March 11, 2008
We’re royally pissed off at Elliot Spitzer — not because he was patronizing a prostitute (or ten, or a hundred), but because by letting his little head do his thinking, he’s really screwed over gay and lesbian Americans.
Elliot Spitzer was one of the best friends American LGBTs could ask for. He’s been a longtime advocate for marriage equality, and last April introduced a same-sex marriage bill in the New York legislature — the first governor in the country to do so. Although the GOP-dominated state senate killed the bill, we were hopeful that New York would be one of the next states (competing with Rhode Island and California) to offer full, equal marriage, à la Massachusetts.
Spitzer had also promised to sign the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA).
Now it looks like we’re going to lose our best friend in the Empire State. And even if Spitzer doesn’t resign (and, really, he has to; he violated the Mann Act), his power is effectively neutered.
We don’t care a whit if Elliot Spitzer wants to pay for sex, and whatever damage he’s done to his marriage (and his relationship with his children) is his own concern. What a person does sexually, in private, is nobody’s business — unless his behavior puts a crimp in somebody else’s freedom. That includes conservatives trying to force the rest of us to live by their “moral values,” or, in Spitzer’s case, a single individual setting back the march toward LGBT equality by way of a really stupid choice he made for his own selfish pleasure. In short, Elliot Spitzer traded our freedom for the promise of a lousy orgasm.
A lousy, expensive orgasm. It’s difficult to imagine what you get for $4,300 — the price Spitzer was going to pay for a call girl named “Kristen” — but we imagine it wasn’t seven minutes in the missionary position.
Whatever Spitzer was going to get for his money, he didn’t get it. We were the ones who got screwed — without, as my dear departed father used to say, so much as a kiss.
Then, of course, there is the damage Spitzer has done to the Democratic Party, the extent of which remains to be seen. We already have a hint about the extent of the damage he’s done to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign; within minutes of the story breaking on the newswires, Barack Obama supporters on the Message Forum That Shall Remain Nameless were using the Spitzer scandal to smear Clinton. First, they somehow rationalized (if you can call this line of thought “rational”) that Clinton was tainted merely by her association with Spitzer, one of her most high-profile supporters; furthermore, they decided that this association by default cancels out Obama’s relationships with Donnie McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, and the rest of the homophobic bigots from whom Obama refuses to distance himself.
As if.
Second — and this is very real damage — the widely-circulated image of Spitzer’s wife, the silent, suffering Silda, standing by her man…
…brought the image of Hillary standing by Bill during the Monica Lewinsky scandal back into razor-sharp focus.
Literally. This is the image ABC decide to run to illustrate a piece called “Why Women Stand by Their Men“:
Counter-clockwise from upper left: Mr. and Mrs. Elliot Spitzer, Mr. and Mrs. Larry Craig, Mr. and (now ex-) Mrs. Jim McGreevey, and Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton.
What’s wrong with this picture? For starters, three of the four disgraced politicians are Democrats. Having researched political pecadilloes for years, I can tell you that Republicans far outnumber Democrats in the cheating department. Granted, represented are four of the most infamous sex scandals in recent memory (although it’s a stretch to call the Lewinsky scandal “recent”), but if ABC had asked for my input, I could have given them dozens of examples of humiliated wives standing by their men — from the other side of the aisle.
In any case, Clinton (Hillary, not Bill) is screwed no matter whether Spitzer resigns or not. As Peter Baker wrote in WaPo:
Spitzer has been a bad-luck charm for Hillary Clinton to this point. His illegal immigrant driver’s license proposal arguably became the first time she was thrown off her stride in this campaign. … That led to a bad patch for her that lasted all the way through the Iowa caucuses. …
Now Spitzer may throw her off stride again at a moment she needs to keep her momentum going. And on top of that, even if he does spare her by resigning soon, that has a cost too — one fewer superdelegate for her at the convention.
It’s not lost on us, by the way, that this scandal comes at the most inopportune time for Democrats — and at a very convenient time indeed for Republicans. (You’ve already forgotten all about Vicki Iseman, haven’t you?)
And it’s not lost on us that Spitzer was nailed by a federal wiretap — you know, that part of the USA Patriot Act that allows the feds to listen in on your phone calls for any half-assed reason they want (or no reason at all). It was the Bush Machine that turned the U.S. into “one nation, under surveillance” — and we knew Big Brother wasn’t going to confine wiretapping to terrorism suspects.
OK, OK, so the Spitzer hooker bust was a by-product of a “routine tax inquiry” by the IRS, and prostitution was said to be “the furthest thing from the minds of the investigators” looking into the suspicious movement of funds through Spitzer’s hands. But the timing of the emergence of a “confidential informant, a young woman who had worked previously as a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club V.I.P., the escort service that Mr. Spitzer was believed to be using” who enabled the investigators “to get a judge to approve wiretaps on the cellphones of some of those suspected of involvement in the escort service” seems awfully convenient. To the Republican Party, that is.
But, all speculation aside, what’s done is done — and what’s been done is irreversible.
As for how badly Spitzer has hurt the Democratic Party, hurt Hillary Clinton, and hurt us LGBTs — who saw in Elliot Spitzer the closest thing we had to a savior — only time will tell.
But it’s gonna hurt every last one of us.
And all because Elliot Spitzer couldn’t keep his penis in his pants.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Barack Obama,
Bill Clinton,
Corruption,
Crime,
Democrats,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
George W. Bush,
Hillary Clinton,
Homeland Insecurity,
Jim McGreevey,
Larry Craig,
Marriage Equality,
New York,
Republican Sexcapades,
Republicans
March 2, 2008
No comment required — except to heap praise, once again, on Duane Wells for — once again — knocking it out of the park.
Regarding the obviously-timed and embarrassingly see-through Open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT community:
Hypocrite of the Week: Barack Obama
. . .
In addition to this magnificently worded missive, Obama also announced plans to run the aforementioned open letter in an ad campaign specifically targeted to the gay community.
But my question is: Where was all this love, respect and concern for the gay community back in October, 2007, when the junior Senator from Illinois was actively courting the conservative African-American vote in South Carolina with his pal and supporter, ex-gay minister Donnie McClurkin? …
Where were the ads in the local gay press in South Carolina talking about what a friend the Senator was to the LGBT community? …
And in what forum back in South Carolina, when his campaign was struggling, did Obama espouse lofty goals like using “the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,” as he does in this new and timely appeal to the LGBT community?
Senator Obama had none of these messages in South Carolina, more than likely because it was not politically expedient for him to write such a letter back then. However now, with the race tight and the stakes high, Obama is now finally extending an olive branch to the very gay community that he quite unashamedly distanced himself from in South Carolina.
The fact of the matter is that when the Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese and other gay rights leaders urged Obama to cancel Donnie McClurkin’s appearance at one of his Faith and Family Values tour stops, their arguments fell on deaf ears. …
Boldly ignoring the obvious implications of such a slight, Obama and his staff brushed off the criticism simply citing the Senator’s belief that the country needed to broaden its reach of equal rights.
. . .
It’s clear that if McClurkin had been a Nazi sympathizer, Senator Obama would not have expected the Jewish community to accept the singer’s appearance on a program designed to attract votes from a constituency known to have neo-Nazi tendencies. Nor would the Obama campaign now be reaching out to the Jewish community in Texas and Ohio touting their candidate’s long-standing friendship and support for them.
So in what way does Obama’s latest outreach to the LGBT community at this critical juncture in Texas and Ohio not appear disingenuous? …
How on earth is “equality for all” achieved when one constituency’s value is weighted differently from others possessed of more mainstream appeal, until such a time as that constituency’s support becomes critical?
Sorry Mr. Obama, this is where the rubber hits the road. …
More than worth the full read, at the link.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
Texas
March 1, 2008
Point by point, let’s look at Barack Obama’s statement, released February 28, 2008:
I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all — a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.
So, Barry, where was this appeal before Camp Obama realized how badly they’ve been screwing over the LGBT community? Why didn’t you make this statement before the South Carolina primary, instead of handing an “ex-gay” bigot a microphone so he could tap into the raging homophobia of throngs of religious bigots at the expense of the LGBT community you’re suddenly sucking up to now? Why wait until just before the Ohio and Texas primaries to cozy up to the queers — because you just realized Ohio and Texas are full of queers who don’t go in for that “love the sinner, hate the sin” sermonizing you do so well?
Equality is a moral imperative.
Then why don’t you support marriage equality, Barry?
That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
If these issues are so important to you, then why wait until you’re president to “place your weight” behind them? Why haven’t you introduced any domestic-partnership bills as a U.S. Senator? You’re allowed to do that, you know.
As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.
Not good enough, Barry. You can “urge states” all you like, but when you leave equality to the states, you get separate but equal — just like the validity of your parents‘ marriage was “left to the states” when you were born.
That’s not good enough. You can’t claim your intention to push through “equal treatment” of LGBT Americans on a federal level, while leaving “family and adoption laws” to the states.
Only federally-recognized marriage equality will do.
I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment.
Every married same-sex couple in New Jersey would disagree with you.
But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.
Again, with the “states’ rights” argument. You’re just wrong, Barry. You’re misinformed, deluded, and just plain wrong.
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate.
You can promise “the complete repeal” of DOMA — in fact, you can promise anything you want — before you’re president. Bill Clinton did; he promised to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military, and look what happened to him: He was blindsided by Congress, and forced to compromise with DADT.
So, you can promise us anything you want, Barry — or you can be realistic about DOMA, like Hillary Clinton has been: She’s promising to overturn the part of DOMA she believes she can overturn — she’s not making a promise that is absolutely impossible to keep.
Now, you could say that your eagerness to compromise on marriage equality via the baby step of civil unions is based on political expediency, but I won’t believe it for a second. Your aversion to full marriage equality is based on your religious beliefs, and nothing else — which we’ll address further in just a moment.
While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.
So do I, but I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to get rid of it altogether. If you can, great — I’ll praise you for it — but I’m not holding my breath.
And let’s not forget that you can’t do it alone, Barry. It’s going to be up to Congress to overturn DOMA; you’re just the guy who’ll get to sign the bill, if it ever gets to your desk.
Finally, don’t think for a minute that I believe you’re going to go to work on repealing DOMA right away; LGBT equality has never been a priority for you in the past; especially with the mess left to you by the Bush administration, LGBT equality is going to be further down on your to-do list than you’d like to admit.
Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.
Then why aren’t you pushing for federally-recognized civil marriage — not civil “unions,” but civil marriage — right now?
I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.
Oh? Since when did this issue hit your radar? Last I heard, your position on the UAFA was identical to Senator Clinton’s: You have both been withholding your support for the UAFA, citing concerns about immigration fraud.
Well, here’s my question to you, Barry: If immigration reform is such a big issue to you, why not propose a moratorium on all immigration-by-marriage until you’ve got it sorted out? By holding up passage of the UAFA, you are denying only same-sex couples immigration rights. Either open immigration to everyone, now, or deny immigration to everyone, now, until you figure out how to deal with fraud.
Or, as Immigration Equality noted: “The fraud protections in the UAFA are exactly the same as they are for married (opposite-sex) couples. I perhaps haven’t pushed this point hard enough in previous exchanges, but the fraud protections in the UAFA are not the problem. The problem is that politicians do not understand LGBT relationships and do not consider them bona fide. Whether it is because a marriage certificate cannot be issued, or some deeper discomfort with LGBT marriages we do not know, but to deny LGBT couples a marriage certificate and then say that because there is no marriage certificate you must be subjected to more intense scrutiny is discriminatory, and wrong. Let’s not forget that Obama does not support gay marriage while at the same time claims civil unions extend exactly the same rights as does a marriage certificate.
“The fraud protections in the UAFA are no more loose or no more strict [than] current fraud provisions for opposite-sex couples. It is unfortunate that Sen. Obama, the child of a binational couple whose marriage was once as frowned upon as LGBT relationships does not see this double standard for what it is. We are continuing to work with the Obama camp to bring them onto the UAFA but we will not let them off the hook so easily.”
The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
And this issue is specific to an “open letter to the LGBT community” why, exactly?
Did you mention HIV/AIDS because you’re so accustomed to associating HIV/AIDS with gay men — and “the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth” and other “sinners” — the way you did in your 2006 World AIDS Day Speech at your “friend” Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church?
“Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes — to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say ‘This is your fault. You have sinned.’
“I don’t think that’s a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.”
Are you so compelled to distance yourself from the AIDS epidemic by asserting your heterosexuality that you must, again, compartmentalize HIV/AIDS as a “gay issue”?
When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception.
Can’t find a thing wrong here. But then, there’s a first time for everything.
We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.
Fine, but: Why are you bringing the issue of HIV/AIDS and prison inmates and intravenous drug users into an “open letter to the LGBT community”? Are you lumping felons and heroin addicts in with “the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man,” too?
We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma — too often tied to homophobia — that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day.
I’m glad you brought up your visit to Warren’s church. You pissed off a lot of left-wingers — and Warren pissed off a lot of right-wingers — by “consorting with the enemy.”
Oh, I know it by heart: These are the people you want to “reach out” to — this is your attempt to make “post-partisan unity” a reality. But you shouldn’t be consorting with them, Barry; these are the people who want no middle ground. Surely, you’re not stupid enough to think they are going to compromise with us — the “us” being the Americans “they” have built successful careers of demonizing, and at best want to run out out of the nation on a rail: the gays, the pro-choicers, the atheists, the evolutionary scientists and teachers, the Muslims… anyone who isn’t a heterosexual, anti-choice Christian opposed to full marriage equality.
They are not going to compromise their core values, Barack — and those of us whose rights hang in the balance (where our rights exist at all) will be damned if we compromise our core values for theirs.
The Christofascists are not going to budge an inch. You may get their votes, but you’re a damned fool if you actually believe you’re going to bring them around to any mode of rational thinking.
As my friend David G (whose nail-it-to-the-wall observations I’ll be quoting again soon) remarked regarding your “gay ad”: Like Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjon Caldwell and Hezekiah Walker and all the rest of the religionists you call your “friends,” they are in fact “fundamentalist activists, anti-choice, anti-science… They are the same as Robertson or Dobson. Not ‘good folk who haven’t accepted gays,’ but dogmatic, rigid fundies. …
“Those of you who think these members of the Religious Right are only ‘a tad homophobic’ are living in denial. They are the clinic blockers, the school boards who sue over evolution. And you are voting them to power in our party.”
Which begs the question: Is that really your intention, Barack, to bring these bigots around? You pay a lot of lip service to maintaining the separation of church and state — even a few atheists positively swooned over your remark that “we are not a Christian nation; we are a nation of Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. We are also a nation of non-believers and non-church going folk who may not have ‘Sunday-best’ hanging in their closets but who most assuredly carry the best of intentions within their hearts.”
Yet you continue to infuse your rhetoric with religious buzz phrases — yes, I’ll say it: “code words” — that seem contrived as a “dog whistle” for the religionists, but are more than familiar to those of us against whom your Bible has been used as a bludgeon. I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt, Barry; it’s tempting to think your own religiosity is so deeply ingrained, you don’t even know you’re doing it (which, to be honest, isn’t much comfort either). But I am convinced you are doing it deliberately.
In the same speech that wooed a few atheists, you also said:
My religious upbringing taught me that homosexuality was sinful and that gay unions should not be allowed. But my political belief is that all people are created equal and thus should be treated as such, homosexual couples being given the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
I’m not so sure about that, Barack. In fact, I’m dead certain your political belief is informed, and formed, solely by your religious belief. Remember what you said in Iowa (and have repeated in one form or another ever since you started stumping in churches)?
“Doing the Lord’s work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that separation of church and state in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life.”
And:
“My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work.”
I can think of another president who was convinced that he was doing “the Lord’s work” by merging religion with politics: George W. Bush.
That is not a comforting thought.
And, as David Domke and Kevin Coe observed: Since the Saddleback sermon, “Obama’s religious politics have only grown. He often begins speeches — including his address in February 2007 in which he announced his intention to seek the presidency — by giving ‘all praise and honor to God,’ and regularly cites the biblical story of Joshua.”
To those of us not swayed by biblical ecstasy, that’s pretty chilling stuff.
But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones — and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention.
I’ll give you credit for your 2004 DNC speech, Barry. I was stunned with delight to see this kid with the funny ears even mention “gay friends in the red states.”
What’s sad is how inspired I felt at the time — and how small a bone you threw to me, and how I jumped at it, with nearly feverish hope.
What’s sad is how much my opinion of you has changed in less than four years.
I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign — from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.
Don’t bring Dr. King into this, Barry. Not when your campaign and your supporters virtually slit Hillary Clinton’s throat for making a historically accurate remark about what it took to get the Civil Rights Act passed. You don’t have a monopoly on Dr. King’s message or legacy — and, frankly, Dr. King was far more evolved on the issue of true equality than you are.
And as far as your appearance at Ebenezer Baptist Church, do you remember what you told BeliefNet after that?
“The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God’s will.”
I don’t want “an instrument of God’s will” in the White House, Barry. I want an employee who doesn’t drag his religious beliefs to the office every morning.
Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans.
Barry, until you commit to marriage equality, you are not committing to full equal rights for all LGBT Americans. Period.
But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.
Why? Your stubborn refusal to “close your ears” to homophobes is impossible to defend in light of your swift and unyielding condemnation of racists.
Or have you forgotten the names Don Imus and John Tanner?
Finally, what rankles me, Barry, is that you presume to speak for the LGBT community, when you don’t “get” the LGBT community. Your intentions may be (may be) good, but you lack an innate understanding of us, what we’re about, what motivates us, and — yes — why we can’t pretend the McClurkin issue was an isolated incident and just let it go.
You are not our “voice,” Barack. You may think you’re listening to us — and this letter of yours, and your “gay ad” show you’re at least vaguely aware that many of us queers are none too pleased with you — but you’re not hearing us. You don’t have the authority to speak for us, as a genuine ally.
Which is yet another reason I say you need some more “seasoning” before you’ll be anywhere near ready to lead us all, as a nation.
Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country.
Again, “full equality” means marriage equality. Not some “set of basic rights,” as if we were children, or animals, who must prove we can be trusted indoors without piddling on the rug before you give us a set of grown-up rights.
“Full equality” means exactly equal with what you aready have, Barry. And as long as you have what we don’t, you have privileges, while we have merely second-class citizenship.
“Separate but equal” is not equal.
To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.
I don’t think so, Barry. I don’t believe in you, because you don’t understand what you’re promising us — and yet simultaneously denying us.
You’re not ready, Barry. You’re nowhere near ready.
And you don’t understand who we are.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Bill Clinton,
Christianity,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
Employment/ENDA,
George W. Bush,
HIV/AIDS,
Hillary Clinton,
Homophobia,
Immigration,
Marriage Equality,
Military/DADT,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality
February 19, 2008
If you’re an Obama supporter, you know Clinton has too much “baggage” to win the general election.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you know Clinton has successfully fought off the Republican attack machine for the past 16 years, and there’s nothing new to throw at her that will stick.
If you’re an Obama supporter, asking how Obama will deflect right-wing attacks (such as questioning his “Muslim family ties” or dealings with Tony Rezko) during the general election campaign is good strategy.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, asking how Obama will deflect right-wing attacks (such as questioning his “Muslim family ties” or dealings with Tony Rezko) means you’re just a paid Hillary shill and/or “concern troll” trying to smear Obama.
If you’re an Obama supporter, suggesting that Latinos are not voting for Obama because “Latinos hate blacks” is a valid observation.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, noticing that African-Americans are voting overwhelmingly for Obama is racist.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you hate Hillary for her pro-Iraq War Resolution vote, and remind everyone within earshot that Obama never voted in favor of the IWR.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you remind everyone within earshot that Obama was not a Senator at the time of the IWR, and thus no one knows how he might have voted (especially when you consider his votes to continue funding the war ever since), but you get drowned out by the Obama supporters reminding everyone within earshot that Obama never voted in favor of the IWR.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you don’t like the fact that Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War, but you realize that 76 other Senators, many with far more liberal leanings than Clinton, were duped into a “Yea” vote by the Bush administration’s lies.
If you’re an Obama supporter, Hillary started the Iraq War all by herself.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you remember than Barack supported John Kerry in his 2004 run for the White House, and you think this is fine, because both are solid, anti-war Democrats.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you remember that Kerry voted the same way Clinton did on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you cheer Obama’s plan to start withdrawing troops from Iraq within 16 months after taking office.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, nobody listens when you mention Clinton’s plan to start withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days after taking office.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you know you can’t reasonably assume that Hillary is going to bring all the best things about her husband’s eight years of peace and prosperity to the table — you may be getting a “twofer,” but ultimately, it’s Hillary running, not Bill.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you know Hillary is going to bring all the worst things about her husband’s eight years of — well, you can’t remember what was so bad about the Clinton years, except for the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but you’re sure there’s plenty of bad stuff that will carry over into a Hillary Clinton administration.
If you’re an Obama supporter, it’s time for those old, out-of-touch, irrelevant Baby Boomers — in fact, it’s time for everyone over the age of 45 — to get the hell out of the way and hand the reins over to the youth of America.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, of any age, you suddenly become irrelevant the moment you remind the Obama supporters that Obama himself is 46 years old, which makes him a Baby Boomer, too.
If you’re an Obama supporter, 54-year-old Robert F. Kennedy is an out-of-touch Baby Boomer (he did, after all, endorse Clinton).
If you’re an Obama supporter, 50-year-old Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg is a savvy, intelligent American (she did, after all, endorse Obama).
If you’re an Obama supporter, you use to revere 80-year-old poet laureate and living American treasure Maya Angelou — until she endorsed Clinton, which suddenly made her old, out of touch, and irrelevant.
If you’re an Obama supporter, 76-year-old Ted Kennedy is neither old, nor out of touch, nor irrelevant, because he endorsed Barack Obama.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you stand behind Obama for demanding that Don Imus and John Tanner be fired from their respective jobs for making racist remarks.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you have no right to demand that Obama fire rabidly anti-gay “ex-gay” preacher Donnie McClurkin — who demonizes gay and lesbian Americans as child killers — hired to emcee an Obama fundraiser chock-full of homophobes.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you agree that marriage equality for same-sex couples is a decision that should be left to the states.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you wonder how Obama can use the same “states’ rights” argument against same-sex marriage that was used against his own parents’ interracial marriage (which wasn’t recognized in a handful of states at the time they were married).
If you’re an Obama supporter, you echo Obama’s repeated mantra of “post-partisan unity,” and agree wholeheartedly that it’s time to “reach out” to Republicans because we can’t get anything done if we’re not all working together.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, pointing out that Obama pits minority groups within the Democratic Party against one another in order to score votes and donations from the larger and more powerful group is just wrong. And racist.
If you’re an Obama supporter, you insist that Obama has not interjected religion into this campaign.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you want to know how Obama can justify his refusal to support same-sex marriage equality based on his own religious beliefs — as well as the religious beliefs of Dick Cheney, “and over 2,000 religious leaders”.
If you’re an Obama supporter, anyone who won’t sign a loyalty oath to vote for Obama in the general election is a traitor to the Democratic Party.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you’re not allowed to take issue with Michelle Obama’s reluctance to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination.
If you’re a Clinton supporter, you remember how quoting passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock, and “forgetting” to attribute those passages to Kinnock, cost Joe Biden the 1988 Democratic nomination.
If you’re an Obama supporter, plagiarizing a key portion of Deval Patrick’s 2006 campaign speech is a non-issue.
Stay tuned for Part 2. There’s just so much more, presenting it all at once would result in the longest blog entry in the history of the Web.
Copyright (c) 2008 LavenderLiberal.com. Permission is granted to reproduce “If You’re An Obama Supporter… / If You’re A Clinton Supporter…” in part or in full, on the World Wide Web or through email only (i.e., not in any hardcopy or other permanent storage medium), solely on the condition that 1) this copyright notice, 2) proper attribution (”Lavender Newswire”) and 3) a live hyperlink back to this post or to the Lavender Newswire home page ( http://news.lavenderliberal.com ) is included with the reprinted content.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Bill Clinton,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
Hillary Clinton,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Michelle Obama,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality
February 8, 2008
ruggerson gave us his gracious permission to print this here.
I was impressed and intrigued with Barack Obama at first. His speech in 2004 at the convention was a barn raiser, a clarion call to reach past the politics that the Republicans had perfected so well over the last quarter century and find something more substantial and more sustaining in both our political process and in the American spirit.
I eagerly anticipated his announcement speech in Springfield last year and watched him speak on a cold day, announcing his candidacy for President. I was a little surprised that I was not as taken with this speech, as I was looking for something a bit deeper and clarifying, a glimpse into who this man really is and in what he really believes. It was, again, a finely crafted speech full of poetry and inspiration. But it left me somehow unsatisfied and hungry. I knew now that Barack Obama believed in hope, but I didn’t know why or to what end. I didn’t yet know the man beneath the flowery prose.
The first alarm bell for me went off at the Logo debate. Again, nothing specific, but he seemed, somehow, uncomfortable and out of his element discussing issues of importance to gays and lesbians. He went through the motions, as if a student preparing for an exam, and gave many of the right answers. But I saw no there there. I didn’t see a man who deeply felt and understood the struggles that gay people face on a daily basis. John Edwards was trying to get it, it was very easy to see he had agonized and thought deeply about the issues facing gay families. Hillary Clinton gets it on a very deep level, she understands the nuances of our concerns and her respect and commitment shine through. But Senator Obama was off key and removed. I remember registering an almost dissonant moment of disconnection. This man does not understand who we are.
Then came McClurkin. At first I gave him the benefit of the doubt and waited patiently for him to cancel the offensive tour or change the lineup. His campaign, obviously flustered, took a couple of days to come to a decision. Senator Obama decided to keep a man who seriously harms gay youth and who represents a movement that wants to destroy gays and lesbians, as a headliner at his concert. The motive was all too apparent and cynical. He was making a naked appeal to the black evangelical community at the expense of gays and lesbians, black, brown and white, everywhere. It was a breathtaking moment of betrayal, and for many people it brought into sharp focus the value system and priorities of this man who would lead us. This time I did get a glimpse into his soul.
Recently, Willie Brown made it public that he and Gavin Newsom had thrown a fundraiser for Barack Obama during his Illinois senate run in ‘04. This was shortly after Mayor Newsom had shocked the nation with perhaps the most electrifying act of civil disobedience in a generation. He sat through George Bush’s state of the union speech that year, listened to Bush’s call for a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, came home to San Francisco and decided, in a moment of sheer courage, to unilaterally declare same sex marriage legal in his city. His constituents, overjoyed and living as if in a dream, actually started getting married, and it was all carried live on national television. Couples who had been living under Jim Crow heterosexist laws for their entire adult lives together, couples of twenty, thirty, fifty years could actually walk down the marble steps of City Hall, having made their union legally equal to those of their straight friends, neighbors and family.
Senator Obama came to this fundraiser in San Francisco after Gavin Newsom had confronted the nation’s homophobia dead on and what did he do?
He told Willie Brown that he wanted to make sure he did not take a picture with Mayor Newsom. He did not want to be publicly associated with the man who just did for gays and lesbians what Martin Luther King had done for African Americans fifty years ago.
Senator Obama is fond of quoting Dr. King and speaks regularly of the “fierce urgency of now.” Gay people know this concept far too well. We have been told for many, many years that this is not the time, this is not the moment, keep quiet and we will take care of you later, don’t make a ruckus this election cycle and your demands will be addressed next time. We know what the “fierce urgency of now” means, because we have lived through decades of being told it’s not our turn.
If Senator Obama understood what he was uttering, if he really understood what the phrase meant and believed it in his heart and soul, he could never have refused to take a picture with Mayor Newsom. On the contrary, he would have been eager to be identified with a man who not only understood the “fierce urgency of now” but had just put it into practice, jolting an entire nation in the process.
I can’t listen to Barack Obama’s poetry now without wincing. “The fierce urgency of now” rings hollow, as for him it is a selective urgency, apparently excluding an entire population.
When will you address us, Senator? When will we become not only a part of the litany of your ritual poetry, but part of the fabric of your soul?
We’re over here watching you, still hoping that you will lift us up too. Not just in words delivered in a sermon, but in actions and deeds.
We’re your chance to prove that the “fierce urgency of now” is more than a revarnished political slogan, but something you actually feel deep in your heart.
We’re still waiting for you to reach out to us.
We’re still waiting for you to demonstrate that you understand who we are.
Posted by: Buffy
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Democrats,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
Guest Articles,
Homophobia,
LGBT History,
Marriage Equality
February 3, 2008
Gay City News has endorsed Barack Obama. You can read the whole empty justification here; I have no desire to stain the Newswire with such sorry, stale apologetics.
I will, however, repeat for you my reaction to the piece (which, as of this writing, GCN has not yet posted):
“We must yet take it on faith…”
That sums it up right there: Your confidence in Obama is faith-based. Sorry, folks, but I want plans, not platitudes.
It’s especially disheartening to see a gay publication buy into the “building bridges” meme; how can you justify “building bridges” with the very people who marginalize, demonize, and ultimately want to destroy LGBT Americans? Your wunderkind Obama, and by extension you, extend more consideration to the Republicans (and other sworn enemies) than he/you extend to your very own gay and lesbian family.
Put down the Kool-Aid.
I’m not the only one who feels this way. Among other, even more pointed comments (and yes, the NObamas far outnumber the Kool-Aid drinkers):
Audacious, But No Hope for Gays
This is NOT a plug for Hillary Clinton, but a criticism of boarding the electoral train as if it is the way to effect social change. Particularly with a guy like Obama (or Clinton, for that matter). Neither candidate backs our full legal equality. Why do we endorse anyone who doesn’t endorse equal marriage rights for same-sex couples? As Larry Kramer asked, “Where’s the self-respect?”
Obama, a corporate candidate, advocates spending more money on national “defense,” such as enlarging the army. He has recklessly suggested bombing Iran and invading Pakistan. Will there be anything left over for domestic programs, drastically cut in recent years to funds wars for US empire?
Historically, social change has been made in the streets. Movements involving women, African Americans, workers and gays attest to this fact.
Bob Schwartz, Chicago, IL
Obama Does Not Believe In Equal Rights
How can any gay person vote for this man? He does not believe that we should have the same rights as he. He is opposed to gay marriage. [Civil] Unions? Separat but equal does not work, as any student of cilvil rights knows.
Obamas own parents would not have been married when he was born in many states, or they could have been prosecuted. Miscengation was still on teh books in 1967 in 16 states and was not repealed by the Supreme Court until that year.
I refuse to vote for anyone who does not believe I am equal and says so.
You want to vote for him because he is better than any repub? Go ahead. I refuse. Remember how Clinton betrayed the gay community?
How long is the Democratic party gping to take us for granted? Forever until people make a stand and say no, I am equal and deserve equal rights and you better support that.
Stephen Brown, New York, NY
Not a well formulated endorsement
I am no fan of Hilliary Clinton, or Bill for that matter, but your endorsement of Obama has obviously not been thought through clearly enough. It seems based on what would sound better then what is sound. For example, “He will serve the nation well if he can articulate a comprehensive approach..toward the mess in Iraq..of America’s standing in the entire Islamic world.” In order for someone to get my vote they first have to articulate why they should. “In his recent comments about…Ronals Regan…Obama ought to have made more clear his understanding…hope for unity can not substitute for hard choices.” To me he made clear his praise of a mass murderer!!
Then you breeze over what you refer to as, “The McClurkin episode.” Which I would not term as simply misguided, but openly homophobic.
Then you push aside Clinton’s support of Robert Johnson, Charles Rangel, and Maxine Waters, to basicaly accuse her of running a racist campaign.
This inept journalistic viewpoint is one of the main reasons gay journalism is not taken seriously.
Robert Rizzuto, New York, NY
How does this help us at all
Obama is spouting one thing and then in the next he’s embracing, not just mcklurkin but also Bush’s “spiritual advisor” Rev Caldwell.
I can’t endorse that and neither should you be. The fact that Obama is embracing a lot of republican ideas and and is also willing to use obvious anti gay pastors to gain votes within the black community is disturbing. I can tell you now, if Obama wins the Presidency, he will be very right of centre.
You have been warned.
L:aurance Allen
Obama ties to homophobic ministers troubling
Nationally syndicated columnist Rev. Irene Monroe, an African American lesbian, has written often about her opinion that Obama’s campaign is using gays — tossing us crumbs and then backing off to cut slack for anti-gay ministers — not just McLukin. Her views are disturbing and make it hard for me to back Obama any more than Clinton. It’s vote-for-the–lesser-of-two-evils time again. I’d like to trust Obama but I don’t feel I can.Your endorsement seems too idealistic.
Susan Jordan, Rochester NY
Are you NUTS?
Obama’s own parent’s marriage was not recognized in some states yet he can oppose gay marriage?
Is this a gay newspaper or a political journal? Why don’t you defend your readers? Hope and Change and No Queers.
michael, new york
If you truly have the best interest of this country at heart, Hilary Clinton is who you should be endorsing.
As you summed up in your article, both candidates have had similar attitude towards the LGBT community and either will be a step in the right direction. So, let us put this aside as this isn’t the only issue we need to look at for this primary race.
We need to look at experience, leadership, and who can be President. I watched all 2 hours of the democratic debate, where an inexperienced politician fumbled with his words and didn’t answer questions. He gave ideals- instead of real situations and potential solutions- and he stated that “he wants to be right from day one”. We all have started a new job, sometimes with all the qualifications and sometimes with some of the qualifications, and the one thing you can be sure of is that you will not start off “right” from day 1. So, what make him think that he can make those promises?
… From Clinton, we know she has the experience, the ability to jump right in and hit the floor running, and the same amount of passion that interests us from the other candidate. …
Ron Zacchi, Astoria, NY
I consider this a betrayal
Obama cynically exploited homophobia first with the McClurkin incident, then with Kirbyjon “ex-gay minister” Caldwell. Although neither candidate supports marriage equality, Obama consistently states his opposition in the most RW-friendly, religious terms possible (”something sanctified between a man and a women.” I don’t know what you people are thinking, but this gay voter will never support Barack Obama.
DJS, New York, NY
If you want to see the pro-Obama comments, they’re there — and they’re decidedly in the minority.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
Hillary Clinton,
Media
January 31, 2008
Me: “Hello?”
Caller: “May I speak to ___ or ___?”
Me: “This is ___.”
Caller: “Oh, good. ___, this is ___, calling for the Barack Obama campaign—”
Me: “Oh, no way…”
Caller: [laughs nervously]
Me: “Barack lost my vote a long time ago. After the Donnie McClurkin flap, and now Kirbyjon Caldwell… No way. Besides, we already voted.”
Caller: “OK… Uh, may I ask who you voted for?”
Me: “Since Kucinich is out, we voted for Hillary.”
Caller: “OK, well… Have a great day!”
Me: “You too!”
*click*
Buffy, overhearing call: “I’ll bet that felt good!”
Me: “That felt great!“
Us: [laughter]
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
California,
Dennis Kucinich,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
Hillary Clinton,
Radical Religious Right
