't it? Imagine a politician who is honest with us for once?

[Chovexani]

52. That'd be awesome.

Too bad it won't happen any time soon. :(

[NorthernSpy]

73. "I failed to ostracize an ex-gay gospel singer, and for that I am truly sorry."

Even if Obama were to say that, I bet anything that it still wouldn't be enough for most of the people who went ballistic over the McClurkin issue.

[mondo joe]

80. Will you ever tire of defending giving a publc forum to a homophobic liar?

?

[NorthernSpy]

86. Donnie McClurkin isn't Fred Phelps...

I simply don't agree that shunning is a reasonable course of action in this case.

[mondo joe]

87. Go on. Keep pretending "not shunning" = giving a public forum.

There's a world of difference between "not shunning" or "not ostracizing" and actually GIVING a liar a public forum to spread and fuel homophobia.

[NorthernSpy]

91. "I regret allowing Donnie McClurkin to sing for one of my campaign gatherings...

... it'll never happen again."


Sounds like shunning to me.

[kevinbgoode]

98. It wasn't about the singing.

Moreover, if Obama is so interested in hearing all of the "voices," then who, exactly, at that campaign rally, was the "voice" of GLBT America? And why was Obama's press release about that issue only circulated among the GAY press, and not the media in general, even though McClurkin was allowed the use of a stage at a public campaign rally to promote his position - at a campaign rally for a candidate. This wasn't some ex-gay-for-pay conference.

Are you claiming that Obama is the voice for the gay community, because the gays can't speak for themselves publicly? Or just that THEY were shunned at this campaign event?

Frankly, one of the biggest irritations to this community is the concept that the civil rights of this group continues to be mostly a heterosexual debate - like the gays are shoved into the damned kitchen as a servant to serve up dessert to the straight people at the dinner table while they "discuss" our humanity and constitutional rights.

[mondo joe]

Are you saying everyone not given a free public platform is shunned? Damn - Obama has

shunned almost the entire country by that standard.

[NorthernSpy]

110. that's just sophistry, and you know it...

You want Obama to publicly and explicitly refuse further association with a specific individual. That IS shunning, whether you like to call it that or not.

[mondo joe]

113. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA From the person who pretends giving a BIGOT a free public

forum is just "not shunning" that's quite a hoot.

Go on - keep defending your bigot singer.

[WhollyHeretic]

111. Obama has shunned me and my entire family! We have never once

been let on stage. :cry: What has my sweet 10 year old son done to deserve this shunning :cry:

:crazy:

[kevinbgoode]

115. Thank you. . .

Seems to me that these people believe Obama has been appointed spokesmodel and protector of the GLBT community - like we can't speak for ourselves.

I voted for him for the Senate race, which wasn't difficult given that the Republicans put up carpetbagger Alan Keyes as his opponent. But I remember the debates during that campaign, and Obama was certainly not supporting same-sex marriage at the time. And dammit, I'm tired of being told that we need 1500 special rights laws for heterosexual unions but the gays can handle their affairs with the skimpy, bureaucratic, non-ironclad laws reserved for "single" people. Either we are full American citizens or we aren't. There is no in-between. And its time for these candidates to get off the sh*t stool and either admit those 1500 laws aren't needed for ANYONE and the heteros can play the same legal game with their property as the legally "single" or let American citizens who have made responsible adult choices in permanent relationships secure their fundamental right as individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[WhollyHeretic]

84. Your condescension is quite telling

Those gay people should stop complaining about being thrown under the bus.

[NorthernSpy]

88. You want the man ostracized, but you don't want to call it that?

There ARE people who deserve to be shunned. I'm not convinced that Donnie McClurkin is one of them. That's all.

[WhollyHeretic]

90. Uh, WTF? ostracized? shunned? Where did I say that?

I want to call the man a piece of shit. He has every right to perform but I'm not going to be happy about a Democratic canidate giving his disgusting views a stage.

[mondo joe]

97. You're not convinced that a lying homopobe doesn't deserve to not get a free platform to spew

hate?

That explains it all. Thanks.

[Maven]

99. Her agenda is very clear.

Take a look at some of the creative "statistics" she posts downthread...

[NorthernSpy]

106. my "agenda" is this: shunning McClurkin is overkill...

... and I can understand why Obama chose not to do that.

Also, the stats I posted aren't "creative", and neither are the studies they come from. I don't know why you'd try to argue that they were.

[mondo joe]

118. Your agenda is to defend Obama giving a known bigot a free public forum to spew lies.

The only question is why.

[Maven]

120. Shunning?

You mean the way he shunned Don Imus?

And yes, your stats were off and frankly typical of what we see from those who intend to delegitimize us as a significant minority.

[readmoreoften]

144. Oh the SHUNNING of Don Imus! And the Klan! Woe as Me's!

Yes, we are SHUNNING Christians. Sickening.

[NorthernSpy]

147. I'm all for shunning Fred Phelps...

But McClurkin?


Come on...

:eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

171. But GEE, Donnie's such a NICE bigot.

You're starting to look silly now.

You LOVE Obama, that's obvious, but you are starting to look silly. Donnie McClurkin thinks Jesus saves Homosexuals from their evil ways. That's Religious Bigotry. Ergo, he's a bigot. Therefore, if you DEFEND him, so are you.

[NorthernSpy]

186. actually, I was previously a Kucinich supporter...

... and I could live with either Obama or Edwards. I haven't decided between them.

You LOVE Obama, that's obvious, but you are starting to look silly. Donnie McClurkin thinks Jesus saves Homosexuals from their evil ways. That's Religious Bigotry. Ergo, he's a bigot. Therefore, if you DEFEND him, so are you.

More incoherence from Tyler Durden.

[Tyler Durden]

202. Then shame on you.

I was an AIDS activist and watched friends die. I'm tired of your nonsense. Welcome to my ignore list. It's long and distinguished.

[NorthernSpy]

204. yes, shame on me for having been a Kucinich supporter!

:wtf:

[Tyler Durden]

205. Save your posts. You're on ignore.

[NorthernSpy]

219. Cool! Now I can say anything, and you'll be none the wiser...

I like it.

[readmoreoften]

188. I already explained why McClurkin is as bad as Phelps.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2500141


What if Donnie said "Gays are killing our children" while emceeing the gospel tour like he did on the 700 Club?

[NorthernSpy]

195. that's actually a paraphrase, and I think it's an inaccurate one...

McClurkin made the "killing our children" remark in the context of discussion about child sexual abuse, which he believes was responsible for the direction his own sexual development took. He was talking about child molesters specifically.

[mondo joe]

217. If Fred Phelps is your baseline of worth-shunning it speaks volumes about you.

And none of it good.

[NorthernSpy]

218. I chose Phelps as an example because everyone knows who he is...

I neither said nor implied that he was the only shun-worthy person.


If I had used David Duke as an example, I imagine you'd have said, oh -- so you think racists should be shunned, but not homophobes?


:banghead:

[mondo joe]

223. Of course you use Phelps as your baseline. I think you'd be well advised to drop the

whole "shunning" line of BS. It's bogus and you know it.

Giving the guy a free public forum isn't just "not shunning" as you well know.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[NorthernSpy]

131. "idiot" or no, I'm definitely not a he...

Here is what makes me an "idiot":

• I think that shunning Donnie McClurkin is overkill.
  
  
• I cited statistics showing that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are not 15% of the population, contrary to another poster's claim.

Wow. Doesn't take much to get the venom flowing, huh?

[Tyler Durden]

170. Not when you give a platform to a bigot, no.

WHO CARES HOW FEW THERE ARE????

Fine. NS says it's FINE for Obama to NOT formally distance himself and apologize for an act of bigotry performed under his aegis if it only effects 2% of the population.

Guess that only makes him 2% bigoted, unless of course he formally says differently.

[0007]

184. Good site to check out!!

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20060715/279.html

[NorthernSpy]

187. not sure why you're showing me this...

?

[0007]

196. You'll figure it out!!

[NorthernSpy]

199. why don't you just tell me?

Save my poor little brain the agony of trying to figure it out.

:eyes:

[Occulus]

201. I think the point is in the first few sentences.

I "got it" after about ten seconds of reading.

[NorthernSpy]

203. "For the most part, lesbians and bisexual women face the same health issues as heterosexual women.."

... but they often have difficulty accessing appropriate care. Physicians can improve care for lesbians and bisexual women by acknowledging the potential barriers to care (e.g., hesitancy of physicians to inquire about sexual orientation and of patients to disclose their sexual behavior) and working to create a therapeutic physician-patient relationship. Taking an inclusive and nonjudgmental history and being aware of the range of health-related behaviors and medicolegal issues pertinent to these patients enables physicians to perform relevant screening tests and make appropriate referrals. Some recommendations, such as those for screening for cervical cancer and intimate partner violence, should not be altered for lesbians and bisexual women. Considerations unique to lesbians and bisexual women concern fertility and medicolegal issues to protect familial relationships during life changes and illness. The risks of suicidal ideation, self-harm, and depression may be higher in lesbians and bisexual women, especially those who are not open about their sexual orientation, are not in satisfying relationships, or lack social support. Because of increased rates of nulliparity, the risks of conditions such as breast and ovarian cancers also may be higher. The comparative rates of alcohol and drug use are controversial. Smoking and obesity rates are higher in lesbians and bisexual women, but there is no evidence of an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. (Am Fam Physician 2006;74:279-86, 287-8. Copyright © 2006 American Academy of Family Physicians.)

Huh?

[Occulus]

208. See? It blew RIGHT past you.

I'll save us all a lengthy subthread and just go ahead and explain it. The relevant phrase is only a few words long, but explains all by itself why the 15% claim could easily be closer to the truth than you're apparently unwilling to accept.

The phrase is this one:

"(e.g., hesitancy of physicians to inquire about sexual orientation and of patients to disclose their sexual behavior)"

Since this is also true for gay men, what this means- and I'm going to explain this in extremely simple terms, so even Checkers can understand it- what this means is that gay people are often hesitant to reveal their status as a homosexual to their doctor. Now, if they aren't willing to do so with their doctors, with whom we must suppose they have some sort of relationship via their status as a patient, how can we possibly expect that any numbers comprising any study are not fatally flawed for that very reason?

The only numbers any study can come up with regarding any kind of 'count' of gay people in our society (or globally) rely completely upon the willingness of its subjects to self-report. Many gay people, for one reason or another (and usually with good foundation) are unwilling to tell anyone that they're gay.

Therefore, any and all studies claiming any figure must be reporting smaller numbers of homosexuals in our society than actually exist, because they are getting 100% of the self-reporting homosexuals in their studies, and missing 100% of those who do not reveal that fact.

That's what blew right past you. I hope I explained it so you can grok the point.

[karlrschneider]

135. "ostracize"??? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

:eyes:

[NorthernSpy]

143. I know what it means...

... and I think it's a fair characterization for what some people were demanding to be done to McClurkin.

[yardwork]

103. Actually, I saw a couple of posts from Obama supporters who disapproved of the incident.

There were a few, and I remember who they are.

Unfortunately, there were (and are) dozens of real jerks who did their candidate no good at all.

[Der Blaue Engel]

41. From your name, I'm guessing (maybe wrongly) you're a pagan

If so, I don't know if you realize you've been thrown under the bus, too.

You may interpret what you've read as vitriol (and I don't doubt you could find an example to back up that assertion), but what I've seen is a feeling of deep betrayal and frustration to have someone who has known oppression join in oppressing the scapegoat of the day in order to appeal to voters who, frankly, should be avoided like the plague.

And to answer your rhetorical question: the point would be that many of us would love to be proven wrong about Obama by his acknowledgement of and apology for his past mistakes and some real offerings of hope for all Americans, not just the xian fundamentalists.

[Chovexani]

46. Pagans are just as bigoted and clueless as the general populice

Trust me on this one. There's a very good reason I'm a solitary practitioner. :(

[Der Blaue Engel]

64. I'm a solitary practitioner, too

:hi:

[yardwork]

107. Another solitary standing up!

Queer, female, pagan, socialist - hell, nobody wants my vote! lol!

[readmoreoften]

48. Hate? Someone punches us in the face and then you accuse us of "hating" him.

That's rich. He never apologized. If he apologized it'd be over. But he won't because he did it on purpose. He chose McClurkin and the 4 other homophobic performers to send a message to the 'family values' base.

[Cronus Protagonist]

65. That's the way of most prominent "leaders"

Contrast and compare while I stuff a jackboot in the faces of the most despised, then label them as haters if they fight back or say anything about it. Sadly, this is the face of America.

[Hekate]

56. Oh for the love of Pete. I yield the conversation about Obama back to you.

Some of you know me by now, or should. Am I the enemy? Do I need to wear my bona fides in my sig line?

Kindly don't project hurtful things I never said onto me.

Please.

I agree with one thing Chovexani said: that now that Obama is the front runner he would do well to make overtures, even apologize. He wants to bring people together -- this would be one place to do so.

But will it be enough?

And that is a rhetorical question. Good night to all.

Peace.

Hekate

[readmoreoften]

61. Sorry. Don't mean to attack you. We're used to Obama supporters telling us that we have no right to

be upset.

All we need is a sincere CLEAR PUBLIC apology not a pandering middle-of-the-road remark telling us we need to come together with homophobes.

It's like telling pagans they just need to sit down and talk it out with born-again radicals. As if it's YOUR FAULT born agains vilify you.

(Sorry if you're not pagan, but you get the point.)

[Der Blaue Engel]

62. Who said you were the enemy?

You made a provocative and negative assertion about a large group of people and some of us took exception and tried to explain to you why we feel the way we do.

There are no bona fides that give a person a free pass. Even a decent, caring and well-intentioned person can make a misstep that hurts others. Hopefully, one can try to understand why their words have been perceived as hurtful and learn from the mistake. Which is exactly what we'd like from Obama.

Namaste

[mondo joe]

78. You're just wrong. No need to sink to melodrama about being "the enemy".

:-)

[Occulus]

93. If you knew what it was like for your parents to give you a wet ditch to sleep in

when they found out you were gay, you'd know why his including McClurkin hurts some of us so very deeply.

It was a very personal, very direct slap in the face for no good reason at all, and Obama knows it.

The "vitriol" you've seen expressed here and elsewhere toward Obama ober that incident pales by comparison to the hate, scorn, and condescension people Like McClurkin have for me and people like me. The McClurkins of the world- and this I know from very horrible personal experience- will stomp on us no matter what we're capable of, no matter what we achieve (or, perhaps, because of what we're capable of and what we could achieve), and- again, from very personal experience- will stop at nothing until out spirits are crushed and we feel utterly worthless in our own minds.

That's how people like McClurkin see us, and we are right to hold that incident against Obama, especially given his handling of the situation.

I can't and won't vote for him unless and until I get a satisfactory apology to the effect that Obama and his campaign were wrong, and that those sorts of people will not be "reached out to" ever again.

[kevinbgoode]

109. I agree. . .

I cannot fathom voting for someone who wishes to engage in "dialogue" with the people who claim that, as American citizens, we MUST be treated as beneath themselves because of their "religious" beliefs. F*ck that bulls*it. What about MY religious beliefs? Is Obama going to give me a public forum to spew what I think about con-artist, con-servatives, faux-"Christians" who believe MY constitution demands they be given the special rights to deny ME my rights?

Now it's all nice that Obama says he doesn't "agree" with McClurkin - well that's just fine. Why not just throw the KKK and the rest of the white supremacist groups up there to spew out in the Black church campaign rallies? Why shouldn't Obama be listening to THEIR voices as an important part of the "dialogue" over race relations in this country?

[readmoreoften]

146. They'll never get it kgfnally. They'll never know and they don't fucking care. /nt

[TankLV]

122. Ah - throw us under the bus. Thanks. And a hearty "FUCK YOU" for your bigotry...

I'll stay home if he wins...

I wasn't going to go to the Nevada caucus, but now I will - as a BIGTIME Hillary supporter now...

[trotsky]

148. Can we agree to quit using the word "hate"?

I'm a straight white atheist. I have been personally offended by Obama's excessive pandering to religious believers, and I have been offended on behalf of my GLBT friends by his pandering to homophobic religious believers.

But I do not "hate" the man. That is ridiculous jr. high school terminology, and it's intended to negate all criticism by anchoring it to emotion.

[Hekate]

174. Oh sure.But my reward for stepping into this fray is to be called clueless, a bigot, & "a hearty FU"

Oh, and I should be ashamed of myself for actually observing what so many here in fact are writing.

And those are just the comments I can recall off the top of my head without going back over this unfortunate sub-thread.

I'm feeling a little hated -- um, despised -- er, disrespected -- uh, unheard -- myself just about now. What I actually said, and I, the person who said it, have pretty much disappeared in the flames, haven't they?

I try to be careful in my language so as not to sweepingly include all of any group when I comment on the behavior of many. If somehow I sweepingly included ALL gays in my observations, I apologize to those whom the shoe did not fit. I'll be more scrupulous in the future.

Cheerio.

Hekate

[trotsky]

180. There is no denying that emotions run very strong on this incident.

GLBTers are used to seeing the "ex-gay" crap coming from the fundie right. You've got to understand how seeing a DEMOCRATIC candidate who DOES apparently have a good civil rights record schmoozing up with a self-loathing ex-gay (who used his featured spot on the Obama concert stage to again state his political and religious views on homosexuality) makes our GLBT allies feel. Obama's supposed to be on their side. You and I are supposed to be on their side. Defending Obama night & day doesn't take away the hurt. Only Obama himself or his campaign could have either nipped this in the bud, or apologized after the fact. Neither happened, so it still stings.

[Hekate]

192. Strangely enough, I haven't ever defended Obama for this incident.

My mistake was observing, in answer to the OP, that it looks to me like Obama has lost "their" vote (sweeping use of the plural, but parallel usage to the OP, and even then I qualified it by indicating I only know what I see at DU) for good.

In response there were numerous attacks against me, personally -- and based on my name alone, Pagans, generally.

And I STILL have not defended Obama for this incident. If it was a mistake, he should have said so. If it was a miscalculation on his campaign's part, he should say it wasn't his personal fault and apologize. If it was his personal decision, he should apologize. In any case, he should at some point in the near future publicly recognize that it was wrong and hurtful to many.

I hope he does do something to rectify the situation.

But in all this passionate uproar over hurt feelings, will anyone hear him? Or will it be left to fools like me to step into the maelstrom and get slimed for my troubles?

Hekate

[LeftyMom]

21. When he needs money.

Fundiegelical homophobes are spending it all on gas and feeding and clothing the spawn. But they show up, and they breed more voters, so he'll kiss their bigoted asses while he rattles the cup at monied urban liberals, many of whom are gay. He was in the bay area not long ago doing just that, apparently with some success.

It's all politics. As fucking disgusting as that is.

[Imagevision]

22. I though 'you gays' were better informed and had more reserve and style, I guess...NOT

[Neshanic]

24. We are. That changes when we are told to "take one for the team" again.

Don't worry, we will all end up voting for whatever is served up, with the requisite on stage homphobe/cured homosexualist preacher.

I mean we can ask questions can't we? You are getting the vote.

[Chovexani]

40. I really, truly, sincerely

Hope that you're missing a sarcasm smilie in there.

[Der Blaue Engel]

60. And I thought "you straights" didn't all throw around stupid stereotypes

in a vain attempt to defend the indefensible and were actually capable of self-examination.

But I guess...one person's behavior doesn't represent an entire community, and any individual can be an asshat.

[TheWatcher]

66. They do.

[sandnsea]

26. NH Bishop Robinson endorses Obama

It's just plain ridiculous that Obama doesn't support the gay community. He speaks to the religious about their homophobia, who else does that? He supports every gay rights issue that the other candidates do. He simply thinks we've got to learn to communicate in spite of our differences.

[Iggo]

96. You're right.

It's just plain ridiculous that Obama doesn't support the gay community.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. ????

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. ??????

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/LGBTBlog/C5zH

[hulklogan]

34. Thank you for providing a link to the "good decent moral people" quote

I've been looking for that.

Bigots like Donnie McClurkin are not "good" nor "decent" nor "moral".

[DRoseDARs]

35. This blogger here a few days before that release had a good notion why it would be lame...

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/3/3332256.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. The full quote

"The events of the last several weeks are not the occasion that I would have chosen to discuss America’s divisions on gay rights and my own deep commitment to LGBT equality. Now that the issue is before us, however, I do not intend to run away from it. These events have provided an important opportunity for us to confront a difficult fact: There are good, decent, moral people in this country who do not yet embrace their gay brothers and sisters as full members of our shared community."

The point is in trying to persuade people that LGBT equality is necessary. It's easy enough to say "these people are just horrible," but that's never going to get you there.

[readmoreoften]

50. Yes. And this is a load of crap. And giving McClurkin a platform helped this how?

Where was the dialogue? Where was the great meeting of the minds? These people think we KILL CHILDREN for god's sake. What he did was wrong and he should've apologized.

[kevinbgoode]

117. So why doesn't he use that same statement

in referring to white supremacists in this country? And how "important" for us all to "hear" their voices using a public platform at his campaign rallies?

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. ???????

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50101.asp

[sjdnb]

38. Can you spell N E V E R

He has a more demographically expedient demographic to pander to.

[Sanctified]

54. When has any politician had to rally the gay vote?

[readmoreoften]

55. Maybe we'll have to change that next time. /nt

[shenmue]

71. Harvey Milk.

:patriot:

[Lex]

137. Hero

to me.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. He supports repealing don't ask don't tell and repealing DOMA

Other than Kucinich his stances on GLBT rights are as progressive as anybody running.

[Pachamama]

58. How about tommorrow when he is here in San Francisco?

:shrug:

[readmoreoften]

59. I'm interested in hearing what he has to say for himself. /nt

[pamela]

63. Never. He's just not that into you.

Seriously, I think Obama is too busy courting the kinds of folks that don't like gays. In that respect, I think the McClurkin thing was quite calculated.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

68. obama's a big tent guy. If you

are interested, come in and say hi. You won't be turned away, or discriminated against. Just ignore the crap that Hillary spewed, and everything will be OK. seriously.

[MethuenProgressive]

69. How much money have you got?

If you pony up more than the Bigot Wing of his church, he might stop trying to cure you.

[shenmue]

70. I don't know... since he's pals with Donnie McClurkin, I wouldn't wait up...

:(

If he's that serious about courting the evangelical community, and there's so much homophobia there, it may be over.

[Tyler Durden]

72. You're kidding, right?

Don't GLBT people ever get tired of being the people who ALWAYS get pissed on in this country?

You know if you ever decide to put that approximately 15% of the country in a bloc, you'll RUN the country.

[NorthernSpy]

75. LGBT aren't anywhere near 15% of the population...

In fact, you've overstated the prevalence of homosexuality/bisexuality by a factor of ten:

1.51% of the total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. These numbers are based on figures provided by a broad-based coalition of gay rights organizations and homosexual advocacy groups. The primary source cited was the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in the book The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels.

This percentage is significantly higher than estimates of the Canadian homosexual population obtained by the Canadian Community Health Survey, which was part of a comprehensive survey of more than 135,000 Canadians conducted between January and December 2003. This 2003 Canadian survey, which included questions about a wide range of health issues, found that 1.3% of Canadian men aged 18 to 59 were homosexual, and 0.7% of Canadian women were. On average, about 1% of the Canadian population was found to be homosexual. (See: "Canadian Community Health Survey", 15 July 2004, on the official Canadian government website "Statistics Canada" http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040615/d040615b.htm). Researchers believe that the difference between these American (1.5%) and Canadian (1%) estimates of the homosexual population are due not to actual demographic differences between the populations of the two countries, but are due to differences between the methodologies of the studies and the sources of the information. The American figure (1.5%) comes from an independent study designed specifically to investigate sexual questions of behavior. The Canadian study was more general in its scope, and confidentially asked people about their sexual orientation. The sample size for the U.S. study (Laumann, et al) was 3,432 American men and women (far less than the sample size of 135,000 people in the Canadian study).

http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html



Just sayin'...

[Maven]

89. Um, no. Sorry.

You post GLBT "statistics" from a website about world religions? From 1994?

:rofl:

Most generally accepted studies put the percentage at anywhere between 5-10%.

And our participation in politics (and particularly the Democratic party) is far more concentrated than the general population. If we withheld our support, we could easily throw an election--particularly with the close calls that lately occur every election cycle.

Sorry, our votes matter whether you like it or not.

[mondo joe]

94. Also: gay support isn't limited to just gays. There's our friends, our families. And then

the matter of votes and dollars.

Homophobes always resort to the 1% claims.

[NorthernSpy]

114. yes, it's absolutely true that there are heterosexuals who take an interest in gay rights...

Homophobes always resort to the 1% claims.

Please. The only reason that I pointed to the statistics at all was that another poster made a mistake of fact on this subject. Otherwise, these stats would not have been relevant to the conversation, and I wouldn't have cited them.

[NorthernSpy]

101. adherents.com didn't do either study, they just happen to host a write-up of it...

And the bigger StatsCan study is from 2003.

And our participation in politics (and particularly the Democratic party) is far more concentrated than the general population. If we withheld our support, we could easily throw an election--particularly with the close calls that lately occur every election cycle.

Sorry, our votes matter whether you like it or not.

You misunderstand. My point was to offer a factual correction to Tyler Durden -- nothing more.

Of course your vote matters. It matters just as much as anyone else's vote. I've never argued otherwise.

[mondo joe]

102. Your figures are inaccurate and significantly outdated. Even NHSIS's more recent data yields

a higher percentage.

[WhollyHeretic]

105. "offer a factual correction"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:

[Tyler Durden]

130. I didn't even have to address your bullshit. others did it for me.

StatsCan is CANADIAN I believe.

STATISTICS are NOT FACTS. Take it from a Six Sigma Black Belt. Your information is faulty; the fact that you choose to make a "numbers game" of it, AND make such an enormous stink about how few LGBT people you believe there are continues to make you look like a closet bigot, by the way.

AND, just in case you wanted to know, I was in the US Navy Hospital Corps, and I can tell YOU that AT LEAST 15% of the Navy is gay. Corpsmen take confidential medical "confession" and I'd say the stats were even higher.

When you minimize ANY minority group, you minimize the entire country and its TRUE moral standing as a place of equality for all under the law.

That said, I will find it VERY HARD to hold my nose and vote for Obama, and I'm 55, male and heterosexual.

[NorthernSpy]

139. Hello? You're the one who started the "numbers game"...

You said that LGBT were 15% of the population, and therefore were in a position to "run the country" politically if they chose -- or something like that.

And I said that the 15% figure was false.


Note that I'm the only one who has provided empirical evidence. No study is perfect, but I'm inclined to give NHSLS and StatsCan more weight than one anecdote, one methodological objection, one interpretive point (which I conceded) and a whole bunch of imaginative estimates.

[Tyler Durden]

145. Your "IMPERICAL EVIDENCE" is 13 years old, and sponsored by a RELIGIOUS research group.

Hello?

Why don't you just go to the Family Research Institute site and quote THEIR specious bullshit.

You really are sounding like "...there ain't so many o' them QUEERS after all..." you know. Perhaps you should quit while you're behind. Playing a numbers game in the middle of bigotry is offensive, even to a 55 year old heterosexual white male.

Like me.

[NorthernSpy]

157. wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2587615&mesg_id=2590038

I've already dealt with that particular smear.

[Maven]

161. Your factual correction wasn't factual.

Why don't you get off this topic, because we get it: our issues don't matter to you.

Now move on.

[NorthernSpy]

163. if not, it was certainly the closest to factual that any of this has come...

Why don't you get off this topic, because we get it: our issues don't matter to you.

That's unreasonable. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

[Tyler Durden]

178. Because you're dealing with numbers and ignoring the bigotry.

VERY simple.

It's OK if you support Obama. Just don't expect people who feel like he has discriminated against them (actively OR passively) to buy into your distraction.

This has NOTHING to do with any numbers; that's YOUR obsession. This is about BIGOTRY, and people who are not practicing bigotry do not care about the opinions of BIGOTS, no matter HOW they hold these opinions.

[Tyler Durden]

173. That deals with the CANADIAN data,

Which I personally think makes the label "Data" look suspect.

Now answer the questions on #172, or stop bothering me.

[kevinbgoode]

119. Nonsense.

There is no methodology existing to actually "count" the number of members of the GLBT community. The reason? Because one of the most important tools of oppression is to pretend a group doesn't "exist' - and when they have no specific identifiable characteristics by appearance, they can't be adequately counted. Thus, any attempt at "counting" is completely reliant upon self-identification, and anyone in the gay community knows that barely scratches the surface on actual numbers.

As long as there are GLBT people who fear that oppression, there cannot be an accurate count of the population.

[NorthernSpy]

124. Aw hell, believe what you want. But I wonder...

... why you haven't disputed Tyler Durden's completely unsupported claim of 15%. I mean, your objections to estimates of the LGBT population should apply just as much to the figure he gives, no?

[kevinbgoode]

136. Aren't you projecting a bit ?

I think I made my point rather clear.

[Tyler Durden]

140. Why does this number game bother you so?

It has nothing to do with BIGOTRY. If there were 0.001% LGBT people in this country, would it make their persecution any less vile?

Why do people DISTRACT from the evil of BIGOTRY with "Oh well, there aren't so MANY of THEM anyway?" or some such similar specious bullshit.

Stop the numbers game nonsense, and TELL ME WHY Obama gets a "Pass" on his BS but Clinton is the "Whore of Babylon" for not denying "Don't ask/Don't tell?"

This is TRUE moral bankruptcy.

[TankLV]

125. You're right - they're closer to TWENTY percent...

but thanks for playing...

[NorthernSpy]

127. source?

:wtf:

[Tyler Durden]

133. Here's a REEEAAALLLY stupid question:

Why the fuck do you CARE if there are 5%, 10%, or 50% of the country who are gay?

Does it make the perfidity of Obama in waffling his rejection of McClurkin and his "Jesus CURED me from HOMOSEXUALITY! Thank you JESUS" BULLSHIT any less?

What have you got against Gay people anyway?

[kevinbgoode]

141. An excellent point.

How interesting that some people believe our constitutional rights are dictated exclusively by our numbers. If that had been the case, it would have been MEN lobbying for an equal rights amendment for themselves, since they are a MINORITY in this country.

This just smells like another deflection game. If someone says...well, there are only one million gays in the country, we can toss them under the fu*king bus because they don't matter as much as "hearing the voices" of their oppressors.

If there were so FEW gays in this country, then why would ANY campaign be parading around with positions about their supposedly innate constitutional rights? And why would McClurkin, who was asked to SING, be provided a campaign rally platform to spew out his crap?

I'm sick and tired of people trying to figure out some angle to explain to my community that I'm not an equal American citizen because I have to listen to someone else's religious beliefs, someone else's beliefs about MY right to love, someone else's beliefs about how many of my community exists, and someone else's beliefs that the Constitution was written for heterosexuals only.

F*ck that. How many ex-gays are there? Why, some of the organizations McClurkin is associated with have claimed that "hundreds of thousands" have been "cured" of their homosexuality - of course, they present very few examples. So how many people, exactly, did McClurkin represent? And why are their voices so important to hear at campaign rallies instead of the voices directly from the GLBT community?

[NorthernSpy]

151. your remarks are better directed at the person who started the numbers discussion...

Dontcha think so?

[Tyler Durden]

155. I threw out ONE NUMBER. YOU made it your "Causus Belli" to promote marginal bigotry.

Bigotry against ANY PERCENTAGE is bigotry.

Dispute THAT.

[NorthernSpy]

162. disputing a claim that 15% of Americans are LGBT = "promoting marginal bigotry"?

Oh, man. That's just ridiculous.


And, come to think of it, what exactly IS "marginal bigotry"?

[Tyler Durden]

172. No, you are missing the point.

And doing EXACTLY the same thing as Obama; trying to distract from the ACTUAL ISSUE: DID Obama, tacitly or otherwise, support a homophobic agenda by refusing to formally apologize and distance himself from the words of a religious bigot acting under his aegis?

Yes.

NOW, you're going to play word games.

Before I ignore any further message from you, I require two answers:

1. Are the actions of someone who calls homosexuals evil and in need of "cures" from Jesus the actions of a Religious Bigot, no matter what they believe their own intentions to be?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, then should Barack Obama apologize and completely distance himself form these comments?

If the answers to both of these questions is YES, then we have a basis for discussion; if not, then we have nothing to discus because I personally feel (and I think it is the feeling of the LGBT community, of which I am not a member, but support without question) that anyone who cannot answer these questions YES is approving of bigotry, whether or not they practice it themselves.

[NorthernSpy]

175. and that's exactly where you're wrong...

No, you are missing the point.

And doing EXACTLY the same thing as Obama; trying to distract from the ACTUAL ISSUE: DID Obama, tacitly or otherwise, support a homophobic agenda by refusing to formally apologize and distance himself from the words of a religious bigot acting under his aegis?

Yes.

No. You're wrong about Obama not distancing himself from McClurkin's views. In fact, he made a point of doing that.


But he declined to shun all association with the man himself, and that's what some people are steamed about.

[Tyler Durden]

182. No YOU are wrong.

Obama wishes to continue having the support of the crowd McClurkin was playing to, and demonstrates it with his "Identity Politics" comments.

LGBT has nothing to do with IDENTITY. I has to do with HOW PEOPLE ARE, like BLACK or ASIAN or CAUCASIAN or MALE or FEMALE or GAY or LESBIAN. These are NOT "identity politics."

And frankly, McClurkin "shunning" is another straw man. People don't give two shits about that little homophobe, and he is not the issu. Obama HAS NOT disclaimed the homophobia and bigotry. THAT is the issue.

End of our discussion.

[NorthernSpy]

191. you do want the last word, don't you?

Here ya go:


==> The Last Word <==

[Tyler Durden]

166. OO! OO! (my hand is raised.)

Math IS fun.

Let's let ol' Donnie's claim STAND for a minute, and use just 300,000 Cured Homosexuals as a baseline (he did say "...hundreds of thousands..." and assume he's talking about men.
AND let's make the assumption that 1 of say, 100 homosexual men got cured by Jesus, since I have NEVER IN MY LIFE met a gay man or woman who wanted to be anything other that what they are.
AND we'll use 300,000,000 as the US population, and say that approximately 75% of that is above the age of 16, to use a good starting point.


Here we go:

300,000 gay men "cured" at one of 50 of the total yields 15,000,000 gay men in the total US general population.
300,000,000 times 75% yields 225,000,000 people over the age of general consent in the US.
Divide 225,000,000 by 2 to yield men from women, yields 112,500,000 men in the US over the age of 16.

15,000,000 gay men in the US divided by 112,500,000 men above the age of 16 yields 13.3%.


I'd say 15% of the population is pretty close.

[NorthernSpy]

142. Why do ~I~ care what percentage? Why do YOU?

Why the fuck do you CARE if there are 5%, 10%, or 50% of the country who are gay?

WTF? You're the one who made a claim about percentages in the course of arguing that LGBT were in a position to run the country politically.

And I didn't find your claim plausible and said so.

What have you got against Gay people anyway?

Go on... ask me whether I've stopped clubbing baby seals yet.


:eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

149. Have you?

As I said in another post, making a "Numbers Game" of basic human rights smacks of bigotry.

Quit while you're behind, which you are, in case you hadn't noticed


Oh and by the way, just out of hand, Say there are 5% LGBT people in the US. NOW I guess the number is low enough for The Holy Barack to kick them to the curb...?

[NorthernSpy]

154. "making a 'Numbers Game' of basic human rights smacks of bigotry"

Then why did you go there?

[Tyler Durden]

168. I DIDN'T.

You DO make one hell of a sophist, you know that?

One number did not make a cause: you made disproving that number for whatever reason you had YOUR cause.

Tell me the answer to the question I asked: is it OK to victimize a group if their percentage of the population is low enough?

[NorthernSpy]

177. ridiculous implication...

Tell me the answer to the question I asked: is it OK to victimize a group if their percentage of the population is low enough?

Oh, don't be absurd!


:eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

183. Then answer the question, and QUIT PLAYING WITH NUMBERS.

Rolling eyes is not an answer, and refusing to stand up and call a bigot a bigot is condoning the action.

[NorthernSpy]

189. let's see... have I stopped pulling the wings off butterflies yet?

:argh:


I shouldn't have to answer such a question. I've never even suggested that discrimination would be justified on the basis of a minority's small numbers.

[Occulus]

194. I'll make note here:

You could have answered "yes" or "no" to that, and chose not to do so.

That alone says a very great deal about where, exactly, it is that you stand.

[NorthernSpy]

197. what it says is that I deeply resent the question...

Because I've never suggested anything like what Durden seems to be implying.

[Occulus]

200. You're the who started with the whole "15% is too high" bullshit

I AM gay and I can tell you with 100% certainty that the actual figure is far closer to 15%- very possibly in the 14%+ range- than you appear willing to admit.

His 15% figure is more accurate than it isn't, by a wide margin. And that's experience talking, not some fusty, underestimated number from a fatally-flawed study (which every study on this subject is).

[NorthernSpy]

206. I'm going to have to take StatsCan figures over anecdotes on an internet forum...

:shrug:

[readmoreoften]

156. 14 year old statistics? And Adherents.com uses statistics by rightwing smear campaigns.

There is still a huge closet. Get real.

[NorthernSpy]

165. the studies are the National Health And Social Life Survey and Statistics Canada (2003)...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2587615&mesg_id=2590038

[readmoreoften]

190. Lies, big lies, and then there's statistics. /nt

There are 30,000 transgendered residents of Dallas ALONE. Statistics of LGBT issues are difficult because they don't take into account people who don't want to answer on a damned government document that they're gay. Just like hate crime statistics are skewed because some precincts don't believe there's such a thing as a hate crime against a LGBT person.

[spanone]

76. do gays need special 'courtin' ?

[mondo joe]

77. Only if you consider legal equality "special". NT

[readmoreoften]

158. Yeah, of course we do. It's not like the party has ever addressed our basic needs. /nt

[trotsky]

181. Not according to the Obama campaign.

Nor most campaigns, I'm sure. They are taken for granted, just as atheist/non-believer votes are taken for granted. It's a reasonable political calculation; it just stinks.

[sampsonblk]

82. Obama has cast his lot - nt

[paulk]

85. he won't - that should be obvious

Look at the Donny M. thing as a subtext to his campaign - It's a message - "I support gay rights, etc." with a wink and a nod.

It's smart, if cynical politics.

[FredScuttle]

92. When he's safely out of South Carolina

he has to pander to those religious bigots, don't you know, for those sweet, sweet primary votes.

Then, it's back to the "Audacity of Hope" nonsense.

[Le Taz Hot]

104. Or boomers, or are we

still "in the way?" Boomer inquiring minds want to know.

[Little Star]

112. When and if he ever needs them. n/t

[Neecy]

116. I'm gay and I support Obama

There's very little difference between the candidates when it comes to our issues. The only one I'd exclude here is Hillary, only because of the Bill factor (he, the father of DOMA and the one who advised Kerry to come out against gay marriage. I don't trust him to advise Hillary one bit on gay issues).

Yes, Obama made a serious mistake with the McClurkin appearance. I still find it unacceptable. But I think he has room to grow in this area and I believe he will. He understands issues of social justice and he's been supportive of our rights in front of hostile audiences. I'll take that over pandering any day.

[readmoreoften]

153. You think the McClurkin incident wasn't pandering?

You think it was an accident that 4 known homophobic acts played and/or MC'd the event and that the Obama campaign chose not to put up a black LGBT minister to deal with the fall out?

You're a lot more trusting then I am. Kudos.

I agree about Hillary, though. Edwards has come out stronger than the others on trans issues, which now puts me squarely in his camp.

[Neecy]

164. I honestly can't explain the McClurkin incident.

I said it was unacceptable. It was reprehensible. And I felt that Obama asking me to 'communicate' with someone so hostile to my very existence was patronizing and ignorant of the issues.

That said, he's still been one of the few candidates in my lifetime who has gone in front of evangelical Christians and advocated and argued for my rights. That means something. It's not just blind trust, believe me. I don't trust any straight politician to fight for us, not after the Clinton years. But I think he has room to grow and can do so.

I like Edwards, too. I'd be happy with either as our nominee. But I can tell you as a gay woman that I've been treated with absolute respect by the Obama staffers and I feel welcome in his campaign.

[boston bean]

121. Never, why would you even want him to try? nt

[slackmaster]

126. He probably won't ever need to

Especially if he wins our nomination.

[book_worm]

128. What have Edwards and Hillary done to court gays in this campaign?

[Lex]

138. at this point *not* campaigning with outright homophobes

gets a plus

[readmoreoften]

160. Sad that that's our big criteria. /nt

[readmoreoften]

159. Edwards saying that transgender medical rights are a matter of equality won me over.

I don't even think Obama knows or wants to know what that means.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

132. wont happen. nt

[Ganja Ninja]

152. Hey nobody's perfect.

Even though Obama's supporters will tell you he is.

[jeffrey_X]

169. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

eom

[Occulus]

198. It's not the game that's hurting us

it's the actions of the players.

[mondo joe]

211. If Obama chooses to play that game, he gets my dusgust too.

He earned it.

[DS1]

176. Will gays support him if he's the Dem nominee?

I'm not saying that there should be a tit for tat, just asking the question at its face value.

[Tyler Durden]

185. There are Log Cabin Republicans.

I'll vote for the SOB but I won't disgrace my lawn with his sign.

My best friend on earth was gay. He was in the Navy with me, and he died of AIDS in 1985.

[readmoreoften]

193. I'm having a hard time mustering the energy to do it. If I have to, I'll organize a

protest vote in 2012 if he wins. I won't vote for the party again in the presidential election until it elects a candidate who won't pander to religious bigots. I voted for Kerry with a clean conscience. I'd vote for Edwards with a clean conscience. On Hillary, my conscience would be dirty for other reasons...

I'm thinking of voting for him because of what it will mean for the Black community as a whole and because we need to purge the Republicans. But I won't vote for him in a second term. I also expect him to become much more anti-gay once he's in office. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

[Tyler Durden]

207. Would you read this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2591471

I'd like to think I got it right, but everyone's here at that flame fest. My Ignore list got two new members here.

[mondo joe]

210. I will. I'll have to supress my disgust at politicians bending over for religious bigots.

But I'll do it.

[Politicub]

179. He won't

because he doesn't really need to convince us to vote for a dem. And, sadly, it's true as I will vote for the dem nominee, whoever he or she may be.

The ex-gay McClurkin flap still chaps me when I think about it, but I will learn to get over it.

[dailykoff]

209. When he goes to the gay prom?

:shrug:

[Hekate]

212. HEADS UP! SAN FRANCISCO BAY TIMES HAS YOUR ANSWER!

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=7259

>Obama Is Best On Gay Rights
>
>By Chris Crain
> Published: January 3, 2008
>
>The top three Democrats are mostly similar on our issues, but only Obama can reach out where needed to transform promises into equality.

See also:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid47849.asp
Gay Episcopal bishop endorses Obama for president

See also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3951604

[LittleClarkie]

221. There was an article a while back saying he was trying to woo gays

but I wondered if he could do both woo gays and woo Southern Conservative Christians. Oh he can I suppose. But not without a call out, I reckon.

[LittleClarkie]

213. My Obama supporting friends think he can win without you

When I tried to ask them what they thought of the ex-gay preacher thing, almost all I could get out of them was "it shouldn't hurt him in the long run." When I said some of my gay friends are upset, they said that's only one part of the constituency and he should still do well.

I wasn't asking about strategy. I was asking for a human response. Apparently that's hard to get out of a politico.

As for me, if he gets the nom, I don't know what I'll do. I'll probably be a good little Dem and support him against the Republican nom, esp. if it's Huckabee, but I will NOT be a happy little Clarkie.

[yardwork]

214. That sums up how I feel about Obama's supporters.

Frankly, a number of them have proven themselves to be thoughtless little shits. If Obama is as good as they say he is, then he deserves better supporters.

Some of the "Obama supporters" around here sound just like freepers. Hey.

[Lex]

215. I agree 100%.

Half the time I think they're trying to lose votes for Obama.

[mondo joe]

216. Obama is cynicism under a mask of hope. NT

[DURHAM D]

220. Thank you.

I have wanted for months to comment on Obama's cynicism but was not sure that anyone would understand.

I am both an older boomer and a lesbian and I am sad and dismayed that most just see the mask and not the cynical consummate politician behind it.

[undergroundpanther]

222. He will ignore us.

He wants the gay issue under the rug I think.
http://fruitfly.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/barack-obamas-great-hate-parade/

[RB TexLa]

224. He's got to get through using anti-gay things to pull black Baptists from Hillary in SC then he'll

pander some your way.